RulesReasoningLP: Mini-series Launch Event - Thu 2013-10-24    (3ZH9)

Program: Ontology, Rules, and Logic Programming for Reasoning and Applications (RulesReasoningLP) mini-series of virtual panel sessions    (41EX)

Topic: RulesReasoningLP: Mini-series Launch Event - Survey and Introduction    (3ZHB)

Session Co-chairs: Dr. LeoObrst (Ontolog; MITRE) & Dr. BenjaminGrosof (Coherent Knowledge Systems) ... intro slides    (3ZHA)

Archives:    (3ZR0)

Conference Call Details:    (3ZHE)

Attendees:    (3ZIB)

Abstract    (3ZR9)

RulesReasoningLP: Mini-series Launch Event - Survey and Introduction ... intro slides    (3ZRA)

This is the first session of the RulesReasoningLP mini-series. This will be a series of virtual panel sessions, and the associated online discourse, co-championed by some members of the Ontolog community who value the importance of the subject matter and would want to bring together those who are knowledgeable or interested into a dialog. The mini-series program will cover the topics that encapsulates the ontology-driven applications that will generally fall under "Ontology, Rules, and Logic Programming for Reasoning and Applications."    (3ZRB)

The RulesReasoningLP mini-series program has come together through two open community brainstorm sessions, held on 2013.07.25 (covering mainly program content) and 2013.09.12 (covering mainly the organization and scheduling).    (3ZRC)

Joining us at our Launch Event today, are a number of community and technology leaders. They, along with our mini-series co-champions, will be delivering a range of opening remarks, right after our co-chairs' overview of the mini-series program. These remarks will, collectively provide diverse perspectives on why the theme chosen for this mini-series is important, and what we should try to achieve.    (3ZRD)

After the opening remarks, our co-chairs, Dr. LeoObrst and Dr. BenjaminGrosof, will provide a survey of the subject matter and the scope of this mini-series. They will each take on some aspects outlined, and provide an introduction on key concepts and technologies involved, to prepare the participants for the exciting program content that will be rolled-out in the ensuing mini-series sessions.    (3ZRE)

See developing details at: RulesReasoningLP (homepage for this mini-series)    (3ZRF)

Agenda    (3ZIM)

RulesReasoningLP: Mini-series Launch Event - Survey and Introduction    (3ZQI)

Session Format: this is a virtual session conducted over an augmented conference call    (3ZQJ)

Proceedings    (3ZIN)

Please refer to the above    (3ZRG)

