Minutes for 19
September 2007 URW3
Meeting (corrected)
Attendees:
- Anne Cregan
- Kathryn Laskey
- Ken Laskey
- Mike Pool
- Pavel Smrtz
- Peter Vojtas
Agenda:
- Approve minutes from previous three meetings. Note, the
minutes are linked from http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/urw3/#Minutes.
- Review status of action items from previous meeting.
- Review report on RIF Giorgos sent to group via email. (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-urw3/2007Sep/0006.html)
- Report on Kathy and Ken's meeting with Semantic Web Coordination Group (see Ivan Herman minutes)
- Status of uncertainty
ontology (http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/urw3/wiki/UncertaintyOntology)
- Discuss methodologies and information
needs.
- URSW in Busan
- Other business
Scribe: Kathryn Laskey
Discussion summary:
- Approve minutes from previous three meetings. Note, the
minutes are linked from http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/urw3/#Minutes
- Minutes were *not* approved (again) due to lack of quorum.
Light attendance was expected in August, but now we need to take some
action.
- Peter suggested people who do not attend meetings should not count in quorum.
- ACTION 1: Ken to check attendance and send email.
- Review status of action items from previous meeting.
- Action 1: Editing team to go over IRC log and capture essential topics to include in our report.
- Status: No one from editing team present. Carry forward to next meeting.
- ACTION 2 [prev. meeting Action 1]: Editing team to go over IRC log and capture essential topics to include in our report.
- Kathy and Ken to discuss with editing team when they meet next week.
- Action 2, 4, 5: Vipul to relate health care use cases to
HCLSIG activities. Vipul to relate HCLSIG use cases to uncertainty
ontology. Vipul will give us a report at a future telecon.
- Status: Vipul not on line. Carry forward to next meeting.
- ACTION 3 [prev. meeting Action 2, 4
& 5]: Vipul to relate HCLSIG use cases to HCLSIG activities
and uncertainty ontology and give report at a future telecon.
- Action 3: Ken and Kathy to join SW Coordination Group call on
14 September and will check on relevance of POWDER, SML, possibly
others to URW3 work.
- Status: done.
- Kathy and Ken to report later in meeting (Agendum 4).
- Review report on RIF Giorgos sent to group via email. (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-urw3/2007Sep/0006.html)
- RIF has 2 phases: defining core language and then defining dialects
- The core phase focuses on finding an *interesting* fragment common to most logic programming languages and systems
- RIF is not trying to build a new standard rule language. The focus is on interchange.
- Peter thought maybe this could be a model for us.
- Anne suggested that within a given formalism (e.g.,
probability, fuzzy), there might be a core fragment of information you
would need to exchange. These might be incommensurate, but maybe there
would be a standard of what to exchange within each kind of formalism.
Identifying this might itself be a valuable contribution.
- Anne said the key is to identify the semantics of what is to be exchanged, and then define a syntax for the semantics.
- Kathy thought this was a useful discussion, and should be captured for our report. (Editing team, take note!)
- Peter asked whether new dialects need RIF XG blessing. Ken said that is a question for Giorgos.
- Kathy said if there is a mechanism to define dialects
we can allow dialects to evolve de facto without declaring them
official prematurely.
- Peter said RIF has to extend rules defined by
SPARQL. Our systems are a little bit more than rules e.g. BN =
BLP? Peter suggested that it would be a good idea to exchange
benchmarks and tools to become more mature
- Report on Kathy and Ken's meeting with Semantic Web Coordination Group (see Ivan Herman minutes)
- (This was taken up out of order, but minutes reflect order of agenda.)
- Ken said what we are doing is still very abstract wrt what other groups are doing
- Ian Horrocks said that OWL group is working on adding very specific things that aren't in OWL 1.0
- RIF group knows uncertainty is important but it is somewhere
down on their queue.
They are interested in linking between schema documents -- this is
missing from XML Schema.
- Coordination Group didn't know about Service Modeling Language. SML people are farthest away.
