IRC log of webont on 2002-10-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

08:52:17 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #webont
08:52:33 [DanC_jam]
I don't think the scribe is using IRC
08:52:53 [DanC_jam]
ftf agenda from Guus 30Sep
08:53:22 [libby]
people could tunnel through me I think....
08:53:35 [jjc]
brill ...
08:53:48 [libby]
slash server
08:53:52 [libby]
I think....
08:55:09 [DaveB]
DaveB has joined #webont
08:57:09 [libby]
sorry, slash server
08:57:24 [DanC_jam]
DanC_jam has changed the topic to: WebOnt Bristol ftf. scribe: ter Horst
08:58:11 [DaveB]
ah you worked out irc forwarding. I was just emailing
08:58:12 [JosD]
JosD has joined #webont
08:58:29 [DanC_jam]
irc forwarding? (I'm getting to IRC via ssh)
08:58:47 [DaveB]
that's what I meant
08:58:55 [libby]
08:59:07 [libby]
you can use a -g flag
08:59:10 [nmg]
nmg has joined #webont
08:59:15 [libby]
so others can join via your tunnel
08:59:16 [logger]
logger has joined #webont
09:00:45 [DanC_jam]
layering document, from the agenda: "Layering RDFS into OWL"
09:01:57 [DaveB]
libby: aha, that's the crucial detail
09:02:16 [libby]
yeah, it's not in the help
09:02:30 [DaveB]
it is in the man page
09:03:45 [libby]
oh, I musta missed it
09:23:15 [jhendler_]
jhendler_ has joined #webont
10:07:05 [libby]
10:07:12 [libby]
- photos from earlier
10:33:02 [hth]
hth has joined #webont
10:33:30 [hth]
hth has joined #webont
10:36:22 [DanC_jam]
DanC_jam has joined #webont
10:44:28 [DanC_jam]
(resume from break)
10:44:32 [DanC_jam]
Mike S. scribing
10:44:42 [DanC_jam]
DanC_jam has changed the topic to: WebOnt Bristol ftf. scribe: Mike S.
10:51:03 [nmg]
nmg has joined #webont
11:09:52 [JosD]
JosD has joined #webont
11:24:19 [DanC]
DanC has joined #webont
11:24:34 [DanC]
RRSAgent, pointer?
11:24:34 [RRSAgent]
11:24:53 [DaveB]
logger's also writing it to the web live (at
11:28:02 [DanC]
logger, pointer?
11:28:04 [logger]
11:45:25 [jjc]
jjc has joined #webont
12:33:40 [heflin]
heflin has joined #webont
12:33:58 [heflin]
Hi everyone, how's the F2F going?
12:54:25 [libby]
12:56:37 [heflin]
12:57:47 [libby]
12:59:13 [heflin]
Are you going to begin the imports discussion in a few minutes?
12:59:46 [libby]
sorry jeff, I'm not sure. we're beinging something shortly yes
12:59:57 [nmg]
not sure - we were on layering for most of this morning, so I'd guess that we're (slightly) behind sched
13:00:39 [heflin]
Layering, huh? Doesn't suprise me that that took a while. Any progress?
13:01:32 [nmg]
break-out group is going to thrash out the options; there wasn't any consensus between the large and fast approaches
13:06:32 [heflin]
Okay. Could somebody let me know when you get to imports?
13:07:02 [heflin]
I'll try to check in here, but e-mail might be best way to contact me (
13:07:26 [libby]
ok, we will
13:09:13 [heflin]
13:13:12 [libby]
no probs
13:19:12 [nmg]
jeff, guide discussion has been moved forward (to now)
13:19:58 [nmg]
imports and versioning will be at about 15.30 or thereabouts (45mins for guide, 15mins for tea break?)
13:20:54 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #webont
13:24:31 [heflin]
Thanks for the info, Nick.
13:26:27 [DanC]
who's scribing now?
13:27:29 [mdean]
Mike Dean now scribing
13:27:35 [DanC]
DanC has changed the topic to: WebOnt Bristol ftf. scribe: Mike Dean
13:27:43 [mdean]
now discussing GUIDE
13:27:58 [mdean]
Mike: some changes based on validation, etc.
13:28:05 [mdean]
Jim: good feedback from students on history
13:28:42 [mdean]
Mike: plan to use bulleted lists for links to previous ontologies and use in previous commercial and major government projects
13:29:34 [mdean]
discussion about relationship between xml:base and default namespace
13:29:49 [mdean]
Namespaces section
13:30:08 [mdean]
refering to Sep 29 version as published
13:30:21 [mdean]
DanC: xmlns="#" should be deprecated
13:32:00 [mdean]
DanC: not many things currently use xml:base
13:34:10 [mdean]
DanC: need to avoid xmlns="#" is due to problems with relative URIrefs and namespaces -- W3C decision not to require this in any of their specs
13:35:16 [mdean]
decision to use explicit, non-default namespace with some text discussing alternatives
13:35:41 [mdean]
DanC: useful to have some simple "hello world" example
13:36:36 [mdean]
Mike wants to modify all examples to fit in wines ontology
13:37:14 [mdean]
Jim: this walkthrough is better than previous because it also discusses alternative representations
13:37:53 [mdean]
Guus: some desire to make examples more realistic
13:38:09 [mdean]
MikeS: make region more accurate geographically
13:38:24 [mdean]
Guus: subClassOf example was very part/whole-like
13:38:41 [mdean]
Guus: should we include a specific part/whole example?
