PI Meeting Breakout Outbriefs
This page contains DAML summaries of the results of
breakout discussion sessions at DAML PI meetings.
The ontology is available in
Session scribes are asked to
- download example.n3
- add the results from their session
- send the updated file to
This document is available at
It was generated directly from the N3 inputs
and a version of DAML XSLT.
- How can we promote interchange?
- What ought to be the relationship of the
Process Model to Daml+OIL? To DAML+Rules?
- Where do we fit in Web architecture?
-> Declarative vs. procedural
-> How will process model be used?
-> Mimimal requirements for process model
- Can we afford to wait for rules?
- Core language does it need work?
-> Need decidable fragment (we have a proposal)
- Relationship between profile and process
- What are our goals with respect to
-> Create a viable standard?
-> Influence commercial standards efforts?
-> Don't care; just do state-of-the-art research?
- Tradeoffs involving expressiveness,
Plan of Action
- Connect more with industry - Ralph Swick can
- Start publishing marked-up services
- Create a web page for user info,
- Make discussions public
- 'Tie off' version 0.5, Finalize and document
(provisional) solutions to expressiveness problems; Grounding; Identify and
publish info rdf:about tractable subsets.
- Make some tools available, hosted at
daml.org, when ready; Profile Crawler & Registry; Matchmaker; Services
- Evaluate alternative language bases for
- Move forward on identified sub-problems
(based on some assumptions rdf:about Daml-Rules); Ontology of rdf:resources, Time,
execution model; Multi-party communications specification, exceptions,
- Continue to provide input to language/rules
developers, and push for sanctioned solutions
- Have to show why DAML provides unique value added
- Killer app is NOT killer demo
-> But, can use domain specific information to illustrate utility
- Use combinations of current DAML tools to provide need functionality
- App needs to satisfy needs of many different users in different roles
- Must provide end-to-end life cycle capability
- Producer ontologies different from user ontologies, need to match information across both
Plan of Action
- Establish daml-app mailing list and bulletin board
- Continue dialog on application and domain for illustration
- Goal for identifying specific killer apps is mid-September
Reasoning and Rules
- need for some sort of closed world negation?
- need agenda/timeline for DAML-Rules language
- DAML+OIL type languages and rules are both reasonably well understood (theory, algorithms implementations), but the union is not
- how much must be captured in a proof/justification language? Just enough to validate? Chains of rules used?
- clarifying relatioship of rules to some logical semantics.
- rules need builtins for arithmetic, conversions, etc. Shouldn't assume any specific implementation language. Might distinguish light and heavy builtins.
- relationship between query languages and rule antecedents.
Plan of Action
- W3C to create a public firstname.lastname@example.org email list. Use www-rdf-logic in the mean time.
- create a DAML Reasoning web page on www.daml.org analogous to http://www.semanticweb.org/XSB/, to include pointers to implementations, etc.
- create a DAML Reasoning Working Group to include reasoning and query languages. Results could include DAML+OIL (upper level) ontologies (analogous to DAML-S) for queries and justifications.
- BBN to create a email@example.com email list
- Pat Hayes, Ben Grosof, and Ian Horrocks to address how to combine DAML+OIL with logic programming more powerful than Horn: efficient subsets, etc. This may evolve into a rules proposal.
- DAML Reasoning Working Group to propose 'official' DAML+OIL Query Language.