Dear All, (01)
Here are the material from our regular OntoIOp team conference call
today. Kindly review and advise of any error, omission or edit. (02)
1. the audio archive for the (n.54) OntoIOp teleconference of Wed
2014.03.12 is now online: (03)
* Date: Wednesday 12-Mar-2014
* Meeting time: 1608 ~ 1711 UTC
* length/format/size: 1:09:35 , mp3 , 7.97 MB
* accessible directly as:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntoIOp/Team_confcall/2014-03-12_team-confcall_n.54/OntoIOp-n54_20140312b.mp3 (04)
3. The chat-transcript (lightly edited) is attached below, which is
also available as:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntoIOp/Team_confcall/2014-03-12_team-confcall_n.54/OntoIOp-confcall-n54_chat-transcript_20140312b.txt (05)
4. Our next regular team meetings will be in two weeks ... (06)
= OntoIOp team-confcall (n.55) - Wed 2014.03.26 = (07)
* Date: Wed 26-Mar-2014
* start-time: 9:00am PDT / 12:00 pm EDT / 5:00pm CET / 6:00pm SAST /
1:00am [+1] KST / 16:00 GMT/UTC
** ref. world clock -
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=3&day=26&year=2014&hour=9&min=0&sec=0&p1=224
* Duration: 1.0~1.5 Hrs.
* shared-file workspace:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntoIOp/Team_confcall/2014-03-26_team-confcall_n.55/
* chat-workspace: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/ontoiop_20140326 (08)
Please mark your calendars. *** Kindly pay special attention to the
start-time at your time zone. On this day, North Amercia will be on
Daylight Saving Time (DST) while Europe and other places are still on
Standard (winter) Time *** (09)
Regards. =ppy
-- (010)
------ <OntoIOp-confcall-n54_chat-transcript_20140312b.txt> ------ (011)
------
Chat transcript from room: ontoiop_20140312
2014-03-12 GMT-08:00 [PDT]
------ (012)
[9:02] PeterYim: . (013)
= OntoIOp team-confcall (n.54) - Wed 2014.03.12 = (014)
* Date: Wed 12-Mar-2014
* start-time: 9:00am PDT / 12:00 pm EDT / 5:00pm CET / 6:00pm SAST /
1:00am [+1] KST / 16:00 GMT/UTC
* Duration: 1.0~1.5 Hrs.
* shared-file workspace:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntoIOp/Team_confcall/2014-03-12_team-confcall_n.54/
* chat-workspace: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/ontoiop_20140312 (015)
AGENDA - ref. http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontoiop-forum/2014-03/msg00000.html (016)
* TillMossakowski: please find a new version[1] of the "DOL"
submission to OntoIOp.
In the forthcoming telcon on Wednesday, we will focus on section 1 (are
the revisions reflecting last time's discussion?) and section 2 (which
has not been discussed in the OMG process yet).