13:39:06 [mdean]
Guus has a part/whole example
13:40:21 [mdean]
Mike will integrate Guus example
13:40:51 [mdean]
Larry Eshelman has how-to example regarding part/whole
13:41:18 [mdean]
Jim: feedback is that GUIDE can be more complex
13:41:45 [mdean]
Chris: things like this should be in GUIDE
13:41:54 [mdean]
Nick: should be in appendix of GUIDE
13:42:42 [mdean]
MikeS: want part/whole to be an example of using properties, not how to do part/whole
13:43:49 [mdean]
Guus: decided last F2F to have HOW-TO/FAQ separate from GUIDE
13:44:04 [DanC]
[I'm getting mixed messages about whether the 'tricks of the trade' is something the WG has decided to do or not]
13:45:05 [mdean]
Nick: need to make clear that these are examples of OWL, not an official OWL representation of part/whole
13:46:19 [mdean]
Jim: making wine more complete isn't so useful -- want real examples of people things want/need to do
13:46:43 [mdean]
Jim: e.g. more examples of complex use of instance data
13:47:33 [mdean]
Deb: need example of every language concept
13:47:40 [mdean]
Jim: also need more examples of instances
13:48:15 [mdean]
Evan: need "HOW-TO" to show how to use OWL for common modelling problems
13:49:19 [mdean]
Jeremy: not hearing showstoppers for publishing GUIDE as is -- these may be suggestions for GUIDE v2
13:49:46 [mdean]
Guus: agree, current version has received lots of positive feedback
13:50:20 [mdean]
Jim: next WD may be last until last call
13:51:51 [mdean]
Chris: far more people will read guide than Model Theory, so we need a very good wine ontology, since people start by cut-and-pasting the examples
13:52:06 [DanC]
quite; they're not even gonna read the guide. They're just gonna cut/paste.
13:52:21 [mdean]
Deb: any particular requests for extensions?
13:52:48 [mdean]
Chris: has some suggestions
13:53:26 [mdean]
MikeS: perfectly happy with good wine ontology, but not with large/expanding set of appendices (textbook)
13:54:13 [mdean]
Jim: maybe we should have examples that go beyond wines ontology
13:54:27 [mdean]
MikeS: pulling meals, etc. into separate ontologies
13:54:44 [mdean]
MikeS: requires resolution on imports, etc.
13:56:25 [mdean]
DanC: good example could change his position to drop imports
13:57:33 [mdean]
~6 people have thoroughly reviewed current draft
13:57:54 [DeborahMc]
DeborahMc has joined #webont
13:58:09 [mdean]
MikeS: most of current changes can be done pretty rapidly
13:59:39 [DanC]
[ooh; I'm interested to know which features he didn't run into/need in this draft.]
13:59:40 [mdean]
MikeS: target 2-3 weeks from next Monday
14:00:44 [mdean]
MikeD: would prefer use of camelCase rather than LISP-STYLE names
14:01:13 [mdean]
Nick: should we commit now to putting the "tricks of the trade" in a separate document?
14:02:15 [mdean]
Enrico: first draft of GUIDE should be correct, need not be complete
14:03:34 [mdean]
Deb: should note that example is just one type of part/whole
14:04:29 [mdean]
DanC: more cost-effective to get community involved
14:05:44 [DanC]
(oh crud; I forgot to ask for pointers-to-issues in the guide, ala in the reference)
14:05:48 [mdean]
Jim: target late October for WD, then incorporate larger changes for last call
14:07:15 [DanC]
PROPOSED: to publishd the guide, as in plus edits at the discretion of the editor.
14:08:30 [mdean]
MikeS: will note holes/placeholders for missing examples of every feature
14:09:43 [bwm]
bwm has joined #webont
14:10:01 [DeborahMc]
is there a url where the whole log for this session can be viewed? (I was in the semantics discussion for the beginning sorry)
14:11:23 [mdean]
DanC: schedule is quite tight
14:11:58 [libby]
14:12:05 [mdean]
Chris: some ontology problems need to be fixed before publication
14:12:30 [mdean]
Jim: let's discuss technical issues here
14:12:50 [mdean]
Stephen: GUIDE may not need to go through formal last call, since it's not normative
14:13:06 [mdean]
Jeremy: XML Schema Primer (?) did go through last call
14:13:26 [mdean]
Jim: would prefer GUIDE to go through formal last call process
14:13:57 [mdean]
John Stanton: what are the real W3C requirements?
