15:55:43 <Yogesh> Satya: there are two ontology doc. not sure how to merge. Description of ontology and actual owl file.

15:55:55 <Paolo> q+

15:56:21 <Yogesh> Luc: it can just be owl file in repos and check it out thru web/mercurial

15:56:42 <Yogesh> ...do we have an estimate on when we it will be ready?

15:56:44 <Paolo> @Satya: why did you do a branch rather than a module? if that makes sense

15:56:50 <GK> q+

15:56:51 <Yogesh> Satya: by next Thu

15:57:04 <Luc> q?

15:57:09 <tlebo> is the owl file on http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov ?

15:57:10 <Luc> ack paolo

15:57:12 <GK> q+ to ask about use of branch in repo for ontol

15:57:16 <GK> q-

15:57:27 <tlebo> +1 paolo's no branch request

15:57:28 <Yogesh> Paolo: why do a repos branch than a module under model?

15:57:58 <Yogesh> satya: interpreted Luc's email as need to create branch.

15:58:08 <tlebo> +1 having a module for ontology without a new branch.

15:58:16 <Yogesh> paolo: branch is hard to merge.

15:58:25 <Luc> q?

15:58:26 <Yogesh> satya: will craete module instead of new branch

15:58:40 <Yogesh> s/craete/create/

15:58:42 <Luc> q?

15:58:48 <Paolo> @Yogesh:  paOOOOOOOOlo :-)

15:58:50 <khalidbelhajjame> +q

15:58:54 <Luc> q?

15:58:57 <Luc> ack kha

15:59:16 <Yogesh> @Paolo sorry :)

15:59:29 <pgroth> there could be

15:59:45 <Luc> q?

15:59:51 <stain> I guess there could be syntactic arguments :)

16:00:06 <Luc> subtopic: Formal Semantics

<luc>Summary: JamesC explained why formal semantics could be appropriate and he illustrated several ways to go about it. This was followed by a discussion on the purpose of the semantics and what it brings over the OWL formalization. It was agreed this topic will be revisited once a first draft of the OWL ontology is available, trying to identify issues that would deserve a mathematical formalization and that are not covered by the OWL ontology.

16:00:25 <jcheney> http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/jcheney/pilformalsemantics.pdf

James Cheney: http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/jcheney/pilformalsemantics.pdf ←

16:01:07 <MacTed> Zakim, who's noisy?

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, who's noisy? ←

16:01:08 <Yogesh> jcheney: slide 2: wy formal semantics is important

James Cheney: slide 2: wy formal semantics is important ←

16:01:08 <stain> I love the romantic music

Stian Soiland-Reyes: I love the romantic music ←

16:01:17 <Zakim> MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 27 (61%), +1.518.276.aahh (40%), MacTed (65%), jcheney (96%)

Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 27 (61%), +1.518.276.aahh (40%), MacTed (65%), jcheney (96%) ←

16:01:31 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, mute me ←

16:01:31 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: MacTed should now be muted ←

16:01:41 <Yogesh> jcheney: smaller core languages for java

James Cheney: smaller core languages for java ←

16:02:01 <pgroth> Zakim, mute 27

Paul Groth: Zakim, mute 27 ←

16:02:02 <Zakim> sorry, pgroth, I do not know which phone connection belongs to 27

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, pgroth, I do not know which phone connection belongs to 27 ←

16:02:06 <Yogesh> ...description logic semantics, 1st order logic

...description logic semantics, 1st order logic ←

16:02:08 <GK> DL, OWL, FoL, RDF all underpinned by model theory

Graham Klyne: DL, OWL, FoL, RDF all underpinned by model theory ←

16:02:19 <pgroth> Zakim, mute +1.518.276.aahh

Paul Groth: Zakim, mute +1.518.276.aahh ←

16:02:19 <Zakim> +1.518.276.aahh should now be muted

Zakim IRC Bot: +1.518.276.aahh should now be muted ←

16:02:23 <Paolo> Zakim, mute ??27

Paolo Missier: Zakim, mute ??27 ←

16:02:24 <Zakim> sorry, Paolo, I do not know which phone connection belongs to ??27

Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, Paolo, I do not know which phone connection belongs to ??27 ←

16:02:25 <satya> @GK: agree

Satya Sahoo: @GK: agree ←

16:02:31 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?