- Ken thinks the one that is most related is POWDER (Protocol for Web Description Resources) http://www.w3.org/2007/02/powder_charter. Ken thinks Phil Archer is POWDER chair
- But we ran out of time and did not discuss POWDER. Kathy
mentioned POWDER at the beginning of the meeting, before Ken was able
to log on, but we never made it to discuss POWDER
- ACTION 4: Anne will look into POWDER and report back to us.
- Peter thinks last week we clarified something important -- that
we are not developing new uncertainty methods. But we are looking at
what needs to be exchanged in order to make use of the methods people
are already using successfully. Ken said one of our later agenda items
is to start looking at the different methods and what are their
information needs. Peter talked about annotation. There are many
problems with third party annotations. Kathy said we have to make this
focus clear. There were questions on this at the SWCG meeting too about
our focus -- people did not know whether we were looking to standardize
a new uncertainty language or stressing information exchange needs.
- Ken reminded us that we are an XG and not a working group
- Status of uncertainty
ontology (http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/urw3/wiki/UncertaintyOntology)
- Ken asked about the most active people. Mitch initiated the effort. Vipul, Peter, Mike Pool, Kathy all made some comments.
- Ken wanted to get back to the uncertainty ontology as the
editing team writes up the use cases. We want to organize the use cases
around the ontology.
- Questions:
- What is the status of the ontology?
- What is the level of agreement?
- How much work still needs to be done?
- Peter says he thinks that by annotating use cases with the
ontology, we will discover where there are holes in the uncertainty
ontology.
- There is a place on the uncertainty ontology that says
"Potential disagreements". Someone wrote this section saying "I
think..." but did not annotate with his or her name.
- ACTION 5: Peter to send request to group asking person who entered disagreements section to annotate with his or her name
- ACTION 6: Kathy to send email to group
asking what open issues remain in uncertainty ontology (in preparation
to annotating use cases)
- Discuss methodologies and information
needs.
- Our work plan says that in the sixth month (September) we will:
- Identify a set of methodologies appropriate for each use case
- Identify information needs for each.
- The purpose is not to endorse particular methodologies or to
develop applications, but to identify information needs that web
services and web-based applications will need to support.
- We need a plan for accomplishing this
- We talked about annotating use cases with uncertainty ontology. Peter thinks this will identify holes in the ontology.
- Ken said the first segment of work was to come up with use
cases. Now we need to identify methodologies that would be appropriate
and information needs. This is the first step to the final part of the
work preparatory to writing down what we think ought to be conveyed in
a standard.
- Anne said we ought to take the Use Cases one at a time and
discuss what applies for each. Anne thought we should discuss use cases
online after doing some prep work offline. Several people
agreed.
- Ken said once we have come up with a template in conjunction
with editing team we should go back to the use case authors and ask
them to annotate the use cases according to the template. Maybe
we won't need to go through all the use cases individually but come up
with things that apply to all the use cases.
- Anne agreed with this. There was lots of overlap among the use
cases. She suggested we might take 2 or 3 key use cases and pick them
apart. Kathy suggested one from HCLS.
- Ken and Kathy said they and the editing team would go over Discovery and will report at next telecon
- ACTION 7: ken and kathy to meet with
editing team, discuss Discovery, report back to group [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2007/09/19-urw3-minutes.html#action08]
- URSW in Busan
- Other business
Action items
- ACTION 1: Ken to check attendance and send out email.
- ACTION 2: [previous mtg action 1] Editing team to go over IRC log and capture essential topics to include in our report.
- ACTION 3: [previous mtg actions 2,4,5] Coordination with HCLSIG (1) Vipul to
coordinate with Eric Neumann who has SWCG action, (2) Mike Pool to
assist.
- ACTION 4: Anne will look into POWDER and report back to us.
- ACTION 5: Peter to send email to
group for author to annotate potential disagreements in
uncertainty ontology with who entered them.
- ACTION 6: Kathy to send email to group
asking what open issues remain in uncertainty ontology (in preparation
to annotating use cases)
- ACTION 7: Ken and Kathy to meet with editing team, discuss Discovery, report back to group