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

 see raw transcript here.    (3ZRI)
 (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.    (3ZRJ)
 -- begin in-session chat-transcript --    (3ZRK)
	Chat transcript from room: ontolog_20131024
	2013-10-24 GMT-08:00 [PDT] 
	------    (3ZY8)
	[9:28] PeterYim: Welcome to the    (3ZY9)
	 = RulesReasoningLP: Mini-series Launch Event - Thu 2013-10-24 =    (3ZYA)
	Topic: RulesReasoningLP: Mini-series Launch Event - Survey and Introduction )    (3ZYB)
	Session Co-chairs: Dr. LeoObrst (Ontolog; MITRE) & Dr. BenjaminGrosof (Coherent Knowledge Systems)    (3ZYC)
	Opening Remarks by Community & Technology Leaders and the Mini-series Co-champions:    (3ZYD)
	* Professor MichaelGruninger (IAOA; U of Toronto)
	* Professor MichaelKifer (SUNY, Stony Brook)
	* Dr. LeoraMorgenstern (SAIC)
	* Dr. VinayChaudhri (SRI) 
	* Dr. HaroldBoley (RuleML; U of New Brunswick)
	* Dr. HensonGraves (Algos Associates; OMG)
	* Professor KenBaclawski (Northeastern U)
	* Dr. JohnSowa (VivoMind Research) 
	* Mr. MikeDean (Raytheon-BBN)
	* Mr. PeterYim (Ontolog; CIM3)    (3ZYE)
	Survey and Introduction to Key Concepts and the Technology Landscape    (3ZYF)
	* Dr. LeoObrst (MITRE; Ontolog) - "Survey: Logic, Logic Programming, Ontology, Rules" 
	* Dr. BenjaminGrosof (Benjamin Grosof & Associates) - "Survey of Knowledge Representations for Rules and Ontologies"    (3ZYG)
	Please refer to details on the session page at:    (3ZYH)
	Attendees: AdrianGiurca, AlessandroProvetti, AlexMirzaoff, AlexShkotin, AliHashemi, AmandaVizedom, 
	BenjaminGrosof, BethHuffer, BrandonWhitehead, BrianHaugh, ChristopherSpottiswoode, DennisPierson, 
	ElieAbiLahoud, FrancescaQuattri, FrancescaQuattri, FrankChum, FrankOlken, GaryGannon, GenZou, 
	HamizahHamka, HaroldBoley, HassanAitKaci, HensonGraves, JoelBender, JulienCorman, KarlHebenstreit, 
	KenBaclawski, LeoObrst, LeoObrst, LeoraMorgenstern, MichaelBarnett, MichaelGruninger, MichaelRiben, 
	MikeDean, NaicongLi, Oscar Hdez?, PaulFodor, PavithraKenjige, PeterYim, RichardMartin, SimonSpero, 
	SnezanaNikolic, TaraAthan, ToddPehle, ToddSchneider, TonyWeida, VinayChaudhri, WeihongSong, anonymous, ...    (3ZYI)
	 == proceedings: ==    (3ZYJ)
	[9:26] anonymous morphed into BrandonWhitehead    (3ZYK)
	[9:29] anonymous morphed into WeihongSong    (3ZYL)
	[9:31] AmandaVizedom: Logistics note, confirming what Peter mentioned last week: you can skype-call 
	to "joinconference" even if it shows as "offline". I've just gotten on the call that way. Right 
	click on contact, choose "Call" then choose "Skype call."    (3ZYM)
	[9:35] AliHashemi: joinconference is not online but invisible?    (3ZYN)
	[9:36] SimonSpero: joinconference is hiding but working    (3ZYO)
	[9:36] AmandaVizedom: Ali, can you see my 12:31 comments above?    (3ZYP)
	[9:40] AliHashemi: Just saw them, thanks.    (3ZYQ)
	[9:31] anonymous morphed into ChristopherSpottiswoode    (3ZYR)
	[9:32] anonymous1 morphed into AdrianGiurca    (3ZYS)
	[9:32] anonymous morphed into NaicongLi    (3ZYT)
	[9:32] anonymous1 morphed into HassanAitKaci    (3ZYU)
	[9:33] anonymous morphed into GaryGannon    (3ZYV)
	[9:35] anonymous2 morphed into LeoraMorgenstern    (3ZYW)
	[9:35] anonymous morphed into KarlHebenstreit    (3ZYX)
	[9:35] anonymous morphed into FrancescaQuattri    (3ZYY)
	[9:37] anonymous morphed into DennisPierson    (3ZYZ)
	[9:38] anonymous morphed into JulienCorman    (3ZZ0)
	[9:40] anonymous2 morphed into MichaelRiben    (3ZZ1)
	[9:40] anonymous1 morphed into BrianHaugh    (3ZZ2)
	[9:40] anonymous2 morphed into GenZou    (3ZZ3)
	[9:41] anonymous1 morphed into PavithraKenjige    (3ZZ4)
	[9:41] PavithraKenjige: Mute using *6    (3ZZ5)
	[9:45] PeterYim: == LeoObrst and BenjaminGrosof starts the session - please open the slides at:    (3ZZ6)
	[9:45] anonymous1 morphed into BethHuffer    (3ZZ7)
	[9:46] HensonGraves: I cannot get to the web page any more under any browser    (3ZZ8)
	[9:49] PeterYim: @Henson - the wiki session page should be working properly (I just checked from my own browser)    (3ZZ9)
	[9:49] PeterYim: == Opening Remarks: see -    (3ZZA)
	[11:55] from BenjaminGrosof's notes ...    (3ZZB)
	notes on various opening remarks (2-min. each)    (3ZZC)