Ted Thibodeau: Zakim, who's here? ←

16:02:31 <Zakim> On the phone I see pgroth, Luc, ??P8, Paolo, Curt, stain, tlebo, Yogesh, MacTed (muted), jcheney, Helena, +1.512.524.aaee, khalidbelhajjame,  +1.518.633.aaff,

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see pgroth, Luc, ??P8, Paolo, Curt, stain, tlebo, Yogesh, MacTed (muted), jcheney, Helena, +1.512.524.aaee, khalidbelhajjame, +1.518.633.aaff, ←

16:02:34 <Zakim> ... +49.302.093.aagg, ??P6, GK, +1.518.276.aahh (muted), dgarijo, ??P9, Sandro, +1.714.454.aaii, +1.860.673.aajj, stain.a, ??P48, ??P35

Zakim IRC Bot: ... +49.302.093.aagg, ??P6, GK, +1.518.276.aahh (muted), dgarijo, ??P9, Sandro, +1.714.454.aaii, +1.860.673.aajj, stain.a, ??P48, ??P35 ←

16:02:40 <Yogesh> ...Not same sematics as "semantic web" but in representing human knowledge

...Not same sematics as "semantic web" but in representing human knowledge ←

16:02:41 <Zakim> On IRC I see Reza, JimMcCusker, StephenCresswell, Christine, jorn, JimM, dgarijo, olaf, zednik, Edoardo, dcorsar, GK, rgolden, GK1, khalidbelhajjame, jcheney, tlebo, satya,

Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see Reza, JimMcCusker, StephenCresswell, Christine, jorn, JimM, dgarijo, olaf, zednik, Edoardo, dcorsar, GK, rgolden, GK1, khalidbelhajjame, jcheney, tlebo, satya, ←

16:02:47 <Zakim> ... Helena, Curt, Yogesh, Paolo, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, stain, edsu, sandro, trackbot

Zakim IRC Bot: ... Helena, Curt, Yogesh, Paolo, pgroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, Luc, MacTed, stain, edsu, sandro, trackbot ←

16:03:10 <Yogesh> ...Slide 3; not like a prog language. So why bother?

...Slide 3; not like a prog language. So why bother? ←

16:03:38 <Yogesh> ...identify which are individual entities

...identify which are individual entities ←

16:03:42 <GK> To some extent, if we have OWL definition we have some formal semantics automatically.  Certainly, use of model MUST NOT conflict with OWL or RDF formal semantics.

Graham Klyne: To some extent, if we have OWL definition we have some formal semantics automatically. Certainly, use of model MUST NOT conflict with OWL or RDF formal semantics. ←

16:03:49 <Yogesh> ...formal basis for design decisions

...formal basis for design decisions ←

16:03:57 <Yogesh> ...common starting point for users.

...common starting point for users. ←

16:04:11 <Yogesh> ...not confusing like english language

...not confusing like english language ←

16:04:33 <stain> @GK, but a formal model can better deal with use/generation time, IVPs etc

Stian Soiland-Reyes: @GK, but a formal model can better deal with use/generation time, IVPs etc ←

16:04:46 <Yogesh> ...people can make use of provenance without knowing how your system works

...people can make use of provenance without knowing how your system works ←

16:04:53 <GK> +1 start with _lightweight_ formal semantics (slide 7)

Graham Klyne: +1 start with _lightweight_ formal semantics (slide 7) ←

16:05:17 <Yogesh> ...avoid heavyweight

...avoid heavyweight ←

16:05:42 <Yogesh> ...inspiration from math model for data preservation

...inspiration from math model for data preservation ←

16:05:47 <Zakim> - +1.518.276.aahh

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.518.276.aahh ←

16:06:12 <Yogesh> ...Slide 4;

...Slide 4; ←

16:06:37 <GK> q+ to ask if this is introducing a new formal model framework, or is si=omething that can be described in terms existiong web formalists (e.g. OWL)?

Graham Klyne: q+ to ask if this is introducing a new formal model framework, or is si=omething that can be described in terms existiong web formalists (e.g. OWL)? ←

16:06:53 <Yogesh> ...two MS documents in different formats represent same information

...two MS documents in different formats represent same information ←

16:06:56 <satya> @james: I agree with your points on formal semantics, but I am confused how does what you have in proposal 1, 2, 3 relate to OWL/RDFS semantics

Satya Sahoo: @james: I agree with your points on formal semantics, but I am confused how does what you have in proposal 1, 2, 3 relate to OWL/RDFS semantics ←

16:06:57 <Reza> IMO, this is excellent.  This type of formalism will probably answer some of the concerns I have regarding the model.

