Joint CL-IAOA-Ontolog virtual discussion session - Thu 2012_09_20    (3EPJ)

Archives:    (3FHI)

Conference Call Details    (3FHQ)

Attendees    (3FIN)

Abstract:    (3FIV)

by: MichaelGruninger    (3FIW)

Common Logic was published as an International Standard ISO 24707 in 2007, and is now up for review (after five years). As exchanged on the CL mailing list, we have the opportunity to propose changes for a revision of Common Logic.    (3FIX)

We will need to define the scope of the revision by identifying all issues which will be addressed by the revision. We will plan to use this session to take inventory on where things stand, and try to come to some consensus on what the outstanding issues are, and which ones will (or will not) be addressed in the next CL revision.    (3FIY)

More details about the ongoing discussion on this matter, see the "[CL] Revision of ISO 24707" discussion thread at: http://philebus.tamu.edu/pipermail/cl/ (under August 2012 and September 2012)    (3FIZ)

This is an unofficial gathering of those who care about the future of the CL standard. The purpose of this meeting is NOT to come to an agreement on any potential solutions to technical issues. The purpose is to come to an agreement on the set of issues which will constitute the scope of the revision.    (3FOJ)

Agenda:    (3FJ0)

Revision of the Common Logic Standard    (3FJ1)

Potential issues that have been raised to this point:    (3FO7)

a) Fixing the list of syntactic errors that have already been identified    (3FO8)

b) Namespacing    (3FO9)

c) Modification of semantics to allow the existence of definitional extensions in CL    (3FOA)

d) Additional connectives    (3FOB)

e) Numerical quantifiers    (3FOC)

f) Clarification of conformance conditions    (3FOD)

g) Correction and completion of the XML syntax in Annex C    (3FOE)

h) Additional concrete syntax to include in Annexes (e.g. infix)    (3FOF)

i) Questions about segregated dialects and interoperability    (3FOG)

The purpose of today's meeting will be decide which of these issues will be in the scope of the revision, and also to identify other possible issues for the revision that have not yet been raised in email discussions.    (3FOH)

Warning -- this is not an opportunity to re-open old discussions that have been settled in the past. We are not fighting old battles.    (3FOI)

Proceedings:    (3FJ7)

Please refer to the above    (3FJ8)

IM Chat Transcript captured during the session:    (3FJ9)