	Michael Gruninger
	- advocate of expressive, esp. FOL and CL
	- need good support for automated reasoning to be really useful
	- looking for guidance from reasoning community wrt tools for ontologies
	  to be evaluated and applied
	- looking for test cases from the ontology community
	- hope for insights on what is the appropriate ontology language to use
	  operationally for various applications, not just original development of
	  ontologies    (3ZZD)
	Leora Morgenstern
	- at Leidos, co. new name of split SAIC
	- working on DARPA seedling on how to go from regulatory text to executable
	  . looking at financial, incl. SEC, and other Patriot Act 
	- extract intermediate representations, incl. 
	  . as rich an ontology as one can get
	  . dependency graph among rules
	  . semantic parsing and assignment for roles incl. permission/obligation
	- an immediate issue is what representation to use
	  . RIF is clearly inadequate expressively
	  . exceptions are such a fundamental concept, incl. priorities
	    o need language like SILK -- ie Rulelog    (3ZZE)
	Michael Kifer
	- think the rules community has the best technology for KR, but somehow not
	  getting its due in the community
	- RIF - systemic problems due to the charter could not produce the dialect 
	  most useful for the rules community, had to focus on BLD which is basically
	  Datalog and not so useful
	- later tried to produce more expressive dialects, which use Well Founded
	  Semantics, but it's hard to get attention for this
	- now I and Benjamin are pushing Rulelog
	- would like people to pay more attention to standards, and produce right
	- not clear that W3C is the right venue for this, since not clear
	  they are interested in continuing the RIF effort
	- feel that the efforts overall are fractured, incl. there is an effort for 
	  Answer Set Programs but they don't seem interested in non-ASP, only ASP
	  . need to overcome this fragmentation    (3ZZF)
	Vinay Chaudhri
	- (see his slide)
	- separation between ontologies and rules is artificial
	- focus should be on decidable reasoning
	  . folks in rule languages community have not focused so much on this,
	    but rather on expressiveness
	  . in DB systems, the performance guarantees are crucial    (3ZZG)
	Harold Boley
	- (see his slides)    (3ZZH)
	Henson Graves
	- (see his slide)    (3ZZI)
	Ken Baclawski
	- (see his slide)    (3ZZJ)
	John Sowa
	- (see his slides, he mainly covered slide 2 verbally)
	- recorded (started about 10:14a PDT)
	- vagueness and uncertainty are important
	  . contrast that with very clean model-theoretic kinds of approaches    (3ZZK)
	Mike Dean
	- delighted to see this cooperation b/ ontology and rules community,
	  which have largely been disjoint despite many common goals    (3ZZL)
	Peter Yim
	- (see his slide)
	- feel this miniseries is a very important next step    (3ZZM)
	[9:53] anonymous1 morphed into FrancescaQuattri    (3ZZN)
	[9:53] PeterYim: @speakers - those who do not have slides for their opening remarks are encouraged 
	to capture their thoughts into this chat-room (or send me their slide(s) which I can add back to the archives)    (3ZZO)
	[9:56] PeterYim: @Leo, @Banjamin - (please remind the participants) we have 46 people on the 
	phone-bridge, but only 38 in the chat ... please join us in the chat-room if you aren't already ... 
	ref. details at top of session page    (3ZZP)
	[9:56] anonymous1 morphed into PaulFodor    (3ZZQ)
	[10:01] anonymous morphed into SnezanaNikolic    (3ZZR)
	[9:59] FrankOlken: LeoraMorgenstern, Contact me about an upcoming workshop in DC Nov. 14-15 on 
	information sharing for financial regulation. I think you would find it interesting.    (3ZZS)
	[10:02] List of members: AdrianGiurca, AlexShkotin, AliHashemi, AmandaVizedom, BenjaminGrosof, 
	BethHuffer, BrandonWhitehead, BrianHaugh, ChristopherSpottiswoode, DennisPierson, ElieAbiLahoud, 
	FrancescaQuattri, FrankOlken, GaryGannon, GenZou, HaroldBoley, HassanAitKaci, HensonGraves, 
	JulienCorman, KarlHebenstreit, KenBaclawski, LeoObrst, LeoObrst, LeoraMorgenstern, MichaelBarnett, 
	MichaelGruninger, MichaelRiben, MikeDean, NaicongLi, PaulFodor, PeterYim, RichardMartin, SimonSpero, 