Reza B'Far: IMO, this is excellent. This type of formalism will probably answer some of the concerns I have regarding the model. ←

16:07:05 <Yogesh> ...Slide 5;

...Slide 5; ←

16:07:11 <Reza> The formalism will at least drive at exact definitions.

Reza B'Far: The formalism will at least drive at exact definitions. ←

16:07:28 <Yogesh> ...information content has not changed even if preservation method has changed

...information content has not changed even if preservation method has changed ←

16:07:40 <Reza> How do we tie this type of formalism to the Model?

Reza B'Far: How do we tie this type of formalism to the Model? ←

16:07:56 <Yogesh> ...Slide 6; asking informally for agree, disagree, nont want to answer

...Slide 6; asking informally for agree, disagree, nont want to answer ←

16:08:24 <Yogesh> ...its in the charter but we need not *have* to do it

...its in the charter but we need not *have* to do it ←

16:09:17 <Yogesh> ...Slide 7; develop formalism along with model/schema

...Slide 7; develop formalism along with model/schema ←

16:09:54 <Yogesh> ...Slide 8; proposal 3 is for lightweight first version

...Slide 8; proposal 3 is for lightweight first version ←

16:10:09 <Zakim> -??P35

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P35 ←

16:10:21 <Yogesh> ...can end up putting lot of effort that may not eventually make it

...can end up putting lot of effort that may not eventually make it ←

16:10:35 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:10:38 <Yogesh> ...Happy to talk about it with others

...Happy to talk about it with others ←

16:10:49 <khalidbelhajjame> +q

Khalid Belhajjame: +q ←

16:10:55 <Luc> ack gk

Luc Moreau: ack gk ←

16:10:55 <Zakim> GK, you wanted to ask if this is introducing a new formal model framework, or is si=omething that can be described in terms existiong web formalists (e.g. OWL)?

Zakim IRC Bot: GK, you wanted to ask if this is introducing a new formal model framework, or is si=omething that can be described in terms existiong web formalists (e.g. OWL)? ←

16:11:05 <Yogesh> GK: fan of formal semantics, but not too much. do not want to exclude

Graham Klyne: fan of formal semantics, but not too much. do not want to exclude ←

16:11:15 <Yogesh> ...as a result of formalism

...as a result of formalism ←

16:11:39 <Yogesh> ...Is it a new framework? May cause problems for adoption.

...Is it a new framework? May cause problems for adoption. ←

16:11:58 <pgroth> q+ to respond to GK

Paul Groth: q+ to respond to GK ←

16:12:00 <Yogesh> ...Cant we just use owl ontology that is in framework of web semantics?

...Cant we just use owl ontology that is in framework of web semantics? ←

16:12:18 <Yogesh> jcheney: not owl expert

James Cheney: not owl expert ←

16:12:44 <pgroth> q-

Paul Groth: q- ←

16:12:47 <satya> @james: capability of OWL (tractable fragment) is "sameAs" description logic

Satya Sahoo: @james: capability of OWL (tractable fragment) is "sameAs" description logic ←

16:12:48 <Yogesh> ...Did not want to take things too far to make them redundant with existing schemas

...Did not want to take things too far to make them redundant with existing schemas ←

16:13:37 <Yogesh> ...describe properties and relationships between artifacts. help with model interpretation.

...describe properties and relationships between artifacts. help with model interpretation. ←

16:14:05 <GK> I think that sounds like something that OWL described very naturally

Graham Klyne: I think that sounds like something that OWL described very naturally ←

16:14:18 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:14:26 <Yogesh> Luc: charter has something that said that formalism should capture math properties that cannot be captured in owl

Luc Moreau: charter has something that said that formalism should capture math properties that cannot be captured in owl ←

16:14:29 <satya> @Luc: Would those properties be expressed in RIF?

Satya Sahoo: @Luc: Would those properties be expressed in RIF? ←

16:14:47 <Luc> ack khal

Luc Moreau: ack khal ←

16:14:51 <Yogesh> GK: we can see if owl can do job or not if we start simple

Graham Klyne: we can see if owl can do job or not if we start simple ←

16:14:53 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:15:33 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:15:43 <Paolo> q+

Paolo Missier: q+ ←

16:15:54 <Yogesh> khalidbelhajjame: why do we need formal model? will be helpful for public, but will also be helpful for model TF members to gain understanding and precise definition

Khalid Belhajjame: why do we need formal model? will be helpful for public, but will also be helpful for model TF members to gain understanding and precise definition ←

16:16:16 <GK> Khalid: +1 attempting a formal model helps to clarify ideas

Khalid Belhajjame: +1 attempting a formal model helps to clarify ideas [ Scribe Assist by Graham Klyne ] ←

16:16:17 <Yogesh> ...dont have lot of time. so light weight formal definition.

