May 22, 2001

Attendees:
Jeff
Ian
Frank
Dan C.
Peter
Lynn
Stefan
Mike
Jim


Announcements:
Minutes from 15 Apr


Agenda:
Dan C.'s email about the recipe.  Unique names 

Jim: local unique names are necessary and for now sufficient ... likes
Dan's solution.


Jim: perhaps an idiom would be valuable.  Dan -- Yes.

Dan's proposal still requires a little work ... to get what you really
want, unique names.  We could provide a higher level idiom that says
"I belive these are unique names"

IsDefinedBy seems to satisfy Stefan's needs. 

Perhaps we should compile a wishlist and then decide what we want to
add rather than just adding things one at a time as people say they
want them.

Is there something between adding it and not adding it (or adding it
later).  Perhaps a list of future additions?

Perhaps a candidates under consideration (?) list of things we aren't
endorsing but that we think are important enough to mention.  Perhaps
this should be on the web site .... who will do it? ... Mike Dean
volunteer.  Who will solicit feedback from the community?  Note on the
page for feedback / comments to be sent.  What about typical tricks?
Let's not merge them, perhaps we should have a DAML tricks page.
(perhaps a subcomponent of the faq's).  Idioms rather than tricks.

Agenda item for next week ... have people go through the faq and get
it public.  https://www.daml.org/faq.html


Mike: always seen the loose classes / properties to be a bonus.  

Dan C. To have it recognized by the rdf community they have to be
linked (?)  The value of this is -- see Stefan

If it gets put in the document, its there.  If not, then its not.  It
is voluntary.  Only if the developer puts them there do they solve
Stefan's problem.

The idea of annotating stuff is good (and doing it automatically could
be nice) but it is extralogical.

Jim: This sounds like an rdf issue, rather than a daml issue.

Dan C: make it a daml subclass of rdf:label called isDefinedBy that
does this automatically?

Mike: recommend to the rdf core group to make it automated?

Dan C: no, recommend this to our user group!

Put this in the faq.  

Mike: this makes it much harder by adding a lot to all property
definitions

Dan: no, you would give them all names anyways ... 

....

Dan: it is not the general case that every property has a home in the
world.

Stefan: Proposal: I now introduce Dan's definedBy and the recipe into
the two corrections that I have formulated in the layer document.

Consensus:  OK

What we want: Stefan: a language that an average programmer can
support.  No major reasoning necessary (?)

Jim: suggestion, we could argue this for a long time.  We have in the
past focused on the language, now the questions are about the back
end.  Is this a good way to go?  Dan?

Where do we go next?

Mike: RDFcore group wants our list of issues.  Perhaps an agenda item
for next week ...

Mike: how much do we need for Stefan's proposal and did we finish with Pat's non-proposal. 

Stefan:  action item to work on this ... with asDefinedBy

Jim: Things you think are important, documents, etc that you think
should be highlighted on the site -- let us know what you want.

Jim:  hoping in two weeks to know more about WebOntology