	SnezanaNikolic, TaraAthan, ToddPehle, ToddSchneider, TonyWeida, WeihongSong    (3ZZT)
	[10:05] anonymous morphed into FrankChum    (3ZZU)
	[10:03] LeoraMorgenstern: @VinayChaudhri: The reason we need a rule language and not just 
	ontologies, is that ontologies aren't sufficiently expressive.    (3ZZV)
	[10:03] LeoraMorgenstern: We need rules with n-ary predicates, for examples.    (3ZZW)
	[10:03] LeoraMorgenstern: We need to represent exceptions and default reasoning.    (3ZZX)
	[10:04] AmandaVizedom: +1 to remarks about artificiality of separating "rules" from "ontology." IMHO 
	this creates artificial barriers and obstacles for projects using a representation that separates these.    (3ZZY)
	[10:04] LeoraMorgenstern: We can't do all that we need in an ontology.    (3ZZZ)
	[10:04] LeoraMorgenstern: However, an ontology is an important component in our system.    (4000)
	[10:04] SimonSpero: @LeoraMorgenstern: that's crazy talk. Next you'll want default reasoning or something :-P    (4001)
	[10:04] LeoraMorgenstern: @Simon, indeed I do want default reasoning. And yes, crazy talk is what I do.    (4002)
	[10:05] AmandaVizedom: @LeoraMorgenstern, I think the point is that there is no reason to think of 
	the rules as something apart from the ontology. That separation is what gives us insufficiently 
	expressive ontologies. But many ontologies/ representations include rules as an essential part of the ontology.    (4003)
	[10:05] FrankOlken: LeoraMorgenstern, I agree with the need for rules with n-ary predicates.    (4004)
	[10:07] LeoraMorgenstern: @Amanda, yes, some rules, but not all kinds of rules. Rules with n-ary 
	predicates? default rules?    (4005)
	[10:07] ToddSchneider: LeoraMorgenstern, Frank, The issue is the expressivity of representation 
	language. Some are less expressive than others.    (4006)
	[10:07] LeoObrst: The separation of ontology from rules is probably an artifact of semantic web 
	technologies, i.e., DL-based OWL. Other ontology languages make no such separation.    (4007)
	[10:07] LeoraMorgenstern: @Todd, frankly, we need more than FOL.    (4008)
	[10:08] AmandaVizedom: @LeoraMorgenstern, that will vary with expressiveness of language. And 
	different use cases will require different expressiveness.    (4009)
	[10:10] LeoraMorgenstern: @Amanda, certainly, if you expand your definition of ontology to include 
	rules with n-ary predicates, default rules, modal operators (deontic logic), etc, then sure. But 
	then we're just redefining the word, no?    (400A)
	[10:10] ToddSchneider: LeoraMorgenstern, for your problem space, probably. The question(s) that 
	should be asked is what problems are you trying to solve. This should then provide requirements for 
	the needed expressivity and the language needed (and any supplements).    (400B)
	[10:12] AmandaVizedom: @Todd, I think that's exactly right. What I took Vinay to be addressing is 
	this (relatively recent) phenomenon in which people discover that limited-expressiveness languages, 
	not supporting rules, are insufficient for their needs, and then create or adopt a *separate*, 
	added-on language for rules. It seems much more sensible instead to move to a higher-expressiveness, 
	rule-inclusive representation -- of which there are many, already developed and understood.    (400C)
	[10:14] AmandaVizedom: @LeoraMorgenstern, for many of us who have been working in ontologies for 
	many years, we are experiencing a redefinition in the other direction. This idea of ontologies as 
	not including rules is the new one, and when it first started popping up in literature/ conferences, 
	etc., it was quite puzzling.    (400D)
	[10:15] LeoraMorgenstern: @Amanda, I understand your point. But I think you can see where I'm coming 
	from. It's a complex domain, and we need a very expressive representation, and I don't know of any 
	ontology that gives what I need. If you can point one out, I'll be happy to look at it,.    (400E)
	[10:21] AmandaVizedom: @LeoraMorgenstern, I definitely get it. And I started my ontology career 
	working with Cyc / CycL, so was spoiled at the outset with respect to expressivity and the use of 
	rules within ontology. I hope that in the process of this miniseries, we see more richness of 