 see raw transcript here.    (3FJA)
 (for better clarity, the version below is a re-organized and lightly edited chat-transcript.)
 Participants are welcome to make light edits to their own contributions as they see fit.    (3FJB)
   -- begin in-session chat-transcript --    (3FJC)
	Chat transcript from room: ontolog_20120920
	2012-09-20 GMT-08:00 [ time-stamps in PDT ]    (3FPD)
	------    (3FPE)
	[09:21] PeterYim: Welcome to the    (3FPF)
	 = Joint CL-IAOA-Ontolog virtual session - Thu 2012_09_20  =    (3FPG)
	Title: "Revision of the CommonLogic Standard"    (3FPH)
	Session Chair: Professor MichaelGruninger (University of Toronto)    (3FPI)
	Date: Thursday, 20-Sep-2012
	Start Time: 9:30am PDT / 12:30pm EDT / 6:30pm CEST / 16:30 UTC
	Expected Call Duration: 1.5~2.0 hours    (3FPJ)
	Logistics:    (3FPK)
	* Refer to details on session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2012_09_20    (3FPL)
	* (if you haven't already done so) please click on "settings" (top center) and morph from "anonymous" to your Real Name (in WikiWord format)    (3FPM)
	Attendees: AdrianPaschke, AnneThessen, BobbinTeegarden, ChrisMenzel, ChristophLange, DavidWhitten, DeniseWarzel, 
	           DougFoxvog, ElizabethFlorescu, FabianNeuhaus, FrankOlken, HaroldBoley, KenBaclawski, MichaelGruninger,    (3FPN)
	 == Proceedings: ==    (3FPO)
	[09:27] anonymous morphed into ElizabethFlorescu    (3FPP)
	[09:30] anonymous1 morphed into AdrianPaschke    (3FPQ)
	[09:30] anonymous morphed into DeniseWarzel    (3FPR)
	[09:31] anonymous morphed into TaraAthan    (3FPS)
	[09:32] anonymous morphed into DavidWhitten    (3FPT)
	[09:34] anonymous morphed into SimonSpero    (3FPU)
	[09:39] PatHayes: Fabian: our task is triage, to distinguish technical fixes which need to be done 
	from options that may be desirable.    (3FPV)
	[09:40] SimonSpero: So how do the agenda items sort between the two?    (3FPW)
	[09:40] SimonSpero: (Some are obviously needed (XML syntax must be fixed or dropped))    (3FPX)
	[09:41] PatHayes: Denise: we are at 5-year point. Decision on continuing taken by international 
	vote, each country gives perspective. This group does not represent a national body, but can be 
	taken to US or Canada bodies.    (3FPY)
	[09:43] SimonSpero: I know that BSI doesn't require editors to be official reps.    (3FPZ)
	[09:43] anonymous morphed into PaulTyson    (3FQ0)
	 == Participants self-intro (verbal) ...    (3FQ1)
	[09:49] ChristophLange: I'm from the University of Birmingham, UK. I'm one of the authors of DOL 
	(Distributed Ontology Language). DOL comprises CL as one of the languages in which modules of a 
	distributed ontology can be written. DOL is being ISO-standardized (work in progress). Any changes 
	to Common Logic may affect CL's conformance with DOL or possibly require adaptations to the DOL 
	standard.    (3FQ2)
	[09:50] FrankOlken: I formerly worked at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab as a database researcher, 
	semantic web research, and was active in standards development in L8, e.g., ISO/IEC 11179 Metadata 
	Registries Std. I also spent 4 years at NSF. I am now a consultant in Berkeley. My interest is in 
	use of ontologies, RDF, and rules for medical applications, e.g., electronic health records and 
	medical treatment protocols. I also worked on the development of the RDF and XML Schema Language 
	standards at W3C.    (3FQ3)
	[09:51] DeniseWarzel: I am the SC32 WG2 Convenor. Common Logic (ISO 24707) is in our program of 
	work. We are responsible for its development/maintenance. I am also the NCI (US Government) 
	representative to the US ISO committee that votes on SC32 projects. I am also the manger at NCI 
	responsible for our Metadata Framework, caDSR, that utilizes ISO 11179 and other ontology standards 
	in its implementation.    (3FQ4)
	[09:53] FrankOlken: Hi Denise !!    (3FQ5)
	[09:54] DavidWhitten: I am a VistA manager, (a Hospital Information System created by the US Dept of 
	Veterans Affairs) I work at the Central Regional Hospital, under the State owned Hospitals, under 
	the Dept. of Health and Human Services of the US State of North Carolina. I am interested in Common 
	Logic as a method to augment the Data Definitions of FileMan Files and Fields used to define VistA 
	to include more semantic information and enhance the Clinical Decision Support systems used in 
	patient care.    (3FQ6)
	[10:00] TaraAthan: I am a mathematician working as a consultant. I have worked for many years in 
	quantitative modeling of problems in e.g. elasticity, fluid mechanics, combustion, probabilistic 
	risk analysis and geographical simulations. More recently I have become interested in KR, 
	particularly for encoding metadata of quantitative data, including simulation output. I have been 
