my notes from today 3/9/04 JC telecon

From: Benjamin Grosof (bgrosof@mit.edu)
Date: 03/09/04

  • Next message: Mike Dean: "Joint Committee telecon today 16 March"
    % notes from JC telecon 3/9/04 % by Benjamin Grosof
    
    participants:
    Mike Dean
    Benjamin Grosof
    Ian Horrocks
    Harold Boley
    Peter Patel-Schneider
    Sandro Hawke
    Gerd Wagner
    Pat Hayes (joined at 5pm)
    
    o benchmarking prospects
    
    need good problems
    need good dimensions to measure problems incl. for artificial generation
    
    generate artificial problems as a waystation
    
    Benj:
    wrt rules: can look at Prolog and RDBMS literature, their test suites
    - e.g., XSB, size of backend database, number of joins and how many bindings
    for each joined variable, complexity of queries
    
    Sandro:  e.g., Mercury wrt Prolog appears to have a dozen or so
    
    Ian:  there aren't good problems even for OWL alone with lots of instance data
    
    Mike:  see www.daml.org/data
    
    
    
    
    o planning for May and for Sept.
    
    Mike:  want another SWRL version with more on built-ins
    
    Benj:  there will be new effort on rules toolset in DAML, stay tuned
    
    REWERSE has a working group specifically on typing:  number I3
    led by Jan Maluszynki and (?) Uwe Assmann (see http://www.rewerse.net)
    
    Ian:  there's a lot of fragmentation within, as well as between,
    KnowledgeWeb and REWERSE -- you could spend your whole life traveling to
    the meetings
    
    Mike:  want to finish builtins within next month; then
    should we get into nonmon?
    
    Benj:  I think we should get started on at least NAF and nonmon before
    the PI Meeting
    - is better understood theoretically than full SWRL actually
       . Gerd:  indeed SWRL proof theory not well understood
    
    Harold:  also can do closed-world modules
    
    Gerd:  adding nonmon to full SWRL will be tough
    
    Benj:
    another option for focus:  extensions towards first-order and Lloyd-Topor
    - is more straightforward
    - but is less compelling wrt use cases
    - related to SCL and DRS
    - propose we do our own first draft, then look at how relates to SCL and DRS
    - Ian:  SCL is a framework, more than is intended for efficient operations
    
    Harold:
    let's have some use cases too
    i.e., examples and implementation experience
    - this could be low hanging fruit
    - Benj:  this would feed well into new DAML Rules toolset effort,
    and be useful to people working on services and security
    
    Mike:
    looking at CLIPS, translating SWRL into it
    
    Benj:
    good opportunity there to use the mappings from SweetJess, so let's
    coordinate on that
    
    Sandro:
    another desirable direction to do in parallel:  non-XML RDF syntax,
    perhaps Prolog-y or N3-y or KIF-y.
    presentation syntax / human-oriented string syntax
    - Benj and Harold:  yes, and nicely complements the tools/implementation
           direction
    
    overall goal:
    - be in a position to have good discussion of issues, plans for following
    months, info on tools/implementations and use-cases/examples/benchmarks
    
    Pat H.:
    wrt SCL:  the concept and abstract syntax and model-theoretic semantics
    is pretty stable, need some hammering out of XML syntax;
    hope readable draft by perhaps end of month
    
    Benj:
    how to coordinate with SWRL; it would be nice to make it very simple
    to implement translation between SWRL and SCL.
    what issues are there wrt that?
    
    Pat:
    issues include the following.
    SCL has only very generic/plain variable bindings;
    can type a quantifier only with an atom not a type, is very vanilla;
    also there is some provision for defining types, some hooks for that
    
    Pat:
    CL is moving again wrt becoming an ISO standard.
    Harry Delugash (spelling?) is in charge of putting it through ISO machinery,
    which takes a while, like 3 years.
    SCL is officially ad hoc, not directly trying to put it thru ISO.
    
    Benj:
    would it make sense to do it thru another standards body, e.g., Oasis which
    is relatively low overhead?
    Pat:  yes, perhaps; or W3C or OMG.
    
    Sandro:
    how about making it a W3C submission?  would be good input for Rules WG there.
    
    Pat:
    sounds good, if someone can provide some guidance.
    would view it as a semantic reference language rather than specific to
    Rules.
    
    %%%
    
    agenda for next week:  more on built-ins, Mike and Said and Pat will confer
    in prep.
    
    
    ________________________________________________________________________________________________
    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 : 03/09/04 EST