	options!    (400F)
	[10:15] BethHuffer: It might help if we are clear about the difference between the language, and the 
	model that is the basis for assigning meanings to terms in the language. If you think the "ontology" 
	doesn't include rules, that might be because you are thinking of the ontology as the model. But the 
	language can surely include terms and functions and operators as needed for describing the domain. 
	In that sense, there's no need to have separate languages for the "ontology" and the rules. I'm 
	putting "ontology" in quotes because we are pretty fast and loose in the semantic tech world about 
	what an ontology is.    (400G)
	[10:19] ToddSchneider: BethHuffer, an ontology is a model (of some sort).    (400H)
	[10:13] ToddSchneider: Amanda, the largest constraint (from a production viewpoint) is the viability 
	of the infrastructure to support the choice.    (400I)
	[10:16] AmandaVizedom: Todd, that's very true. The best-tooled, best-tested, higher-expressiveness 
	systems are also mostly proprietary. Currently, most(?) or at least many projects require or prefer 
	an open standard representation langugage, and we lag badly in the support for the 
	higher-expressiveness options there.    (400J)
	[10:20] ToddSchneider: Amanda, Yes. Any large customer usually prefers or requires products that 
	comply with [open] standards.    (400K)
	[10:13] SimonSpero: Anyone here who knows anything about Typed Feature Structures and unification? 
	:-P    (400L)
	[10:16] anonymous morphed into HamizahHamka    (400M)
	[10:18] FrancescaQuattri: @Harold. I am looking at your slides (no. 5). A question about the concept 
	of "reaction rules". Did I get it right when you suggested that we could reuse the same ontological 
	rules from an ontology to another in no random order, but according to the subsumed examples that 
	you proposed? e.g. spatio ontology subsumes to temporal ontology, action ont. to event ont. etc.? 
	Thank you for the explanation.    (400N)
	[10:41] HaroldBoley: @Francesca, the "Reaction Rules" slide gives the big picture of Reaction 
	RuleML. In the third row, spatio and temporal ontologies are often used together, as are action and 
	event ontologies. But generally, (Reaction) RuleML provides a 'pluggable' architecture where you can 
	modularly combine various ontologies. We are currently re-specifying Reaction RuleML 1.0 from XSD in 
	Relax NG. This would allow MYNG-style customization of Reaction RuleML as we already do for 
	Deliberation RuleML:    (400O)
	[11:03] FrancescaQuattri: @Harold: Among the good things that are in the wiki (shared link) is the 
	fact that it contains examples (ref. "Example Instance Files for RuleML 1.0"). It helps to frame the 
	final intent into real world applications.    (400P)
	[10:21] PeterYim: == LeoObrst presenting: "Survey: Logic, Logic Programming, Ontology, Rules"    (400Q)
	[10:24] SimonSpero: Program = algorithm + data . Algorithm = logic + control 
	. Program = logic + control + data . Ontology = program - control?    (400R)
	[10:31] FrancescaQuattri: got the def. of reaction rules. thank you Leo    (400S)
	[10:34] SimonSpero: Prolog is a high level WAM assembler language    (400T)
	[11:24] SimonSpero: WAM - A tutorial reconstruction -    (400U)
	[10:38] BenjaminGrosof: What Leo is referring to with LP is often the LP family of KRs, incl. 
	extensions for skolemization, defeasibility, Rulelog, etc.    (400V)
	[11:55] from BenjaminGrosof's notes ...    (400W)
	notes on survey by Leo (see his slide deck)    (400X)
	(Benjamin's note to self:  
	   nice/cute ex. of semantics of material implication and contraposition:  
	"if pigs can fly ..."" on slide 7)    (400Y)
	[10:42] anonymous morphed into Oscar    (400Z)
	[10:47] PeterYim: == BenjaminGrosof presenting: ""Survey of Knowledge Representations for Rules and Ontologies "    (4010)
	[10:55] AmandaVizedom: Regarding @BenjaminGrosof's slide 3 point 3: Agreed, but a notable point: 
	anyone who takes even an Introduction to "Symbolic Logic" or "Formal Logic" course (usually taught 
	in a Philosophy or Mathematics department, but often taken much more broadly) in college *does* 