	working for a couple of years on revision/extension of XCL, RuleML and LegalRuleML.    (3FQ7)
	[10:01] PaulTyson: I work in data architecture, conversions, and applications in the aerospace 
	industry. We are using XCL in conjunction with RDF and SPARQL to improve data integrity across 
	systems.    (3FQ8)
	[10:04] TerryLongstreth: I've been involved in data and metadata standardization activities for more 
	than 30 years, at IBM and Lockheed Martin, often under government contracts. I've been involved with 
	X.500 (Directory standard), SC32 under INCITS L8 (now WG2) for Common Logic and Metadata Registry. 
	I'm currently active in the Ontolog Community and a US SME with the DOL committee.    (3FQ9)
	[10:05] SimonSpero: I am an Information / Library scientist / Ontologist (originally a computist). 
	Interest in CL/IKL as open replacement for proprietary languages like cycl . Quantifying over 
	predicates is the epic win. Worried about some of the proposed solutions that make that incompatible 
	with definitions. Dependent on Hets and (future PRIKL) :)    (3FQA)
	[10:08] AdrianPaschke: I'm a professor at Freie Universitaet Berin, Germany. Background: RuleML, 
	Reaction RuleML, W3C RIF, OASIS Legal RuleML, Event Processing Technical Society Reference 
	Architecture and Metamodel, OMG. My interest is in rule technologies and in rule markup languages, 
	i.e. XCL.    (3FQB)
	[10:06] anonymous morphed into ChrisMenzel    (3FQC)
	[10:07] ChrisMenzel: I tried to say "hi" but no one seemed to hear me. :-(    (3FQD)
	[10:07] SimonSpero: @ChrisMenzel: *7 unmutes    (3FQE)
	[10:08] PatHayes: Hi Chris, better check all the mutings.    (3FQF)
	[10:08] ChrisMenzel: Believe it or not, I thought of that, Simon. :-)    (3FQG)
	[10:08] PeterYim: @ChrisMenzel - sorry - we'll make sure Michael knows    (3FQH)
	[10:08] SimonSpero: I always *6 by mistake :)    (3FQI)
	[10:08] ChrisMenzel: I probably just didn't speak up enough.    (3FQJ)
	[10:08] ChrisMenzel: :-)    (3FQK)
	[10:09] DavidWhitten: You always were a quiet giant, Chris.    (3FQL)
	[10:10] ChrisMenzel: Quiet? That's a new one... :-)    (3FQM)
	[10:10] DavidWhitten: ;)    (3FQN)
	[10:10] MichaelGruninger: == Potential issues that have been raised to this point:    (3FQO)
	a) Fixing the list of syntactic errors that have already been identified b) Namespacing 
	c) Modification of semantics to allow the existence of definitional extensions in CL d) Additional 
	connectives e) Numerical quantifiers f) Clarification of conformance conditions ) g) Correction and 
	completion of the XML syntax in Annex C h) Additional concrete syntax to include in Annexes (e.g. 
	infix) i) Questions about segregated dialects and interoperability    (3FQP)
	[10:10] MichaelGruninger: citing 
	EdBarkmeyer, "I suggest that the ISO Work Item for the Revision, which would establish the scope of 
	the project, should identify mandatory elements of the project and optional elements that the 
	working group can decide whether to address, based on timing, resources and impact on user 
	communities. There is nothing wrong with having an optional laundry list with 27 items on it. When 
	the mandatory stuff is done, some of the items on the list will have been contributed, or will be 
	contributed within a few months, and the rest can be relegated to a follow-on project that may come 
	into existence if resources can be found."    (3FQQ)
	[10:12] DeniseWarzel: [on Michael's remark that he is volunteering to be the editor, and will 
	collect input here, and present them through the official channel to the next WG meeting] Yes.    (3FQR)
	[10:12] DeniseWarzel: I need to inject that an ISO working group can only be comprised of member 
	organizations.    (3FQS)
	[10:13] DeniseWarzel: Michael, as a member of the Canada ISO NB, can collect input from whomever he 
	wants - but this group cannot be an official "ISO working group" or NB, does not have a "Vote"...    (3FQT)
	[10:15] PatHayes: Lets call ourselves the ungroup group.    (3FQU)
	[10:11] FrankOlken: @Denise What does it cost to join L8 these days for individuals and organizations?    (3FQV)
	[10:12] SimonSpero: Vote?    (3FQW)
	[10:14] PatHayes: OK, here's my vote. Mandatory items (must be fixed/attended to): a, g, f. Highly 
	desirable: c, e, b, i. Not particularly important: d, h    (3FQX)
	[10:13] ChrisMenzel: [suggesting we also add] A proof theory for CL (perhaps only the first-order 
	fragment) might be useful, perhaps in an Annex.    (3FQY)
	[10:14] DavidWhitten: :) I think it definitely be useful to have a proof theory, as long as it 
	doesn't constrain implementations of Common Logic.    (3FQZ)
	[10:14] ChrisMenzel: j) Proof theory for basic CL semantics.    (3FR0)
	[10:15] ChrisMenzel: Pat: Desirable? Not?    (3FR1)
	[10:15] PatHayes: Yes, Chris, desirable.    (3FR2)
	[10:15] ChrisMenzel: Good.    (3FR3)
