August 21, 2001

Attendees:
Mike
Pat
Richard
Harold Boley
Ora
Lynn
Ian
Benjamin
Deb
?
Peter


Announcements:
none :)

Agenda:
Last weeks minutes ... approved

Rules proposal - Benjamin and Ian
      
      time frame for next steps: next few weeks ... have more of the
      technical things worked out, for instance the assymetry of the
      right and left sides ...

      expect that after this next output is received and feedback
      comes in we can move towards a concrete proposal

      Pat: what do you mean by rule?  Perhaps not in this telecon
      but fairly soon in a message.

      Benjamin: action item 

      Pat: seem to be assuming that if we end up with just first order
      logic.
      
      Ian: not that it would be bad, but perhaps it would be silly to
      put a lot of work into a whole new language that turned out to
      just be first order logic.

      Pat: How do you judge when you've gone far enough.
	 
      Harold: we could ask ourselves: what is the least general common
      generalization of DL and HornL?

      Harold: Or: As we search our (many) ways upwards from DL and
      HornL towards FOL, what will be the 'first' language
      generalizing both DL and HornL?

      Harold: a possible target language could be recursive
      CARIN-ALLNR with function symbols.
      
      Harold: we will stay 'below' full FOL but where below will we
      stay?

      Harold: for some purposes, however, we would probably want to
      re-separate such an (undecidable) hybrid language into a
      decidable DL part and an undecidable HL part.

      Richard will find some examples and send them around. (?)


Richard: query language

	 It seems it would be useful if there were a query language
	 for DAML+OIL (and a way of reporting out querries).

	 Richard has a strawman proposal which submits querries in
	 DAML+OIL and returns in DAML+OIL.

	 What do people believe the relationship between the query
	 language and rul language?

	 Pat: the two fit together, but it would be perfectly fine to
	 have a query language that was only a query language.  If
	 they diverge, that wouldn't be horrible.

	 Lynn: Some divergences could be problematic.  If the query
	 language were substantially more powerful than a rule
	 language it would always have to be suported by something
	 more than daml and rules ... (?)

	 Richard will circulate the proposal and this discussion will
	 continue.

	 Might be interesting to look into RQL and XQL (?)

	 XML Query: www.w3.org/XML/Query

	 
DAML+OIL (March 2001) copyright

	 Assuming it would be necessary to W3C to move forward to have
	 the copytright, is there anyone who would have a problem with
	 copyrights?

	 Issues with companies we work for owning the copyright to
	 what we come up with (Lucent for example).

	 Deb: want to make sure we have writing rights to DAML+OIL.

	 Ian: definately make sure that this is public domain. 

	 
Next steps ... any new insights?

     Ian: seems as though rule / query language discussions were
     developing well and thus having those in this group is a
     reasonable idea.

     Are there any folks that won't be continuing?

     How do we want to offically handle inviting new folks to the
     group?

     Or any additional nominations of new folks to add.  (DAML-S rep?)

     for DAML-S rep ... ask them to choose someone to be a liason
     between the two groups.

     Will formally request adding Richard, Benjamin, and Harold to the
     group.  Send any necessary messages to Mike if anyone needs.

     Will update the mailing list with new members.