[1] see:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntoIOp/Team_confcall/2014-03-12_team-confcall_n.54/OMG_OntoIOp_spec_v1-0_snapshot--TillMossakowski_20140310a.pdf (017)
Remarks: (018)
* the session may be recorded for archival purposes. Unless
otherwise documented, participants agrees to this by virtue of
their participation at the session. (019)
* In case we have to mute everyone (due to extraneous noise or echo)
- Mute control: *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute (020)
Dial-in:
* Phone (US): +1 (206) 402-0100
... when prompted enter Conference ID: 141184#
* Skype: "joinconference"
... when prompted enter Conference ID: 141184#
** in case your skype connection to "joinconference" is not holding
up, try using (your favorite POTS or VoIP line, etc.) either your
phone, skype-out or google-voice and
call the US dial-in number: +1 (206) 402-0100
... when prompted enter Conference ID: 141184#
** some local numbers may be available (in the US, Australia, Canada &
UK) - see: http://instantteleseminar.com/Local/
** for Windows Skype users: Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it may be
under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad"
** for Linux Skype users: if the dialpad button is not shown in the
call window you need to press the "d" hotkey to enable it. (--CLange) (021)
Attendees: ChristophLange, FabianNeuhaus, MariaKeet, MichaelGruninger,
OliverKutz, PeterYim (scribe), TaraAthan, TerryLongstreth (last few
minites), TillMossakowski (intermittently), ZhimingLiu. (022)
== Proceedings: == (023)
[9:01] FabianNeuhaus: hi maria (024)
[9:01] FabianNeuhaus: are you on the phone? Because I don't hear anybody (025)
[9:08] PeterYim: == Meeting started (as suggested by FabianNeuhaus) ... (026)
[9:08] PeterYim: Till is not on the call yet (027)
[9:08] anonymous morphed into TillMossakowski (028)
[9:09] TillMossakowski: had some problems with finding the dial pad... (029)
[9:11] PeterYim: @Till ... do the remarks above help? (right above
"Proceedings") (030)
[9:12] List of attendees: ChristophLange, FabianNeuhaus, MariaKeet,
MichaelGruninger, OliverKutz, PeterYim, TaraAthan, TillMossakowski,
TillMossakowski1, ZhimingLiu, anonymous (031)
[9:17] TaraAthan: ElisaKendall has offered to create an SMOF
meta-model for Common Logic. Therefore CL would satisfy the
conformance condition of Section 2.1, item 1. (032)
[9:18] TillMossakowski: yes, they helped. But sorry, my internet
connection is very weak - will keep trying to join the call. Please go
ahead. (033)
[9:26] ChristophLange: recapping what we had before (in the ISO OntoIOp WD) ... (034)
ISO version of conformance of a language: language is conformant if either ... (035)
[9:26] ChristophLange: it satisfies the following conditions:
a) its abstract syntax is given by an EBNF grammar,
b) at least one concrete syntax is given by a serialisation (see below),
c) its logical language aspect (for expressing basic ontologies) is
conformant, and in particular has a semantics (see below),
its structuring language aspect (for expressing structured ontologies
and relations between those) is conformant (see below), and
its annotation language aspect (for expressing comments and
annotations) is conformant (see below).
there exists a translation of it into a conformant language. (036)
[9:27] ChristophLange: ^ EITHER a) b) ... e) OR there exists a
translation of it into a conformant language (037)
[9:29] PeterYim: TaraAthan: if it is a either..or, then Sec 2.1 items
1 thru 5 may need to be worded differently (038)
[9:30] TillMossakowski4: the ISO version does not make sense. Also in
case of a translational semantics, you will need an abstract and
concrete syntax. (039)
[9:36] ChristophLange: @TillMossakowski: I presume your latest comment
refers to 2.1, right? So you always need a concrete syntax for
translations to work? Which means that you will always need a
concrete syntax for making an OMS language DOL conformant? (040)
[9:36] ChristophLange: If so, this will entail revisions in 2.2, which
speaks of concrete syntaxes (which we have so far, as in OWL, called
"serializations") (041)
[9:39] TillMossakowski: yes. Maybe you can dispense with the concrete
syntax, if you want (do you have an example where this would be
needed?). But you definitely need an abstract syntax as starting point
for your translation. (042)
[9:50] TillMossakowski: @ChristophLange: I suggest that each
conformant language has abstract and concrete syntax. However, if we
have a language which is translated to another language (and thereby
inherites its semnatics), it would be sufficient to require just an
abstract syntax, and so admit the possibility of a lnguage without
concrete syntax. Do you have an example where this would be desirable? (043)
[9:51] ChristophLange: @TillMossakowski: OK, then how about saying
that each conformant language has an abstract syntax, and that it must
also have at least one serialization (which conforms according to
section 2.2)? (044)
[9:36] TaraAthan: 4.7 p17 definition of serialization (045)
[9:42] ChristophLange: I didn't get this question "do you have an
example where this would be needed?", what do you mean? (046)
[9:42] MichaelGruninger: Christoph recommends that we use the next two
weeks to review the current definitions and agree that there are no
further changes needed to the definitions (047)
[9:45] FabianNeuhaus: Proposal: Review in next meeting section 4.