14:14:42 [mdean]
DanC: alternatives include WD, web page, Note (terminal state)
14:16:07 [mdean]
Guus: at F2F 3, HOW-TO document was viewed as a web page
14:16:10 [enrico]
enrico has joined #webont
14:17:58 [mdean]
Evan suggests withdrawing motions and deferring vote
14:18:09 [mdean]
Chris specific comments
14:18:28 [mdean]
treatment of regions (part/whole vs. subClassOf)
14:18:40 [mdean]
Deb: known problem
14:18:52 [mdean]
DanC: transitive, but unrelated to subclass
14:19:09 [mdean]
arbitrary point at which classes become instances
14:19:18 [mdean]
MikeS: GUIDE notes that this is arbitrary
14:19:32 [mdean]
Deb: What is "right" boundary?
14:21:25 [mdean]
MikeS: this model is accurate for the domain
14:21:43 [mdean]
Guus: perhaps renaming Grape to GrapeType might help
14:21:57 [mdean]
MikeS: this is exactly the classes as instances problem
14:22:38 [mdean]
MikeS: tried to do some normalization of names
14:23:17 [mdean]
Chris: some remaining concerns about relationships between GrapeType and WineGrapeType -- need to think about this more
14:26:05 [mdean]
need to note opportunities for subclassing as well
14:26:18 [mdean]
Guus: perhaps breakout session on wine ontology
14:28:25 [DanC]
ACTION Guus: arrange a break-out session on the Wine ontology and the Guide
14:28:35 [mdean]
Jeremy as non-wine expert had trouble following some of this discussion
14:28:57 [mdean]
Jim: we aren't content ontology group
14:30:04 [mdean]
Guus: time for break
14:30:23 [mdean]
breakout group still needs to be scheduled
14:30:58 [mdean]
breakout members: Enrico, Chris, Deb, Mike, Evan
14:37:05 [mdean]
next session in other room
14:37:53 [Snakker]
Snakker has joined #webont
14:41:19 [heflin]
When the break is over, please call me at 610-758-xxxx or let me know a number to dial in to (assuming imports is next).
14:41:50 [heflin]
That's International U.S. by the way...
14:41:54 [mdean_]
mdean_ has joined #webont
14:42:23 [libby]
whoo-hoo - we got irc port forwarding working
14:50:47 [jjc]
jjc has joined #webont
14:53:09 [jjc]
jjc has joined #webont
15:02:00 [libby]
jeff, we're going to call you shoirtly
15:02:21 [heflin]
Great! Thanks, Libby.
15:03:10 [libby]
no prob
15:04:07 [libby]
jeff's number is 610-758-xxxx
15:04:25 [DanC]
15:05:15 [mdean]
discussing imports and versioning
15:07:49 [lib-scrib]
guus: could jeff recap status of imports document?
15:07:57 [lib-scrib]
jeff: 3 proposals, 2 similar
15:08:22 [lib-scrib]
number 1: outside rdf syntax, inline with rdf spec, concur decision in f2f2
15:08:49 [lib-scrib]
advantages: nice suntactic properties (missed somethign)
15:09:02 [jhendler_]
jhendler_ has joined #webont
15:09:10 [lib-scrib]
proposal 2: RDF triples. some technical issues in discussion
15:09:31 [DanC]
15:09:39 [lib-scrib]
...'undefined' = lack of intereoperability. another document imports something
15:09:59 [lib-scrib]
also benfit - existing rdf data can be used as is; this is not tru of 1 - need a translation
15:10:43 [lib-scrib]
propsal 3: ? and borden - processing model proposal - syntax like 2, but instead of semantic meaning a processing model
15:10:52 [lib-scrib]
?= massimo?
15:11:27 [lib-scrib]
potential problems: leaves things unclear e.g. whether processing occurs before inference...
15:11:41 [lib-scrib]
- end of jeff's overview
15:12:29 [lib-scrib]
jjc: asks if any of options provide abiltyy to infer triples
15:13:12 [lib-scrib]
jeff: inferring triples can lead to complexities, multiple imports. Problem with the thrird option is that doesn;t tell you how to handle inferencing issues
15:13:37 [lib-scrib]
guus: comments?
15:13:51 [lib-scrib]
danc: getting rid ofg imports is the best option
15:13:59 [lib-scrib]
...having built things
15:14:34 [lib-scrib]
jeff; dissagrees - ontology extensions important part of requirements doc
15:14:49 [lib-scrib]
danc: to extend them doesnt require imports
15:15:20 [lib-scrib]
...each doc has its own meaning; 2 docs meaning is those together...outside the language entirely
15:15:38 [lib-scrib]
...nothing in the language tells you what to import
15:15:47 [lib-scrib]
[several people agree w danc]
15:16:38 [lib-scrib]
jim: diagrees strongly: users shoudl be able to link to others' onotlogies, change classes etc - orgignal motivation for daml+oil - can't agree but can extend it locally - link back and add their own tersm
15:17:15 [lib-scrib]
...we dont need to be consistent with each other, just with the orginal ontology
15:17:42 [lib-scrib]
??you just tell it where to look for things like you would tell a web browser - the url of teh documnt
15:18:08 [lib-scrib]
patH: imports has more meabning than linking baCK
15:18:28 [lib-scrib]
jim: use case:
15:18:44 [lib-scrib]
class agenda with various properties: chair, issues etc
15:18:58 [DanC]
RRSAgent, pointer?