	[10:15] ChrisMenzel: agreed    (3FR4)
	[10:15] ChrisMenzel: Probably not mandatory, but desirable.    (3FR5)
	[10:15] ToddSchneider: How about the CoLog group?    (3FR6)
	[10:16] anonymous morphed into PavithraKenjige    (3FR7)
	[10:16] PatHayes: [on ChrisMenzel's question about what is expected in the intro] Who the hell you are.    (3FR8)
	[10:16] SimonSpero: Pat: If XML fixing is done, it's silly not to have namespacing    (3FR9)
	[10:17] PatHayes: Simon: if namespacing is folded into the XML task, then yes, that would be great.    (3FRA)
	[10:17] TaraAthan: I have concern about this vague definition of scope for this revision proposed by 
	Ed. To develop a concrete syntax, we need a final abstract syntax to work with, not one that is 
	continuing to change.    (3FRB)
	[10:18] PatHayes: OK then Tara: what must be done is *fix* an abstract core syntax, which might be 
	the current one (I hope). BUt a binding decision needs to be taken, for sure.    (3FRC)
	[10:18] ChristophLange: @PatHayes: namespacing is not necessarily related to XML. Consider RDFa 1.1 
	vs. RDFa 1.0: 1.0 used XML namespaces as a syntax for RDF namespaces, but 1.1 separated these two 
	things.    (3FRD)
	[10:18] ChrisMenzel: David: If the proof theory is sound, I don't see how it could constrain 
	compliant implementations.    (3FRE)
	[10:19] FabianNeuhaus: BillAndersen asked me to suggest (k) a query language (l) an appendix that 
	provides a reserved vocabulary for structural descriptive names (in the sense of Tarski)    (3FRF)
	[10:20] SimonSpero: Oh - Comments!    (3FRG)
	[10:21] SimonSpero: There were some changes proposed on changing the syntax to comments    (3FRH)
	[10:22] PatHayes: Simon, I think those are in the syntax corrections already noted.    (3FRI)
	[10:25] MichaelGruninger: Issue a) refers to the Defect Report initiated by Cameron Ross, and it 
	includes recommendations for the syntax of comments in CL    (3FRJ)
	[10:22] PatHayes: [ref. Simon's remarks about a query language] Not difficult??? Were you anywhere 
	near the SPARQL discussions? A query language will take 2 years to agree on.    (3FRK)
	[10:22] SimonSpero: It was easy to define a query language for prolog    (3FRL)
	[10:22] SimonSpero: :-)    (3FRM)
	[10:23] PatHayes: It was easy to *define* one for RDF, but it took two years to *agree* on one.    (3FRN)
	[10:24] SimonSpero: Yes - that was what I meant    (3FRO)
	[10:27] FrankOlken: For U.S. residents / organizations membership dues in ANSI (the US national stds 
	body for ISO) are to be found here: 
	http://www.ansi.org/membership/overview/overview.aspx?menuid=2#.UFtOzoaQQpU    (3FRP)
	[10:27] DeniseWarzel: i have to drop off at 1:30, I think this is an excellent way to get input on 
	this standard and thank Michael for thinking to do this, and all of you for attending.    (3FRQ)
	[10:28] PeterYim: @Denise - thank you very much for being here    (3FRR)
	[10:42] PatHayes: [ref. ChrisMenzel's suggested addition j) Proof theory for basic CL semantics] 
	Don't think any proof theory should be normative on implementations. Eg a tableau reasoner might not 
	use anything like ND rules.    (3FRS)
	[10:44] MichaelGruninger: The proof theory (item j from ChrisMenzel) will be an Informative Annex    (3FRT)
	[10:24] MichaelGruninger: Issue m) Semantics of cl-module    (3FRU)
	[10:26] MichaelGruninger: Issue n) More general approaches to annotation of cl-texts    (3FRV)
	[10:28] SimonSpero: Most wanted: (that)    (3FRW)
	[10:28] HaroldBoley: The CL comments could make use of Schema.org - http://schema.org/    (3FRX)
	[10:28] PatHayes: cl:comments is really an annotation tool. People have asked for "real" comments 
	(which are evanescent and only seen in the source file) and also for a variety of annotation styles. 
	Both issues are worth considering. The first is what Cameron was talking about.    (3FRY)
	[10:29] PatHayes: In that context, its also worth looking at "annotation properties" in OWL.    (3FRZ)
	[11:11] TerryLongstreth: Annotation approaches: the more complex the annotation options, the greater 
	the risk of diluting the logic. The annotations themselves are used to communicate among 
	(non-logically bound) humans.    (3FS0)
	[10:30] PatHayes: [continuing query language discussion] SQL for CL.... <sound of logicians drowning>....    (3FS1)
	[10:32] HaroldBoley: A query language with different kinds of variables was also done for OWL: 
	"OWL-QL – A Language for Deductive Query Answering on the Semantic Web" by Richard Fikes, Patrick Hayes, 
	and Ian Horrocks (ftp://ftp.ksl.stanford.edu/pub/KSL_Reports/KSL-03-14.pdf.gz)    (3FS2)
	[10:33] HaroldBoley: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1741310    (3FS5)
	[10:33] AlexShkotin: Is this about query language to a model described by CL?    (3FS3)