...dont have lot of time. so light weight formal definition. ←

16:16:42 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:16:47 <Yogesh> ...e.g. IVP Of, Bob, that are still being discussed

...e.g. IVP Of, Bob, that are still being discussed ←

16:17:13 <pgroth> q+

Paul Groth: q+ ←

16:17:19 <pgroth> to respond

Paul Groth: to respond ←

16:17:21 <Luc> ack paolo

Luc Moreau: ack paolo ←

16:17:22 <Yogesh> Paolo: if we choose owl for semantics for data model, what is difference between formalism and @satya's owl efforts?

Paolo Missier: if we choose owl for semantics for data model, what is difference between formalism and @satya's owl efforts? ←

16:17:33 <Luc> ack pg

Luc Moreau: ack pg ←

16:17:49 <Yogesh> Pgroth: owl ontology trying to represent conceptual model in sematic web language

Paul Groth: owl ontology trying to represent conceptual model in sematic web language ←

16:17:58 <Yogesh> ...formalism is math description

...formalism is math description ←

16:18:04 <Reza> As an implementer, specially given the approach of the majority of folks is to err on the generic direction, I think the formalism will be very helpful.  The formalism will be much more clear than OWL in form of things like boundary conditions for the implementers.

Reza B'Far: As an implementer, specially given the approach of the majority of folks is to err on the generic direction, I think the formalism will be very helpful. The formalism will be much more clear than OWL in form of things like boundary conditions for the implementers. ←

16:18:08 <GK> @Paolo:  if OWL can capture the semantics, then there is no (necessary) difference, IMO,

Graham Klyne: @Paolo: if OWL can capture the semantics, then there is no (necessary) difference, IMO, ←

16:18:14 <Yogesh> ...If we choose description logic for math, it will map to owl easily

...If we choose description logic for math, it will map to owl easily ←

16:18:15 <satya> q+

Satya Sahoo: q+ ←

16:18:38 <pgroth> q-

Paul Groth: q- ←

16:18:42 <Yogesh> ...Math gives different way for representing formal model constraints

...Math gives different way for representing formal model constraints ←

16:18:52 <Yogesh> Paolo: not fully convinced

Paolo Missier: not fully convinced ←

16:19:10 <Yogesh> ...owl DL was not for designed for semantics of programming language

...owl DL was not for designed for semantics of programming language ←

16:19:13 <GK> OWL *is* a DL language; mapping DL to OWL is misleading, IMO

Graham Klyne: OWL *is* a DL language; mapping DL to OWL is misleading, IMO ←

16:19:24 <Reza> Please remember that implementers will need to tie Query and Model together with some implementation (implement search algorithms, etc.) and having a formal Model provides boundary conditions (for example, what search algorithms may not be admissible, etc. based on the mathematical formalism)

Reza B'Far: Please remember that implementers will need to tie Query and Model together with some implementation (implement search algorithms, etc.) and having a formal Model provides boundary conditions (for example, what search algorithms may not be admissible, etc. based on the mathematical formalism) ←

16:19:41 <Paolo> @GK I know, thanks

Paolo Missier: @GK I know, thanks ←

16:19:48 <Yogesh> Pgroth: difference between formulas and owl

Paul Groth: difference between formulas and owl ←

16:20:15 <Yogesh> satya: @GK is echoing similar concerns

Satya Sahoo: @GK is echoing similar concerns ←

16:20:45 <Yogesh> ...if there are things we cannot model in owl, we can go to owl full and RIF

...if there are things we cannot model in owl, we can go to owl full and RIF ←

16:20:56 <satya> @Reza: That is exactly what encoding in OWL will do

Satya Sahoo: @Reza: That is exactly what encoding in OWL will do ←

16:21:14 <Yogesh> Luc: cannot resolve today. @jcheney, howshould we proceed?

Luc Moreau: cannot resolve today. @jcheney, howshould we proceed? ←

16:21:25 <Yogesh> jcheney: wanted to start discussion.

James Cheney: wanted to start discussion. ←

16:21:42 <Yogesh> ...Know about DL and first order logic, not owl

...Know about DL and first order logic, not owl ←

16:21:44 <khalidbelhajjame> I like prolog  :-)

Khalid Belhajjame: I like prolog :-) ←

16:21:49 <Paolo> +1 for the P-word (= Prolog)

Paolo Missier: +1 for the P-word (= Prolog) ←

16:21:50 <satya> @james: yes about RIF

Satya Sahoo: @james: yes about RIF ←

16:22:01 <Yogesh> ...Several views on what formal semantics is.