15:18:58 [RRSAgent]
15:19:16 [lib-scrib]
...I read it into my tool, producing a form I can fill out, and it goes and get classes for me and does type checking
15:19:57 [JosD]
JosD has joined #webont
15:20:03 [lib-scrib]
...I often read in DanC's onoltogy, which has one bit missing - priority. I don;t want to import DanC's document and copy it: it might change - instead I want a live link to DanC's document
15:21:05 [lib-scrib]
MikeS: this is good software engineering 0- how else do you remmeber this stuff?
15:22:02 [lib-scrib]
jim: doesn't cxare about imports as long as can refer to DanC's live document
15:22:16 [lib-scrib]
PatH: believe DanC's doc or extend it - different
15:22:43 [lib-scrib]
DanC: read Jim's doc most opf teh time - if I need it I get the urls recursively
15:23:20 [heflin]
Can I have the floor?
15:23:30 [lib-scrib]
e.g. validator - does RDFs closure on a document wrt a vocabulary
15:23:57 [lib-scrib]
- implementation experienc that don't need this stuff
15:24:07 [lib-scrib]
MikeD: us too: we don;t need imports
15:24:21 [lib-scrib]
Jeff would like the floor
15:24:43 [lib-scrib]
[crud missed something by jjc]
15:25:59 [lib-scrib]
danC: if I use someone elses' property (rather than mention it) (using it rather than annotating it) then I look up the property
15:26:34 [pfps]
pfps has joined #webont
15:26:56 [lib-scrib]
...'endorsing' the schema is use it x talliban:y z or fred rdf:typ[e talliban:goodguy
15:27:16 [lib-scrib]
jim: we had a conversation that there shoudl notbe an implicit imports
15:27:28 [lib-scrib]
...if we can hacve that, then that's fine
15:27:51 [lib-scrib]
patH: jjc said - any use of a voicabulary consitutes can imports?
15:28:49 [lib-scrib]
enrico: shows a graph of an application ontology - the arrows mean import, include.
15:29:18 [lib-scrib]
...would like this to be part of the expression of teh languiage. stronger than using the namespace - I substribe to the theory described in the docuennt
15:30:09 [lib-scrib]
patH: prob is he doesnt know what it means to not subscribe to an ontology - how can it refuse to import it. you can draw conclusions for it. you cant not assent to rdf
15:31:29 [DanC]
they can tell which documents I "import" by looking at what terms I use as properties.
15:31:51 [lib-scrib]
jeff: problem with DanC's approach is that un;less there's some list of urls there other people can't work out what documents you need. imports is committing to an ontology - I sort of sanction the infrences made with _these_ documents
15:32:35 [lib-scrib]
- important to have 2 kinds of inference - the doc and those that go with iot, to which I agree to - responsibility for what you agree to, versus combining it with anything, to which I haven;t agreed to
15:33:22 [lib-scrib]
patH: with no imports mechanism, anyone can combine your doc with otthers and infre things from it - you seem to think a bad thing
15:33:34 [lib-scrib]
jeff: no - but require both types, e.g. terms of a contract
15:33:54 [DDeR]
DDeR has joined #webont
15:33:58 [lib-scrib]
patH: thinks that buys into a more elaborate theory of teh Seb than we have at the moment
15:34:05 [lib-scrib]
15:34:56 [nmg]
nmg has joined #webont
15:35:04 [lib-scrib]
MikeS: geog example: import geog vocab; taking only about texas and oklahoma - don;t want to buy into all the recursive onoltogies - jusrt this part of the oklahoma ontology
15:35:26 [lib-scrib]
danC: remember only in use though, using the property
15:35:42 [lib-scrib]
mikeS getting less nervous, pps more so
15:36:14 [lib-scrib]
danc: rdfs:seealso - look at this other document; somethign similar for this? (missed detail, sorry)
15:36:28 [lib-scrib]
guus: consensus point - no semantic meaning?
15:36:50 [lib-scrib]
patH: from email seealso - often doesn;t point to rdf, often a webpage
15:37:00 [lib-scrib]
danc: that's ok - we subproperty it
15:37:42 [lib-scrib]
guus: consensus point - subproperty of seealso as a way of docuemnting this imports thing without it having any formal meanning
15:37:48 [nmg]
nmg has joined #webont
15:38:03 [lib-scrib]
jeff: unacceptable: broken language, because of the usecases - how do you know what you agree to?
15:38:30 [lib-scrib]
...otherwise bascially a centralized knowledge base
15:38:50 [lib-scrib]
...has responded to danC on email -
15:38:53 [lib-scrib]
15:39:39 [lib-scrib]
jim: you have a difference bwteen imports= pull that document in there vs imports as stronger committment, stronger than DAML
15:40:36 [lib-scrib]
...what about just adding a propoerty to someone's onoltgy? just can;t do it?
15:40:57 [lib-scrib]
jeff: maybe by referencing the namespace without importaing it...maybe..?
