April 17, 2001 Attendees: Pat Mike Ian Frank Ora Peter Deb Dan C (joined late) Stefan (joined late) Announcements: Last week minutes approved Agenda: Stephan: Lite version -- not here as of yet Pat comments on tagging: Comments from IEEE people? 1. separating namespaces 2. importing chunks of one ontology into another (via uri?) Will pass on the emails that are relevant ... Issues with lite version: What makes it easier? What characteristics should the end version have? Talk about RDF Schema and wether it is hard or easy ... What characteristics do we want for DAML+OIL Lite? Cannonical model? There is always a learning curve, so why not make it easier by providing a halfway (lite version). Response: Why not spend the time on polishing the language we have instead of creating something half the size ... Possible niches for daml lite Easier to implement a reasoner Wether its complexity is high or low Conceptual complexity (how hard to use it) Stefan's comments: Easy to implement Easy to build software for ... What features do they want? Direct subClass relationship Restrictions (type restrictions on slots?) Data types Mike: Easier to build up from RDFSchema rather than building down from DAML+OIL? Give me interesting characteristics of sub languages: Mike: Perhaps we should have our standard DAML+OIL be the "lite" version and have a super language for the people who want more. This keeps people from having to say I only support the "lite" version. Have we been telling people that to be "daml+oil" you have to use ALL of DAML+OIL. Or that they have to make Reasoners? These are not true and perhaps we need to change our marketing :) Deb will send referrences to some papers we might be interested. http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/publications.html --does have a postscript version of the usability paper. http://www.research.att.com/~dlm/papers/usability-final.ps --direct url For next week: What imports mean. Peter will be gone from meeting next week.