notes from (most of) today's 8/24/2004 Joint Committee telecon on FOL and SWSL and built-ins

From: Benjamin Grosof ([email protected])
Date: 08/24/04

  • Next message: Mike Dean: "Joint Committee telecon today 31 August"
    % notes from (most of) Joint Committee telecon 8/24/2004
    % by Benjamin Grosof
    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
    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
    - 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
    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 or

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 08/24/04 EST