	[10:33] SimonSpero: http://www.opencyc.org/doc/cycapi#FN-DEF-FI-ASK    (3FS4)
	[10:33] PatHayes: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/    (3FS6)
	[10:34] FrankOlken: Perhaps the query language should be a separate project?    (3FS7)
	[10:34] PatHayes: Yes, Frank.    (3FS8)
	[10:35] FrankOlken: I doubt that SPARQL would be suitable for CL query language ...    (3FS9)
	[10:35] AdrianPaschke: me too, as SPARQL is designed for the RDF graph model    (3FSA)
	[10:35] FrankOlken: I believe that the SQL specification is greater than 2000 pages ...    (3FSB)
	[10:37] PaulTyson: XCL+XPath might address quite a few query use cases.    (3FSC)
	[10:37] anonymous morphed into DougFoxvog    (3FSD)
	[10:37] SimonSpero: Frank: SQL92 is only 686 pages    (3FSE)
	[10:37] HaroldBoley: A query language with only (one kind of) existential variables could indeed 
	become an optional item.    (3FSF)
	[10:38] TerryLongstreth: @Frank: think SQL 92    (3FSG)
	[10:38] PatHayes: A query language for CL should start with SQL (perhaps a 'core' of SQL rather than 
	SPARQL, because SPARQL is oriented towards RDF and its limitations, whereas SQL is more like 
	first-order expressivity. (JohnSowa often says that SQL is FOL in another form.)    (3FSH)
	[10:38] FrankOlken: Simon, Yes, but the current SQL std is much much bigger ...    (3FSI)
	[10:39] TerryLongstreth: Or even the IBM Journal of R&D definition for SEQUEL    (3FSJ)
	[10:39] PatHayes: I agree to put it on the list and see if we can do a very simple basic version, as 
	Fabian suggested.    (3FSK)
	[10:40] SimonSpero: BTW: What do Highfleet do at the moment (for queries)?    (3FSL)
	[10:41] MichaelGruninger: Proposal : Query language will be included as an Optional item, and we 
	will discuss with ISO concerning the viability of starting a new project dedicated to the query 
	language.    (3FSM)
	[10:41] PeterYim: ref. whether we should include "query language" into this or in a separate project 
	... my suggestion is that, if it is important enough, we should do it here, as the administrative 
	overhead is rather high to run a separate project, it would be much more efficient to do it here (if 
	it is important enough ... which i believe it is, for CL adoption purposes)    (3FSN)
	[10:43] HaroldBoley: The query language with only existential variables could be done along with a 
	Horn subset of CL.    (3FSO)
	[10:44] AlexShkotin: What about Answer Language too?    (3FSP)
	[10:44] PatHayes: @Harold, have you thought of functions in the wild west syntax?    (3FSQ)
	[10:44] PatHayes: IKL is still a research issue, don't think it is ready for ISO yet.    (3FSR)
	[10:44] HaroldBoley: @Pat, do you mean equation-defined functions?    (3FSS)
	[10:45] PatHayes: @Harold, no, just the complications arising from defining variable bindings. Maybe 
	its not an issue.    (3FST)
	[10:46] HaroldBoley: @Pat, well, should be fun to look into wild west Horn logic.    (3FSU)
	[10:46] PatHayes: I think the IKL syntax has some good improvements over CLIF whcih are worth looking at.    (3FSV)
	[10:46] PatHayes: That was simply a bug.    (3FSW)
	[10:50] MichaelGruninger: Decision: IKL will not be included in the scope of the revision    (3FSX)
	[10:52] SimonSpero: Michael: Isn't the decision conditional on their being a proof of consistency    (3FSY)
	[10:53] HaroldBoley: Maybe slight clarification "IKL will not be included in the scope of the 
	current revision (to be revisited in 2017 revision)".    (3FSZ)
	[10:52] FrankOlken: Yes, I think that some syntactic sugar to simplify usage would be a good idea to 
	include in the standard ... (as an appendix perhaps?)    (3FT0)
	[10:54] SimonSpero: #$RuleMacroPredicate    (3FT1)
	[10:54] PatHayes: There are also good reasons for providing 'standard names' for widely useful 
	relations, including some mathematical notations.    (3FT2)
	[10:54] SimonSpero: or (defmacro)    (3FT3)
	[10:55] DavidWhitten: As to "all-different" as a predefined term to make ontology creation easier, 
	my thought is that other programming standards include a library of Hyperbolic functions, etc. even 
	when the language doesn't need them. Perhaps we need to introduce the idea of a library?    (3FT4)
	[10:56] PatHayes: David, John Sowa has been suggesting exactly that for years.    (3FT5)
	[10:57] SimonSpero: cough C++ cough (libraries in standards)    (3FT6)
	[11:01] TerryLongstreth: Not standard ontologies so much as recommended    (3FT7)
	[11:01] HaroldBoley: There could be two web-based CL libraries: (1) An official library sanctioned 
	by the CL group and an (2) unofficial library of CL users. There could also be a process to move 
	entries from (2) to (1).    (3FT8)
	[11:02] MichaelGruninger: We have over 600 CL ontologies in COLORE 
	( http://code.google.com/p/colore/source/browse/trunk/ontologies/ ).    (3FT9)
