% notes from (most of) Joint Committee telecon 8/24/2004 % by Benjamin Grosof participants: Mike Dean Peter Patel-Schneider Benjamin Grosof Said Tabet Ian Horrocks Harold Boley %%%% Draft agenda: (pasted from Mike Dean's agenda message before the telecon) SWRL FOL (all - 30 min) FOL RuleML adapted [2] Forum builtins [3][4] (Harold, et al - 10 min) Probable bug in swrl.owl [5][6] (Mike, et al - 10 min) next week [1] http://www.daml.org/listarchive/joint-committee/1780.html [2] http://www.daml.org/listarchive/joint-committee/1779.html [3] http://projects.semwebcentral.org/pipermail/forum-flogic/2004-August/000130 [4] http://projects.semwebcentral.org/pipermail/forum-flogic/2004-August/000133 [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-rules/2004Aug/0003.html [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-rules/2004Aug/0005.html %%%% o discussion on issues from SWSL telecons 1. It would help to clarify, expositorily in the document, with a few paragraphs, our story on typing, both in the current draft and for future directions - keeping OWL distinction between data and individual -values for arguments of properties (including, implicitly, variables) . its rationale wrt decidability and OWL compatibility - XML-Schema - some builtins beyond XML-Schema - SWSL would like this to be clear for developers 2. SWSL Requirements and Plans for FOL - SWSL only needs fairly vanilla FOL features -- cf. current JC draft and plans -- in near term, but would like it to work well with RuleML - SWSL would like cooperation from RuleML primarily, and secondarily JC and SCL, on extensions of the FOL language to: a. more features that are in / requirements for the SWSL Rules language such as HiLog, frames syntax, reification, lists, etc. b. development of markup syntax for those - see cross-posted message (by Benjamin) from about 8/12/2004 about SWSL telecon then, for more details o Forum mailing list discussion on builtins (see preliminary agenda above) Michael Kifer there has some criticisms - he seems to like the Prolog style of functions and equality more which relies more on explicit equality and functions rather than predicates - he complains that reversibility etc. aspect is underspecified - it would help to be clearer about how we are leaving it at relational, and reversibility constraints should be defined at level of implementation one way we could cooperate with the Forum group's work is via posting to the Forum list - Michael K. has already invited several of us to do so also via the upcoming PPSWR04/REWERSE workshop Sept. 8-9 (Benjamin and Michael K. and Gerd Wagner will be attending; Benjamin and Michael K. are giving invited talks there) we should respond action plan: Said, Benjamin, and Harold will plan to draft something, then share with JC