From: Benjamin Grosof ([email protected])
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