	[11:02] PatHayes: This would all be a non-normative appendix. Just publishing one will cause the 
	vast majority of people to use it, simply because its easier to do so. We don't have to make 
	anything an imposition.    (3FTA)
	[11:03] PatHayes: But Michael, that requires people to use COLORE, and also having 600 to choose 
	from is exactly the problem for most early adopters.    (3FTB)
	[11:04] DavidWhitten: There could be a library made of terms that people want to be able to use, but 
	are not careful enough to define strictly. We must remember that we expect the number of users to be 
	greatly larger than the number of people who just refer.    (3FTC)
	[11:04] MichaelGruninger: @Harold: The management of CL ontology repositories is really part of 
	another standards project    (3FTD)
	[11:06] PatHayes: Propose to collect useful 'structural' axioms defining eg arity of relations, 
	allDifferent, etc.. which are ontologically neutral, for possible inclusion in an informative appendix.    (3FTE)
	[11:06] HaroldBoley: @Michael, IC, maybe out of scope for today.    (3FTF)
	[11:08] SimonSpero: I raised the issues of interactions between things like conservative 
	definitional extensions and predicates as arguments (e.g. Can't declare something as being a 
	BinaryPredicate if it can't be in the scope of any quantifier    (3FTG)
	[11:08] MichaelGruninger: Issue o) Informative (?) Annex that includes the axiomatization of useful 
	structural' axioms    (3FTH)
	[11:09] PatHayes: It also provides an illustration of CL use for people who are puzzled how to 
	start.    (3FTI)
	[11:09] SimonSpero: Pat: What about a predicate defining an arbitrary arity predicate    (3FTJ)
	[11:10] PatHayes: Yes, if that can be done :-)    (3FTK)
	[11:10] SimonSpero: Pat: if we have numbers    (3FTL)
	[11:10] SimonSpero: Pat: but should numbers be just syntactic    (3FTM)
	[11:11] PatHayes: Can we clarify the namespace issue? I guess I am not completely clear about what 
	that issue amounts to.    (3FTN)
	[11:14] DougFoxvog: @Simon: If we have numerical quantifiers, numbers would be more than just 
	syntactic.    (3FTO)
	[11:14] PatHayes: Simon: Numbers are complicated. I would like the language (not the base CL 
	syntax,. maybe, but the CLIF-like version and maybe the XML) to include numerals which support very 
	basic arithmetic and can be quantified over. There is a semantic issue but I think we can handle it.    (3FTP)
	[11:14] HaroldBoley: Maybe we could have 'milestone-dependent' optional items.    (3FTQ)
	[11:14] PatHayes: complicated//delicate    (3FTR)
	[11:14] DavidWhitten: Could we address the idea of using UML + controlled English descriptions in 
	the standard vs. using simple XML as a "parse tree" syntax, as was mentioned on the mailing list 
	earlier this month?    (3FTS)
	[11:15] HaroldBoley: Only if we complete the mandatory parts, we even start discussing such a 
	'milestone-dependent' optional item.    (3FTT)
	[11:16] AlexShkotin: What about this kind of syntax: Axiom Neq x:o,y:o((xy) Neq(x,y)).    (3FTU)
	[11:17] AlexShkotin: Sorry - it does not work with UTF-8:-(    (3FTV)
	[11:18] DavidWhitten: @Alex, I assume you meant Axiom Neq x:o,y:o((x y) Neq(x,y)) since otherwise xy 
	might be understood as a fourth identifier.    (3FTW)
	[11:20] AlexShkotin: @David, sorry, but chat does not accept UTF-8 math symbols;-)    (3FTX)
	[11:21] AlexShkotin: as here http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2200.pdf    (3FTY)
	[11:22] DavidWhitten: @Alex, I have seen that page before, and always get curious about the meaning 
	for symbols I don't recognize.    (3FTZ)
	[11:26] PatHayes: Alex & David: CLIF uses full Unicode already :-)    (3FU0)
	[11:17] DougFoxvog: Numbers ARE complicated. Natural numbers are needed as quantifiers. Other 
	numbers (integers, floats, fractions, reals, complex (which are also integral, float, fractional, 
	...) could go in an optional annex.    (3FU1)
	[11:18] DougFoxvog: Making CL seem OWL-like is limiting. Since OWL requires triples & CL does not.    (3FU2)
	[11:19] HaroldBoley: Again, this would be another FOL subset.    (3FU3)
	[11:19] HaroldBoley: (Like Horn.)    (3FU4)
	[11:20] SimonSpero: ASN.1? :)    (3FU5)
	[11:21] AdrianPaschke: speaking of broad acceptance of OWL, the SWRL XML language is also well known 
	and broadly used    (3FU6)
	[11:22] AdrianPaschke: with the benefit of having broad tool support for SWRL available    (3FU7)
	[11:22] PaulTyson: I agree with Pat on the advantages of core syntax being XML. I don't know why it 
	would look much different from XCL, though.    (3FU8)
	[11:24] SimonSpero: XML is legacy JSON    (3FU9)
	[11:24] PatHayes: Doug, agreed. I think the idea would be more a set of special relations and maybe 
