June 12, 2001 Attendees: Jeff Dan C Pat Ian Steffan (Dieter, Frank) Mike Peter Jim Tim Announcements: Last week's minutes (June 5) will be reviewed next week (June 19) Agenda: RE: Jim's message about Collections as Properties Consensus: we think we already do this. RE: DAML-S has problems. Someone should tell them that they are using it the wrong way. No one will take the action item .... Send mail to Jim with errors and Jim will pass it on. Perhaps CC to committee so we can see what is being done. Jim: asking Mike to run Validator on DAML-S. Mike: they are starting to use the Validator. Will motivate that. Jim: Until it is syntactically valid, we can't do anything more with the non syntactic - modelling issues. updated DAML layers proposal [1] (Stefan) Steffan: Schema Languages - not generally used for classification of instances, but for if the instances are in compliance with the schema. Steffan: A couple of daml+oil definition are regarded as integrity restraints on a set of instances. Dan: Hard to draw the line ... when you have domain and range things Jim: we prefer to create instances to just creating schemas. Stefan: want a subset of Daml+oil ... a reinterpretation of the language. Peter: Have to get rid of domain and range to do that. Jim: what do you want to accomplish Stefan: to have a language like rdf schema with cardinality restraints. Want domain and range but dont want them to interfere ... Stefan: Want this for verification of instances? Peter: reasoning in frames language is easy ... adding in negation etc makes it hard. Stefan: Want to cut out what needs to be removed and reinterpret the rest. Redefination of the semantics. The only way to go forward is to write down the arguments on either side and talk about it outside of the telecon. Perhaps in person. Jim: this discussion is easier to deal with if we are talking about specific use cases rather than genericly (??) Action Item: Peter and Steffan to talk about the two sides of the argument. update on W3C Web Ontology WG (Jim Hendler) Web ontology charter is starting to be looked at. What we have been saying, just more of it, but progress is being made. DAML+OIL recommended as the starting point. Peter: we have put in time on this and we would like to be able to put in time on the charter. Jim: you probably don't want to be involved in the charter. Seems like there are two deliverables for this working group. Jim: Yes. Jim: If a rule language and an ontology lanugage come out and don't mix ... and they get criticial mass ... and they will conflict. Take this offline? Ian is interested as well. Jim: suggestion that Peter and Jim talk about this and come back with a consensus or disagreement. Jim: one other issue: take the current daml+oil spec and identify which things outside of it that we sit on. This would help with something that Jim was asked to do. Peter: volunteering the folks in Greece. current spec to current rdf - only identify now, not looking for changes / solutions. - iterations in the future. Jim: Im asking the joint-committee :) to do this. For next week. Pat and Steffan - updating rules proposal .. not a lot been done since next week. Talk about language extensions suggested by Jim. Dan C. sends his regrets for next week.