15:40:58 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #webont
15:41:11 [lib-scrib]
jjc: that seems unlear - danC's position is clear
15:41:15 [lib-scrib]
jeeff: not to me
15:41:38 [lib-scrib]
mikeS: an operational way of descrbing using tokens from another ontology...
15:41:47 [lib-scrib]
danc: no.
15:41:49 [lib-scrib]
[scribe lost]
15:42:07 [lib-scrib]
danc: if they load the same onologies, they come to same conclusions
15:42:22 [lib-scrib]
jim: what if we load diff documents? then diff conclusions
15:42:27 [lib-scrib]
danc: not a problem
15:42:45 [lib-scrib]
mikeS: but I don;lt know what my assumptions are - I can;t write them down
15:43:22 [lib-scrib]
jim: same toolls, same url, same conformance - diff conclusions - problem
15:44:01 [lib-scrib]
[big shouty argunment]
15:44:20 [ChrisW]
we're shouting so you can hear better, Jeff
15:44:34 [heflin]
That's what I thought ;-)
15:44:35 [lib-scrib]
danc: need to reference the documents that used to get conclusions
15:44:49 [lib-scrib]
patH - these tools are in the wide world, they will pick up things
15:45:07 [lib-scrib]
jim at whiteboard
15:45:42 [lib-scrib]
pps: disagrees totally with Pat. if yuou import another ontologies, you are require to draw the conclusions
15:45:54 [lib-scrib]
patH: no, can;'t require that all conclusions are drawn
15:46:10 [lib-scrib]
pps: can;t complain if draw all cnoncclusions
15:46:33 [lib-scrib]
pps: doc1 imports doc2. any kb derrived from doc1 entails the stuff in doc2 - is what pps wants
15:46:54 [lib-scrib]
patH: must not translate in an operational sense about requiring -
15:47:31 [lib-scrib]
enrico: ridiculous to have the semantics depend on the tool - same levle of importance as say subclass
15:47:58 [lib-scrib] are going to subscribe to specofoc onolotgies - a finite number (not like statments)
15:48:23 [lib-scrib]
jim: %owl1 -f http://ont1
15:48:29 [lib-scrib]
jim: %owl2 -f http://ont1
15:48:36 [lib-scrib]
owl1 100% owl compliant
15:48:39 [lib-scrib]
owl2 100% owl compliant
15:48:51 [lib-scrib]
[ therefore p(x) is undefined]
15:49:03 [lib-scrib]
...that's fine - don;t need to bother with all these semantics!
15:49:29 [lib-scrib]
jim v happy with DanC's operational semnatics; need something though, otherwise a crapshoot
15:49:50 [lib-scrib]
patH: why would the docs come out sensibly
15:50:04 [lib-scrib]
? thfirst tool has different import idea than second
15:50:17 [lib-scrib]
patH: 'importing' is the issue
15:51:00 [lib-scrib]
jim: we need a good clean operational semantics
15:52:06 [lib-scrib]
danC: this group does not say what every owl implementtaion doesin all languages; the implementation will need to justify its conclusiosn accorting to our spec - it will have certain premises - diffee nt conclusiosn will ahve differenbt set of preferences
15:52:47 [lib-scrib]
guus: why are you aginst it?
15:52:59 [lib-scrib]
danc: doesnt think will get consensus
15:53:24 [lib-scrib]
guus: both agree that have operational semnatics for import and have to say this in the language
15:53:35 [lib-scrib]
danc: doesnt always do imports - required it would be a bummer
15:54:00 [lib-scrib]
danc: several policies to loda into machine - e.g. uses policy
15:54:30 [lib-scrib]
jim: how to we characterise these diferences in policy?
15:55:10 [lib-scrib]
danc: we can't use this in general because wants single documents to be well defined.
15:55:28 [lib-scrib]
jjc has an example
15:55:30 [DanC]
this="implementation defined"
15:55:36 [lib-scrib]
jjc: in one file we have
15:55:43 [lib-scrib]
<a> z:foo <b>
15:55:46 [lib-scrib]
in another file:
15:56:01 [lib-scrib]
z:foo domain c
15:56:27 [lib-scrib]
c subclassof <<restriction hasvalue v onprooperty w>>
15:56:37 [lib-scrib]
does this entail <a> z:w v?
15:56:51 [lib-scrib]
jjc thinks jim said that the entailment follws
15:57:02 [lib-scrib]
- and agrees
15:57:21 [lib-scrib]
... change of example:
15:57:33 [lib-scrib]
<a> z:foo <b> in one doc
15:57:40 [lib-scrib]
implicitly importy doc 2:
15:57:55 [lib-scrib]
z:foo domain c
15:58:17 [lib-scrib]
do these two entail <a> type <c>?
15:58:45 [lib-scrib]
danC: not with tools currently,. thopugh you can have a policy which can go and get all the documents andthen entail that.
15:59:01 [lib-scrib]
danc: from our spec, the first two triples will entail the other.
15:59:26 [lib-scrib]
? is it allowable for the tool to draw that conclusion form the first tripple?
15:59:45 [lib-scrib]
- not within teh spec, although it coudl [...?]