Terms and Definitions (048)
[9:47] TaraAthan: p. 18 there are two definitions of institution. I
believe the first one should be the definition of institute. (049)
[9:48] ChristophLange: It is possible to have high-level summaries
(e.g. of the intuition behind some formal specification) in an OMG
standard. We agreed that ChristophLange should provide this for the
conformance criteria (specifically for the conformance of a
serialization, which is something ChristophLange had originally come
up with). (050)
[9:50] FabianNeuhaus: 2.1.1 Do we really require EBNF or SMOF for all
OMS languages? (051)
[9:50] ChristophLange: @FabianNeuhaus: ^ 2.1 item 1 (not to be
confused with _section_ 2.1.1) (052)
[9:51] FabianNeuhaus: 2.1.3 Potential confusions between DOL
serialization and OMS serialization here? (053)
[9:52] TillMossakowski: @Michael: agreed, there should not be too many
DOL syntaxes. However, there might be the need for it, e.g. a DOL
syntax that is closer to controlled English. (054)
[9:52] ChristophLange: @TillMossakowski: Oh, I see, thanks for
clarifying. I don't know of such an example. It was rather just that I
was confused by how we'd make the connection between abstract syntaxes
and concrete syntaxes of OMS (055)
[9:52] FabianNeuhaus: Shall we remove 2.1.3? (056)
[9:53] ChristophLange: @TillMossakowski: At the moment I think we are
talking about syntaxes for OMS languages, not about syntaxes for the
DOL meta-language. (057)
[9:54] ChristophLange: Only section 2.4 refers to the possibility of
more than one serialization for the DOL meta-language (058)
[9:54] PeterYim: Till joins on the voice line (finally! ~4 minutes ago) (059)
[9:55] MichaelGruninger: Do we really need to specify conformance of
arbitrary DOL concrete syntaxes are conformant to the abstract syntax
for DOL? We can have a specification of the abstract syntax together
with a specific (set of) concrete syntaxes. We don't need to allow
people to propose new concrete syntaxes which they then need to show
are conformant. (060)
[9:57] ChristophLange: @MichaelGruninger: Sure, we could agree on
this, and then drop section 2.4 (061)
[9:58] ChristophLange: I think some of this dates back to the old ISO
ages when we still wanted to have RDF and XML serializations of the
DOL meta-language (062)
[10:01] TaraAthan: Somebody just explained that the EBNF for the
abstract syntax must have no ambiguous productions. That makes sense
to me - it does seem reasonable to me that in that case, it would be
possible to generate an precise SMOF. (063)
[10:04] MichaelGruninger: Sorry, I need to leave now ... (064)
[10:08] FabianNeuhaus: Christoph: suggestion to remove 2.1.4 and parts
of 2.1.3 as a reference to section 2.2 (065)
[10:09] ChristophLange: @FabianNeuhaus; ... and to revise section 2.2
(or to raise questions when it's not clear how to revise it) (066)
[10:09] PeterYim: TerryLongstreth joins (067)
[10:11] PeterYim: next meeting (n.54) - Wed 2014.03.26 same time (as
today's meeting) - 1.0~1.5 Hrs. starting 9:00am PDT / 12:00 pm EDT /
5:00pm CET / 6:00pm SAST / 1:00am [+1] KST / 16:00 GMT/UTC (068)
[10:13] TerryLongstreth: I can't be there at that time (an hour
earlier is better for me) (069)
[10:13] PeterYim: -- session ended: 6:11pm CET -- (070)
------ </OntoIOp-confcall-n54_chat-transcript_20140312b.txt> ------ (071)
_________________________________________________________________
To Post: mailto:ontoiop-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontoiop-forum/
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontoiop-forum/
Community Files (open): http://interop.cim3.net/file/pub/OntoIOp/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntoIOp (072)
|