	learn the rules and key ingredients here. Test: if your Intro to Logic class had variables and 
	Quantifiers, you learned this. :-)    (4011)
	[10:56] SimonSpero: Imperial College still has mandatory Prolog (sequenced after the first Logic course)    (4012)
	[10:56] HamizahHamka: Apologize team of experts. Need to leave too soon for its too late here. Hope 
	to participate in future event. Have a fruitful discussion.    (4013)
	[10:58] PeterYim: @HamizahHamka - thank you for participating ... all the way from Malaysia    (4014)
	[10:57] AmandaVizedom: +1 Slide 4: viewing as "rules" or "ontological statements" is largely a 
	matter of *view* and *use*. In fact, expressive KRs include "syntactic sugar" to allow moving 
	between the views for many kinds of information.    (4015)
	[11:00] AmandaVizedom: Big point in support of the "rules" & "ontological knowledge" overlap: The 
	fundamental ontological relationship of "subclass" or "subtype" is a (usually hard-coded) expression 
	of a rule pattern: "A is a subclass of B" means: "If x is an instance of A then x is also an 
	instance of B." It's that fundamental.    (4016)
	[11:00] anonymous morphed into AlessandroProvetti    (4017)
	[11:06] SimonSpero: I'm not sure that the OWL choice of OWA (with no Clark completion) keeps it in 
	the mainstream of LP?    (4018)
	[11:08] SimonSpero: ( )    (4019)
	[11:55] from BenjaminGrosof's notes ...    (401A)
	notes on survey by Benjamin (see his slide deck)    (401B)
	Cyc is much closer to Rulelog (vs. to FOL or to LP)    (401C)
	[11:12] HassanAitKaci: Before Hilog: lambda-Prolog, and its later incarnation Teyjus ( )    (401D)
	[11:21] HaroldBoley: Dale Miller's et al.'s lambda-Prolog actually covers a (second-order) fragment 
	of higher-order logics, not just higher-order syntax:    (401E)
	[11:17] PeterYim: == Q&A and open discussion ... please raise your hand, get called upon by the 
	chair, test your voice, before making your remark    (401F)
	[11:19] HassanAitKaci: [regarding how to be heard on the voice bridge, to make a remark] I'm on 
	Skype and unmuted ... I don't understand ... [ppy: you will press "*7" on the skype "dialpad" to 
	un-mute (it maybe hidden under the "Call" dropdown menu) ... after speaking, press "*6" to go back 
	mute again.]    (401G)
	[11:55] from BenjaminGrosof's notes ...    (401H)
	notes on remarks from HassanAitKaci    (401I)
	Hassan:  presentations very good, but bit biased in that ignored some 
	important relevant work
	- in particular:  lambda calculus, where a function is described as a rule
	- that was the basis for the first work on higher-order programming
	  . Gérard Huet. Résolution d'équations dans les langages d'ordre 1,2,…,ω. Thèse de doctorat d'état, Université Paris 7, 1976
	  . Dale Miller and Gopalan Nadathur on lambda-Prolog
	  . system work at U Minn by Gopalan Nadathur -- see that for references
	- key to cover in miniseries:  operational, implementation, 
	  pragmatically how run, how efficient
	  . Prolog via WAM
	  . lambda-calculus also implemented via an abstract-machine mechanism
	- work on constraint logic programming
	  . gives Prolog technology much bigger power, opens the LP paradigm to anything
	    that one can represent as a constraint solving process, incl. 
	    probabilistic or fuzzy or whatever
	- there's a new generation that's not very educated in logic programming
	  in general
	  . we need to make it learnable without undue effort    (401J)
	Benjamin in response to Hassan:  agree
	- also very important is modern LP implementationally are tabling techniques,
	  a kind of caching of work on subgoals and their results    (401K)
	[11:39] HassanAitKaci:    (401L)
	[11:17] HaroldBoley: You can practically explore higher-order Hornlog syntax as developed for Hilog 
	( ) and Relfun ( ) using the online Relfun interpreter:    (401M)
	[11:25] AlexMirzaoff: Can either of the presenters comment on the application of tmeporal 
	descriptors as terms? in logic programs?    (401N)
	[11:25] LeoObrst: As mentioned by Hassan, efficiency is important, and such an area as knowledge 
	compilation addresses how to "compile" very expressive knowledge into more efficient runtime 
	representation.    (401O)