16:01:13 [lib-scrib]
? abase ontolgy, 2 ontologies that extend it incompatibly and monotonically with weach other but not from the original: some tools will find the contradiction, some not
16:01:21 [lib-scrib]
DanC: yes - state of the art is this
16:01:46 [lib-scrib]
enrico: bizzare to have different conclusions depending on what files it finds
16:01:59 [lib-scrib]
patH: not only not bizzare, but the way things are on the web
16:02:14 [lib-scrib]
enrico: not what I said [goes to what board]
16:02:23 [lib-scrib]
[many converations going on...]
16:03:00 [lib-scrib]
onrico: one ontology with 2 stataemnets:
16:03:06 [lib-scrib]
man is a subclass of mortal
16:03:10 [lib-scrib]
16:03:20 [lib-scrib]
so, mortal(socrates)
16:03:44 [lib-scrib]
if the first 2 statements are in two files, I can;t guarantee that I will be able to derrive that socrates is mortal
16:04:11 [lib-scrib]
patH: I cant insist that you draw those conclusions, or any onclusionbs at all
16:04:46 [lib-scrib]
jjc: in tersm of the spec, we specify the semnatic sfor a complete reasoner, even if none exists.
16:04:56 [lib-scrib]
pps: strongly agrees with that
16:05:13 [lib-scrib]
jjc: one source of incompleeness will be not importing things
16:05:33 [lib-scrib]
danc: cxan we justify the conclusion according to our spec, and we can
16:05:47 [DanC]
s/and we can//
16:06:02 [lib-scrib]
ok, someone said that
16:06:23 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #webont
16:06:55 [lib-scrib]
jim: what if A:mortal rather than mortal
16:07:03 [lib-scrib]
sorry ChrisW
16:07:47 [lib-scrib]
jim: if mortal is from a different document, that shoudl not change the conclusion.
16:08:20 [lib-scrib]
...if the other document also said mortal(x) :- foo(x)
16:08:37 [lib-scrib]
do I aslo legitimize A:foo?
16:09:01 [lib-scrib]
...mortal subclass transientbeing (from document A)
16:09:38 [lib-scrib]
I believe A:mortal socrates; so do I believe socrates is also a A:transientbeing?
16:09:47 [lib-scrib]
patH: yes if you got the document back
16:10:36 [lib-scrib]
danc: from spec, certain entailmenets follw given certain documents; tool decides the policy
16:10:49 [lib-scrib]
chrisW? can you just load onbe property?
16:11:05 [lib-scrib]
jim: putting this on our testset
16:11:27 [lib-scrib]
patH: entailments are clear - what's the point of the example
16:11:37 [lib-scrib]
jim: then you believe that you always importa everything
16:11:58 [lib-scrib]
patH: no! you import what you come accross
16:12:06 [lib-scrib]
[more shouting]
16:12:54 [lib-scrib]
jim: does the premises entail conclusion (from 2 docs)?
16:13:08 [lib-scrib]
danc: depends on the premises
16:14:04 [lib-scrib]
guus: 5-10 more minutes.
16:14:10 [lib-scrib]
..on this topic
16:14:41 [lib-scrib]
sb: entailments are definted in term sof trilpes, not documents - if you have the triples then you ahve the entailments [missed a bit]
16:14:53 [lib-scrib]
sb: supports danc, probably
16:15:40 [lib-scrib]
chrisW: is theeraany way to include in teh spec some way to tell people when they are required to load a ertain set of triples
16:15:52 [lib-scrib]
patH: we can;t require them to in terms of entailments
16:16:11 [lib-scrib]
chrisW: youn must load these triples, nothignto do with entailment
16:16:31 [lib-scrib]
- i.e. can we say this
16:17:02 [danbri]
danbri has joined #webont
16:17:13 [lib-scrib]
jjc: manifest file in testcases, pointing to files to include and entailments - get valid entailments _if_ you import the files
16:17:50 [lib-scrib]
...danc saying that can;t use implecit mechanism, but that we can't have imports - we need explcit operational semantics in this language
16:18:57 [lib-scrib]
[sorry, scribe can;t keep iup]
16:19:19 [lib-scrib]
jim: premise ns:A=http://bla/A
16:19:28 [lib-scrib]
man owl:subclass A:mortal
16:19:33 [lib-scrib]
socrates a man
16:19:44 [lib-scrib]
exists a document http://bla/A
16:20:02 [lib-scrib]
which says - mortal owl:subclass :transientbeing
16:20:19 [lib-scrib]
conclusioon socrates:a http;//bla/A transientbeing
16:20:42 [lib-scrib]
mikeS: software engineering, not entailment test
16:21:10 [lib-scrib]
? this is the kind of thing we should be standardizing
16:21:15 [lib-scrib]
patH: yes!