	connectives to be able to write "OWL in CL" as a special dialect.    (3FUA)
	[11:25] AlexShkotin: @David, accepted:-) But we should begin not from syntax but from lexics and 
	Unicode:-)    (3FUB)
	[11:26] SimonSpero: 18 out of 72 pages in current standard are XCL    (3FUC)
	[11:26] TaraAthan: a subset of the revised XCL should be exactly semantically conformant.    (3FUD)
	[11:27] SimonSpero: 21 of 72 pages are CGIF    (3FUE)
	[11:27] SimonSpero: 10 of 72 pages are CLIF    (3FUF)
	[11:28] DavidWhitten: I favor that since we have allowed several concrete syntaxes in the past, if 
	someone wants to maintain a new concrete syntax, which should be mapped into the abstract syntax, 
	such as our has our practice in the past, then we should let them.    (3FUG)
	[11:28] AdrianPaschke: besides a language for human readability there needs to be an interchange 
	syntax which at best already has a lot of tool support (translators, validation etc.)    (3FUH)
	[11:28] PatHayes: David, dont think anyone disagrees.    (3FUI)
	[11:28] TerryLongstreth: The disadvantage of adding appendixes is the publishing issue: every 
	alternate entails added risk of a need to publish addenda, corrections or new issues. I think we 
	should decide which (2,3 name your number) normative appendixes to include, but consider publishing 
	separate new standards for others.    (3FUJ)
	[11:29] PatHayes: Michael, we were all thinking VERY hard.    (3FUK)
	[11:29] AlexShkotin: @Pat but there is a letter for forall (x2200);-)    (3FUL)
	[11:29] HaroldBoley: @Adrian, yes, also Fabian's recent remark is partially about translation tools.    (3FUM)
	[11:29] FabianNeuhaus: @Adrian: I think XCL will play this role    (3FUN)
	[11:29] BobbinTeegarden: Mereology is not in, then?    (3FUO)
	[11:30] FabianNeuhaus: Mereology is not in.    (3FUP)
	[11:32] PatHayes: There are more mereologies in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your ontology.    (3FUQ)
	[11:32] SimonSpero: What about parts and holes    (3FUR)
	[11:30] DavidWhitten: So the XML as a parse tree's main claim to fame is that is the sole isomorphic 
	syntax to the abstract syntax ?    (3FUS)
	[11:30] PatHayes: @DavidWhitten: yes, exactly.    (3FUT)
	[11:31] PatHayes: Though XCL might go beyond that, of course.    (3FUU)
	[11:31] TaraAthan: @David/Pat - I thought there is also a subset of CLIF that is exactly 
	semantically conformant.    (3FUV)
	[11:31] DavidWhitten: I think the argument re Mereology is that you could define your favourite 
	Mereology theory using Common Logic. (I understand there are several.)    (3FUW)
	[11:31] AlexShkotin: Math has it's own ontologies but reality:-)    (3FUX)
	[11:30] FrankOlken: Michael, Where will you be posting info about the Common Logic revisions ?? Will 
	this be done under the aegis of L8?    (3FUY)
	[11:32] SimonSpero: Pat asks about mailing list, meetings, etc    (3FUZ)
	[11:32] SimonSpero: [ref. the question about support for voting/polling ... Simon makes starts a 
	test on the polling feature on this soaphub chatroom] ...    (3FV0)
	//
	 [11:32] SimonSpero: Should there be voting? (1) Yes (2) No This is a single choice vote.    (3FV1)
	 [11:32] PeterYim: PeterYim voted for: Yes    (3FV2)
	 [11:32] ChristophLange: ChristophLange voted for: Yes    (3FV3)
	 [11:32] AlexShkotin: AlexShkotin voted for: No    (3FV4)
	 [11:32] OliverKutz: OliverKutz voted for: Yes    (3FV5)
	 [11:32] PatHayes: 1    (3FV6)
	 [11:33] FabianNeuhaus: FabianNeuhaus voted for: Yes    (3FV7)
	 [11:33] ChrisMenzel: 1    (3FV8)
	 [11:33] PatHayes: PatHayes voted for: Yes - Provided membership is defined    (3FV9)
	 [11:33] MichaelGruninger: MichaelGruninger voted for: Yes    (3FVA)
	 [11:33] SimonSpero: Should there be voting?| Tally Choice 6 Yes 1 No 0 Abstains 
	//    (3FVB)
	[11:34] DavidWhitten: Should there be voting? (1) Yes (2) No This is a single choice vote.    (3FVC)
	[11:34] BobbinTeegarden: BobbinTeegarden voted for: Yes    (3FVD)
	[11:33] ChrisMenzel: I have to run; will check MichaelGruninger's followup msg re future meetings 
	etc.    (3FVE)
	[11:33] AlexShkotin: We should not develop math theories?    (3FVF)
	[11:33] PatHayes: @Alex: who needs them?    (3FVG)
	[11:34] AlexShkotin: @Pat have a look at 
	http://code.google.com/p/colore/source/browse/trunk/ontologies/core/arithmetic/robinson_arithmetic.clif    (3FVH)
	[11:35] PatHayes: Alex, I know they can be done. But I have never seen any demand for them from ANY 
	users.    (3FVI)
	[11:35] SimonSpero: Beware the No with comments    (3FVJ)
	[11:35] HaroldBoley: Should we keep the Thursday day-of-week (after all, all of us could make it 
	today)?    (3FVK)
	[11:35] DavidWhitten: I'm concerned that the voting mechanism can be stopped by any voter.    (3FVL)
	[11:35] DavidWhitten: Thursday @12:30 EDT is good for me.    (3FVM)