	[11:28] SimonSpero: "With imperative programming, you have to tell the computer how to do what you 
	want. With declarative programming, you have to trick the computer in to doing what you want."    (401P)
	[11:55] from BenjaminGrosof's notes ...    (401Q)
	notes on verbal Q from PeterYim  wrt LeoObrst's presentation, slide 26    (401R)
	Q. Peter asked what Leo meant when he said things like substructural logics and
	probabilistic logics would not be include - whether he meant these are not in scope 
	in this mini-series    (401S)
	A. Leo responded that he just meant that these things will not be included in this 
	particular presentation (and slide deck)    (401T)
	[11:28] JoelBender: Is there a description of RuleML and its component "ontologies" that describes 
	it concepts in a way that is similar to FOAF or RDFS?    (401U)
	[11:55] from BenjaminGrosof's notes ...    (401V)
	notes on JoelBender's verbal Q about description of RuleML <--> RDF ontologies as in foaf or whatever
	Answer by Harold and Benjamin:    (401W)
	- there are relationships in terms of data models, 
	  . Harold will post some links to chat; also it's important    (401X)
	  - it's also important to understand at logical/semantic level, incl. what's
	  essential in syntax    (401Y)
	[11:33] HaroldBoley: Data models of XML (positional) and RDF (slotted) can be reconciled:    (401Z)
	[11:37] HaroldBoley: RuleML uses XML in the object-oriented manner enabled by this reconciliation: 
	Distinction of capitalized Nodes ('types') and lower-cased edge ('role') XML elmenets.    (4020)
	[11:42] HaroldBoley: The RuleML Normalizer RON can automatically generate object-oriented stripes/slots:    (4021)
	[11:29] AmandaVizedom: [ref. PeterYim's request to participants to morphed into their real names for 
	attribution purposes] [I just briefly mis-heard "attribution" as "retribution" :-\!]    (4022)
	[11:33] PeterYim: @Amanda - very funny! :)    (4023)
	[11:34] AmandaVizedom: @Peter :-)    (4024)
	[11:30] AlexMirzaoff: Can either of the presenters comment on the application of tmeporal 
	descriptors as terms? in logic programs? dynamic ontologies?    (4025)
	[11:55] from BenjaminGrosof's notes ...    (4026)
	notes on AlexMirzaoff's verba  Q about how things change in time    (4027)
	- A by Leo:  can use ontology of time or temporal logic    (4028)
	- A by Benjamin:  temporal reasoning is representable within expressive general
	  logics such as CL and Rulelog; 
	  . practically, defeasibility is often very important to do 
	    temporal reasoning efficiently and tersely, particularly 
	    to represent causality, 
	    incl. projection forward in time or backward in time 
	    (as in abduction and inductive learning)    (4029)
	[11:38] AmandaVizedom: Last year's "Best Paper Award" recipient at the the STIDS conference 
	presented a particular ontological representation of time that supported a variety of reasoning 
	approaches that have been often addressed in ways that have some built-in problems...    (402A)
	[11:41] AmandaVizedom: @AlexMirzaoff: see Shrag "Best-practice..." at    (402B)
	[11:40] AlexMirzaoff: thanks Amanda, I will check that reference    (402C)
	[11:39] PeterYim: great kick-off, Leo & Benjamin!    (402D)
	[11:39] PeterYim: join us again next week 2013_10_31 - Thursday: RulesReasoningLP mini-series 
	session-02: Concepts and Foundations of Rules and Ontologies: Logic Programs, Classical Logic, and 
	Semantic Web - I - Co-chairs: LeoObrst & HaroldBoley - watch out for announcement on the mailing 
	list and the developing session page at:    (402E)
	[11:39] FrancescaQuattri: Thank you All!    (402F)
	[11:39] AlexShkotin: Good bye    (402G)
	[11:39] LeoObrst: Thanks, all!    (402H)
	[11:40] SimonSpero: Good session.    (402I)
	[11:42] AlexMirzaoff: Amanda - got it thanks    (402J)
	[11:45] AmandaVizedom: yw!    (402K)
	[11:46] AmandaVizedom: Thanks all for this kick-off. Looking forward to the mini-series, and glad 
	these matters are getting some deserved and needed attention.    (402L)
	[11:40] PeterYim: -- session ended: 11:30am PDT --    (402M)
 -- end of in-session chat-transcript --    (3ZRL)

Additional Resources:    (3ZRQ)

For the record ...    (3ZRX)

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