16:21:40 [lib-scrib]
chrisW: semantics doesnt tell you what triples to load, just what you get if you do load them
16:22:16 [lib-scrib]
...could do this with every other ttriple
16:22:29 [lib-scrib]
patH: you'd have to control what pieces of information people read
16:22:49 [lib-scrib]
chrisW: if I pout text on a webpage thenm a nrowser will load it
16:23:05 [lib-scrib]
danc: images? - commonality of implementation, not a standard
16:23:13 [lib-scrib]
...ok with me as long as I don;t have to use it
16:24:10 [lib-scrib]
16:24:53 [lib-scrib]
danC; has lots of ontloghies that has made on a daily basis, with coauthors, also mikeD, jos. we could like with no particular policy
16:25:43 [lib-scrib]
ian: if my reasoner can load anythign at all from the web, all we need for a fillly comlpiant ontology is somethign that says yes to every entailment and something...sorry?
16:25:56 [lib-scrib]
patH: we can;'t pass laws against stupidity
16:26:07 [lib-scrib]
mikeS": we can try to help them
16:26:26 [lib-scrib]
patH: we can;t heplp them because we don;t know what they will do with it
16:27:22 [lib-scrib]
jim: we will come up with agrpah that only contains certain facts, that's consistent. we dont feel comfortable coming up wityh a solution wrt imports - we think the following policy looks good but we dont wantto endorse it as a standard
16:27:31 [lib-scrib]
several peopel can live with it, ? can;t
16:27:58 [lib-scrib]
? wants to state a policy - pick a policy
16:28:21 [lib-scrib]
? picking one is a standardization issue
16:28:34 [lib-scrib]
danc: we dont have enough informationt opick tyjhe right one
16:28:45 [lib-scrib]
guus: should we pick one even if it's the wrong one?
16:28:56 [lib-scrib]
?what does it mean to be riht? we can add a policy later
16:28:58 [nmg]
16:29:05 [nmg]
sorry, caps lock
16:29:07 [lib-scrib]
(thanks, sorry)
16:29:45 [lib-scrib]
chrisW: a proposal: if I write an ontology, want some assurance that it will be used consistently. some peopel say can;t do this on the web, don;t want this etc...
16:30:16 [lib-scrib]
....but if you could have an optional tag to say - loda all these triples between the tags - for owl complience. don;t have to use it
16:30:46 [lib-scrib]
...a packaging mechanism
16:32:08 [lib-scrib]
patH: doesnt think that chris's proposal meams anything. whta can they do or can;t do if someone else reads this packaging
16:33:10 [lib-scrib]
chrisW: sees a need to package together owl assertions - a compliant tool cannot pick and chosse form the triples
16:33:30 [lib-scrib]
patH; so a tool can't use a part of teh ontology?
16:33:42 [lib-scrib]
chris: just loading it
16:33:58 [lib-scrib]
patH: so all it does is say that I have to juse up more of my memory!
16:34:40 [lib-scrib]
danC: maybe we shoudl ahve an issue about tool conformance - we dont yet
16:35:31 [lib-scrib]
ian: our spec tells you whether this wentailments follws form these triples; if you get more info from the web, then it might entail when it shoudl not
16:35:44 [lib-scrib]
danC: different premises!
16:36:01 [lib-scrib]
ian: more premises, more conclusions - and he's entitled to do this
16:36:13 [lib-scrib]
danC: not more conclusions, different premises
16:36:24 [lib-scrib]
ian: no way of specifying the premises!
16:36:50 [lib-scrib]
jim: rss - like ontology 'channel' proposal
16:37:48 [lib-scrib]
jim: <owl:onoltogy rdf:id>
16:38:01 [lib-scrib]
<owl:includes rdf:collection..?
16:38:09 [lib-scrib]
16:38:11 [lib-scrib]
16:38:14 [lib-scrib]
16:38:27 [lib-scrib]
...if you point at me I will expect you to read in all these uris
16:39:05 [lib-scrib]
...could be just a policy; could be a requiremenet [scribe - what's the difefrence?]
16:39:51 [lib-scrib]
patH: clarification q: suppose in order to conform I import the whole thing. suppose I then use a tiny bit I draw a conclusion and then throw it - why did I need to ijport it all?
16:40:29 [lib-scrib]
jim: chris can be assured that if you change something from within the imports.....[missed stuff]
16:40:38 [lib-scrib] explicit way to grow the graph
16:40:59 [lib-scrib]
jjc: this example looks like the begiining of something - needs to be worked out
16:41:33 [lib-scrib] incomplete reasoner can just look at some part sof some documents - no problem
16:41:58 [lib-scrib]
...nonl;y prob is when you say tghat scrates is not a transient being
16:42:14 [lib-scrib]
ian: you are entitleed to use up to the fuull set of docs that are specified
16:42:44 [lib-scrib]
patH: you are alsways compplete with repect to a particular knowledge base
16:43:37 [lib-scrib]
ian: tehre shoufdl be a list to show the list of triple you are intended to conclude
16:44:21 [lib-scrib]
patH: we will get a supergoogle
16:44:22 [lib-scrib]
16:44:30 [lib-scrib]
[jeff, guus says sorry]
16:44:35 [lib-scrib]
[scribe loses track
16:44:36 [lib-scrib]
16:44:41 [heflin]
Sorry for what?