	[11:35] FrankOlken: I think we will need a more formal relationship with L8.    (3FVN)
	[11:36] PeterYim: @Pat, Simon & All: please continue the discussion on the CL mailing list ( 
	http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2012_09_20#nid3FJF ) ... Michael also said 
	that he will probably be doing more virtual sessions like this one in the future    (3FVO)
	[11:36] PatHayes: Can we get a consensus on timeslot? This one is very bad for me. Perhaps Peter can 
	organize this on the website????    (3FVP)
	[11:36] AlexShkotin: Pat, exactly!    (3FVQ)
	[11:36] FrankOlken: I also think we will need the use of a bug tracking software to track issues. 
	This has been done before at L8 with the ISO 11179 standard.    (3FVR)
	[11:36] TerryLongstreth: Michael: are you taking our consensus to your national body 
	(Canada tc32/??) for submission to ISO?    (3FVS)
	[11:38] ChrisMenzel: @Tara: I thought CLIF itself was exactly semantically conformant. (But now I'm 
	recalling that we've discussed this on the CL list but am hazy on details...)    (3FVT)
	[11:38] TaraAthan: @Chris - CLIF without numbers and character strings is.    (3FVU)
	[11:39] ChrisMenzel: Ah, right, that's it!    (3FVV)
	[11:39] ChrisMenzel: I always forget about those additions...    (3FVW)
	[11:39] PatHayes: Tara, there is an issue with guarded quantifier syntax, but that needs to go anyway.    (3FVX)
	[11:39] ChrisMenzel: Oh yeah, that too... :-/    (3FVY)
	[11:40] PatHayes: Ya gotta get them details right.    (3FVZ)
	[11:40] ChrisMenzel: Indeed...    (3FW0)
	[11:39] MichaelGruninger: @Terry: Yes, I will be taking this consensus to both the Canadian body and 
	ultimately to the October SC32 meeting in Krakow.    (3FW1)
	[11:38] PeterYim: [action] Michael will run a doodle poll to find out what would be a good meeting slot for 
	this group ... as Fabian pointed out, using the regular Ontolog Thursday meeting slot is probably not ideal    (3FW2)
	[11:39] MichaelGruninger: I will be sending out a Doodle poll for the timeslot for CL telecons    (3FW3)
	[11:41] MichaelGruninger: I will contact Japanese members of SC32 regarding participation    (3FW4)
	[11:42] FrankOlken: You will also need an issue tracker software (e.g., a bug tracker).    (3FW5)
	[11:45] SimonSpero: github.com    (3FW6)
	[11:42] DavidWhitten: Does the Ontolog Wiki count as an issue/bug tracker ?    (3FW7)
	[11:45] MichaelGruninger: I will look into collaborative issue tracking software that we can use    (3FW8)
	[11:46] PeterYim: @Michael - re. "collaborative issue tracking software" ... suggestions: github or Trac    (3FW9)
	[11:42] FrankOlken: Yes, but you will need support from the respective national standards bodies - 
	random folk will not suffice.    (3FWA)
	[11:43] PatHayes: It helps to have a respected local contact who has been involved, even if only 
	peripherally.    (3FWB)
	[11:44] PatHayes: We Brits have very tight underwear.    (3FWC)
	[11:45] FabianNeuhaus: :-) The Brits pay their people to participate in standards, that's why they 
	are selective    (3FWD)
	[11:45] HaroldBoley: I guess a person from country c would need to be in good contact with c's national 
	standards body (and willing to work with it).    (3FWE)
	[11:45] PatHayes: It also help us in our own discussions, to avoid going in circles.    (3FWF)
	[11:45] SimonSpero: Fabian: not BSI Editors (at least not last year)    (3FWG)
	[11:46] FabianNeuhaus: @Simon oh, it seems that I misremembered ... maybe it was a different country ...    (3FWH)
	[11:47] PeterYim: great session!    (3FWI)
	[11:47] AlexShkotin: :-)    (3FWJ)
	[11:47] DavidWhitten: Thanks. Great session!    (3FWK)
	[11:47] AlexShkotin: good bye    (3FWL)
	[11:47] FrankOlken: bye    (3FWM)
	[11:47] PatHayes: bye    (3FWN)
	[11:47] ChrisMenzel: *wave*    (3FWO)
	[11:48] SimonSpero: Bye (also, KIF v.3 spec is protecting my lap from my laptop) Who said it was useless?    (3FWP)
	[11:48] ChristophLange: thanks, bye!    (3FWQ)
	[11:47] PeterYim: -- session ended: 11:47am PDT --    (3FWR)
   -- end of in-session chat-transcript --    (3FJD)

Summary:    (3FWW)

by: MichaelGruninger [ ref. ]    (3FXH)

The following is the list of issues that were discussed in the 20-September-2012 meeting: "Revision of the Common Logic Standard ISO 24707".    (3FWX)

These issues will constitute the scope of the Revision that will be proposed at the SC32 meeting in Krakow during the week of October 15-19, 2012.    (3FWY)

Issues:    (3FWZ)

The following were considered to be Optional at this time:    (3FXB)

The following will be included as an Optional item, and we will discuss with ISO concerning the viability of starting a new project:    (3FXF)

Further Question & Remarks    (3FJE)

Additional Resources:    (3FJL)

For the record ...    (3FJQ)

How To Join (while the session is in progress)    (3FJR)