From: Benjamin Grosof (bgrosof@mit.edu)
Date: 03/03/03
Minutes (rather summary in form) of the 2/25/03 telecon:
discussion overall was of the use-cases and related requirements and
technical points
transitive closure vs. transitivity : ability to represent this in OWL, in
first-order, in logic programs, in higher-order classical logic; need for
what forms of these; minimality of the closure is difficult to represent
completely in OWL
what kind of rules: how to formulate this as an issue
-- computational framework and boundaries
hierarchy of rule kinds:
start with derivation rules and queries, then extend (unsequenced) to
reaction, transformation, and integrity constraints
transformation vs. derivation rules: to what extent can one be viewed as
the other
-- can view derivation as reducible to a general kind of transformation
rule; but useful to treat these separately;
useful kinds of transformation rules (use-cases), e.g., ontology
mappings, can be represented as derivation rules
integrity constraints: can view as a query; but also there's the issue of
enforcement or assertion that the constraint is satisfied,
e.g., as in relational databases; and there's the issue of
transactionality, e.g., in updating a DB;
transactional aspect is related to events too
request from Stefan Decker: please send integrity constraint use cases
-- Pat: RDF typing is an interesting area for this
next JC telecon will be 3/11 not 3/4, due to the W3C Plenary
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Benjamin Grosof
Web Technologies for E-Commerce, Business Policies, E-Contracting, Rules,
XML, Agents, Semantic Web Services
MIT Sloan School of Management, Information Technology group
http://ebusiness.mit.edu/bgrosof or http://www.mit.edu/~bgrosof
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 03/03/03 EST