16:45:03 [lib-scrib]
[for the lack of clearness maybe?]
16:45:59 [lib-scrib]
guus: we're going in circles; 3 positions
16:46:05 [lib-scrib]
[scribe didnt catch them!]
16:46:33 [lib-scrib]
[did anyone catch them?]
16:47:10 [lib-scrib]
chrisW: a way to convey the intention of the author of the ontology is maybe what trying to get at
16:47:38 [lib-scrib]
guus: shoudl these principles be pragmatic, formal or not bother
16:47:56 [lib-scrib]
danC; 2 diff types of testcases, one that follow links, one that doesn't
16:48:17 [lib-scrib] it a 'slurp it up and look for entailments tests' or something
16:48:37 [lib-scrib]
...give it the same status as the rest of our tests
16:49:29 [lib-scrib]
jim has a strong problem with that one. import doesnt tell you what to import except the entire document, prob with metdata, versioning
16:49:45 [lib-scrib] it a graph ort an xml document that inetrested in?
16:49:54 [lib-scrib]
...get a small group to do a compromise position
16:50:14 [lib-scrib]
...being ab;le to name a set of statemenets together, then you culd name an ontology; rather than a docuemnt
16:50:37 [lib-scrib]
mikeD: confused - sound like imports ok with danC now
16:50:51 [lib-scrib]
danc: ok with it as long as specified separately from entailments
16:51:22 [lib-scrib]
jjc: if difefent sorts of entailment tests, it shoudl be interms of the way that they are incomplete
16:52:00 [lib-scrib] extra layer of metadata over teh tests to specify the soret of reasoning you need for them. one of lots of ways of being incomplete - not a special one
16:52:19 [lib-scrib]
danc: not incompleetness, extra-logical but maybe we can agree using testcasees
16:52:35 [lib-scrib]
....importing less than a whole doc - any impleemntations?
16:52:48 [lib-scrib]
jim: yes - get it all, but just get a few uris
16:53:43 [lib-scrib]
jos: would be good if we could come up with a proof of the conclusion - explain why, a justification, evidence
16:54:25 [lib-scrib]
action connolly to raise and postpone a justification mechanism
16:54:45 [lib-scrib]
jim: - on an issues list for teh future
16:54:55 [lib-scrib]
- useful - a non-trivial issue
16:55:25 [lib-scrib]
guus: proposals...?
16:55:49 [lib-scrib]
danc: informally, anc's proposal is consistent with charter and jeff's first proposal
16:55:53 [lib-scrib]
[missed what was]
16:56:19 [lib-scrib]
danc thinks jjc has a few propsed tests coudl discuss at a later telecon
16:56:47 [lib-scrib]
patH - we could say that that's part of the definition of entailment
16:57:12 [lib-scrib]
danC; want a separate definition of a triple taht doesn;t depend on the sdtate of the world [..?]
16:57:48 [lib-scrib]
jim: the real issue is how are we going to write imports down, if imports has a daml like meaning (does imports go in teh graph?)
16:58:19 [lib-scrib]
guus: at amsterdam f2f, exchange syntax is rdf/xml, and so only proposal 2 is acceptable
16:58:28 [lib-scrib]
? proposal 3?
16:58:46 [lib-scrib]
danc: from syntax 2 and 3 are not distinguishable
16:59:04 [lib-scrib]
jim: use syntax of 2 and the implication mechanism of 3 - assume a strong imports
16:59:08 [lib-scrib]
guus: and have test suites
16:59:53 [lib-scrib]
action Danc - make sure the test cases from today are written down
17:01:23 [lib-scrib]
proposed resolution - `we will usew the syntax of `jeff's `proposal 2
17:01:38 [DanC]
PROPOSED: to include daml:imports syntax as in the reference WD, to include an operational specification of how to find the triples before testing semantic entailment. To have a separate class of tests for this operation.
17:03:02 [DanC]
jeff, you ok with that?
17:03:22 [lib-scrib]
scribe has to go....
17:04:07 [lib-scrib]
thanks danc
17:05:53 [DanC]
PROPOSED: to include daml:imports syntax as in the reference WD, to provide a specification of the set of triples to be included in the test of semantic entailment. To have a separate class of tests for this operation.
17:06:19 [DanC]
straw poll...
17:06:24 [DanC]
MikeD doesn't like it
17:07:16 [DanC]
MikeD: daml:imports adds a lot of hair... I don't think we've clarified why it's better than the mechanism Dan talked about [i.e. if you use a property, ...]
17:08:41 [DanC]
[... question of whether daml:imports is sufficiently valualbe, the cost of implentation, the obligation or lack thereof of implementing it]
17:09:18 [DanC]
Volz: I don't like this because if we have imports, we need a "if that fails..." mechanism.
17:10:23 [DanC]
Guus: perhaps we can postpone the decision until our 'recap' session tomorrow.
17:10:50 [DanC]
[Guus notes nobody joined 'the telcon']
17:10:56 [DanC]
thanks for joining, jeff.
17:11:02 [DanC]
18:31:35 [heflin]
18:31:43 [heflin]
heflin has left #webont