- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 13:39:06 -0500
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Scribe Log for WebOnt 13 December 2001
CHAIR: Dan Connolly
SCRIBE: Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> 1) Administrivia (10 min, includes telecon greets and attendance)
Roll call (by DanC)
New Agenda Item: Peter and Frank - subgroup
> ACTION (Decker, Schreiber, Obrst, Heflin, McGuinness): Within the
> next week, produce outline of area of use cases.>
> status: to be discussed, agenda item 3
See below
> ACTION (JimH): solicit/appoint editors/process for producing
> completed document from these pieces
> status: area leads identified, process emerging - continue action
Continued - need to find out what Jim actually means by this
> 2) DAML+OIL Q&A (Ian Horrocks, Frank van Harmelen) 20 min
> Chance for WG members to ask questions about DAML+OIL - walkthru or beyond.
Frank van Harmelen is available for questions
Dan Connolly asks for questions
Leo Obrst: What is the status of rules?
Frank: Useful, necessary, but explicitly out of scope
??: What about quantification?
Frank: Limited because of computational issues.
??: What about equality?
Frank: Included, no unique name assumption.
??: What about things like uncle?
Frank: Can't be done.
DanC: Comments on role rdf-logic, rdf-rules, ... mailing lists
Role of rules.
Leo Obrst: What about metalevel facilities?
Frank: Status is unclear. How would it work?
Jeremy Caroll: Can you use subProperty/subClass to get some of this?
Frank: Sort of.
Jeremy Caroll: What about annotation. E.g., can you require annotations on
ontologies?
Frank: Yes, but you don't get any semantic extensions.
Peter: No change to behaviour will arise.
Leo: What about reification?
DanC cuts this off
Harold?: Can you chain properties?
Frank: Not in DAML+OIL.
Peter: Decidability issues arise here.
4) New Business
- Cleaning up DAML+OIL - Peter
- Revising DAML+OIL - Frank - actually feedback on problems
Peter has volunteers - six other people
- goal is to get documents ready for the f2f
Dieter +1 : all to group
Lynn : wants to have pointers to all relevant messages
? : categorize mail messages on webont
Peter will pick a mode for email message for his effort
Proposal: let groups determine their email mode
ACTION: Peter will produce document on cleanup by 7 January
(non-negotiable)
DanC: what about Frank's task?
Frank doesn't have enough time to do it
Mike Dean volunteers to collect and gather experience reports
ACTION: Mike Dean will produce document on experience with DAML+OIL (and
suggestions for revisions?) by 7 January (non-negotiable)
> 3) Use case document[s] - 45 min
> Discussion led by chairs of the area - each will discuss status and
> outline, open discussion thereafter.
** Stefan Decker: Web Services -
- email sent 13 December - use-case area summary: Web Services
- interesting portions - combining web services
- searching for web services
- use case - device interconnection and interoperation
DanC - chair message - use cases should not be ``exhaustive'' as then we
will end up with an undoable task
- instead try for a typical, important use case
- group will then determine which use cases must be supported
- need to have consensus to focus the work
??? - also need to be accessible to and compelling for outsiders
DanC - also need to be concrete
DanC - Q: status of Stefan's portion?
Stefan Decker - status - less than 1/3 done
- no specific examples
Jeremy Caroll - sample implementation(?) for device interconnection
- will send in if possible
??: use cases should be important
Deb: agree - use cases should not be picked just to show off DAML+OIL
** Guus Schreiber: Collection management
- email sent 13 December - use-case area summary: collection management
- small number of use cases
- Arkive use case - endangered species descriptions
- important ideas - default inheritance
Stephen Buswell - engineering data modelling is typical use case
- can this be done in DAML+OIL
??? - want concrete examples for use case
Guus - status of portion - need concrete example, e.g., from Arkive
Guus - what format to use?
Frank - think of implications for language design from use cases
Guus - there are some in there
Frank - actually a call for (all) other groups to do the same
** Leo Obrst
- email sent 13 December - Use Case: Content Interoperability
- what does content interoperability cover - device example above??
DanC - don't need to define content interoperability exactly, just get use
cases that *are* in it
- basic goals - ..., mappings of ontologies (e.g., catalogues)
- features needed - ....
- travel scenario use case (from Mike Dean)
DanC - a use case is a specific scenario
[pfps] i.e., something that could be directly implemented
- status - 1/3 done
- contact with upper ontology group
** Jeff Heflin - General Requirements
- email sent 13 December - General Requirements Subgroup - Progress Report
- email discussion resulted in 16 general requirements
- six have broad support - shared ontologies
- ontology extension
- scalability
- ease of use
- XML syntax
- expressiveness
- others are under question - unclear, out of scope, too hard
- next steps - finalize status
- detailed requirements for chosen few
Mike Dean - provenance of facts
Jeff - general idea of tagging has come up
- status - 1/3 + ``a little'' done - less than 1/2
DanC - internationalization?
Jeff - character part from XML
- different terms from interoperability
DanC - political considerations make internationalization important
Lynn - use better terms instead of ``internationalization''
various - multlingual support is non-optional
DanC - next meeting?
- next week - 20th
Scribe for next week not yet determine
Agenda - cleanup committee status
- ...
Meeting closed
Post-closing notes (from pfps)
On reading the above it appears that ACTION (JimH) was to get someone to
pull together the four use-case documents into one. Something probably
needs to be done on this very soon.
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2001 13:41:09 UTC