...Several views on what formal semantics is. ←

16:22:17 <Yogesh> ...Need not do things two ways if owl is sufficient

...Need not do things two ways if owl is sufficient ←

16:22:27 <dgarijo> RIF is compatible with Owl, right?

Daniel Garijo: RIF is compatible with Owl, right? ←

16:22:37 <Yogesh> ...Can come back to topics in 1-2 weeks when I come back with writeup

...Can come back to topics in 1-2 weeks when I come back with writeup ←

16:22:51 <Reza> I guess I'm just unsure that OWL can capture exact boundary conditions, etc.  Perhaps we can use the formalism that James wants as a test case to see if the ideas can or cannot be expressed in OWL.

Reza B'Far: I guess I'm just unsure that OWL can capture exact boundary conditions, etc. Perhaps we can use the formalism that James wants as a test case to see if the ideas can or cannot be expressed in OWL. ←

16:22:55 <GK> @jcheyney: if you write something down, there are ppl here who can help with expressing in OWL, if possible

Graham Klyne: @jcheyney: if you write something down, there are ppl here who can help with expressing in OWL, if possible ←

16:23:06 <Luc> q?

Luc Moreau: q? ←

16:23:09 <Yogesh> Luc: satya will release first version of owl ontology in 1 week. we can schedule formalism discussion after that is done.

Luc Moreau: satya will release first version of owl ontology in 1 week. we can schedule formalism discussion after that is done. ←

16:23:15 <Luc> ack satya

Luc Moreau: ack satya ←

16:23:17 <pgroth> exactly, that's the point

Paul Groth: exactly, that's the point ←

16:23:31 <Yogesh> Satya: is scheduling telecon with Deborah. @jcheney is welcome to join

Satya Sahoo: is scheduling telecon with Deborah. @jcheney is welcome to join ←

16:23:35 <pgroth> we shouldn't be artifically constrainted by owl

Paul Groth: we shouldn't be artifically constrainted by owl ←

16:23:51 <pgroth> agree wiht Reza

Paul Groth: agree wiht Reza ←

16:23:54 <Yogesh> Luc: will work with jcheney to schedule call later

Luc Moreau: will work with jcheney to schedule call later ←

16:23:58 <Zakim> - +1.518.633.aaff

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.518.633.aaff ←

16:23:59 <Zakim> -tlebo

Zakim IRC Bot: -tlebo ←

16:23:59 <Zakim> -Paolo

Zakim IRC Bot: -Paolo ←

16:24:00 <Zakim> -dgarijo

Zakim IRC Bot: -dgarijo ←

16:24:00 <Zakim> - +1.860.673.aajj

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.860.673.aajj ←

16:24:01 <Zakim> - +1.512.524.aaee

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.512.524.aaee ←

16:24:01 <Zakim> -??P9

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P9 ←

16:24:02 <Yogesh> meeting concluded

meeting concluded ←

16:24:03 <Zakim> -Luc

Zakim IRC Bot: -Luc ←

16:24:04 <Zakim> -jcheney

Zakim IRC Bot: -jcheney ←

16:24:06 <Zakim> -khalidbelhajjame

Zakim IRC Bot: -khalidbelhajjame ←

16:24:11 <Zakim> -pgroth

Zakim IRC Bot: -pgroth ←

16:24:12 <Zakim> -Curt

Zakim IRC Bot: -Curt ←

16:24:12 <Zakim> - +1.714.454.aaii

Zakim IRC Bot: - +1.714.454.aaii ←

16:24:19 <Zakim> - +49.302.093.aagg

Zakim IRC Bot: - +49.302.093.aagg ←

16:24:21 <Zakim> -??P6

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P6 ←

16:24:23 <Zakim> -MacTed

Zakim IRC Bot: -MacTed ←

16:24:26 <Zakim> -??P8

Zakim IRC Bot: -??P8 ←

16:24:32 <Zakim> -stain

Zakim IRC Bot: -stain ←

16:24:35 <Zakim> -Yogesh

Zakim IRC Bot: -Yogesh ←

16:24:56 <Zakim> -Sandro

Zakim IRC Bot: -Sandro ←

Formatted by CommonScribe Show Interleaved IRC Text

---

This revision (#2) generated 2011-07-25 07:00:52 UTC by 'unknown', comments: 'removed ronald'