20 Jul 2010


See also: IRC log


michael_, +44.190.827.aaaa, Arthur, Andriy, Payam, laurent_lefort_cs, +1.301.358.aabb, krzysztof_j, krp
Simon, David


<laurent_lefort_cs> Previous: 2010-07-14 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-ssn/2010Jul/0016.html

<laurent_lefort_cs> scribenick: Andriy

<krzysztof_j> yes

Foundational layer (Krzysztof)

<krzysztof_j> (jano)

Jano: Alignment with DOLCE: whether we need it

<krzysztof_j> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Foundational_layer

<laurent_lefort_cs> Wiki page: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Foundational_layer

Jano: there is some confusion in the terminology

<laurent_lefort_cs> Jano recapping what happens previously

<laurent_lefort_cs> ... Why we need a top level (claims!):

<laurent_lefort_cs> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/File:Intendedmodel_small.png

Jano: claim 1: restricting potential interpretations

<laurent_lefort_cs> Jano: Intended model = what you like to capture

<laurent_lefort_cs> ... The ontology can only approximate the intended model

<laurent_lefort_cs> ... and should be larger

Jano: Example: sensor having a manufacturer -> assumes that sensor are created by manufacturers
... ... not covering humans as sensors
... cannot have optional ontological commitment

<michael_> clear to me

<krzysztof_j> questions?

Jano: proposal: integrate observations ontology with DOLCE
... otherwise: cannot check whether some interpretations are different from each other

Laurent: 3 types of users:

<laurent_lefort_cs> 3 types of users:

<laurent_lefort_cs> ... ontologists which agrees with our alignement

<laurent_lefort_cs> ... ontologists which disagrees with our alignement

<laurent_lefort_cs> ... non-ontologists

<krzysztof_j> +q

Laurent: Non-ontologists: domain specialists who we are trying to persuade to use ontologies

<Payam> +q

Laurent: Are we focusing on "non-ontologists" or not?

<Bermudez_Luis> +q

Jano: alignment with DOLCE gives the tool to understant basic modelling principles

<laurent_lefort_cs> Jano: even non-ontologist can benefit from the alignment

<krzysztof_j> DOLCE is

<krzysztof_j> yes we can

<laurent_lefort_cs> Payam: is DOLCE used in linked data context?

<michael_> +q

<krp> +q

Jano: hard to say which ontologies will be used in the end but the work is on-going

<krzysztof_j> ack, thanks

Michael: cannot restrict the model entirely, even with alignment

<krzysztof_j> we dont fix it we restrict it

<laurent_lefort_cs> michael: adding an alignmemnt make it more difficult for the users because of the tools limitations

<Payam> this is an important issue; it could limit usability of our ontology

<laurent_lefort_cs> michael: non ontologists may not see the upper ontology anyway

<krzysztof_j> +q

<krzysztof_j> (good paper "Linked Data is Merely More Data" knoesis.wright.edu/library/publications/linkedai2010_submission_13.pdf)

<laurent_lefort_cs> Kevin: I dont think non-ontologist will be helped by the alignment

<krp> yeah, I don't think it will *directly* help the non-ontologist... it only helps indirectly by ensuring clarity and rigour from us

<michael_> +q

Jano: even restricting to the level of foundational concepts is already useful
... DOLCE comes in different versions, there are lots of examples

DOLCE ultra-light can be usable by "non-ontologists"

<Payam> +q

<michael_> +q

<krzysztof_j> (can we vote about 1 vs 2)

Payam: 2 versions: ssn-full vs ssn-light

<krzysztof_j> +q

Payam: ssn-full with DOLCE and ssn-light w/o

<michael_> great!

<Payam> +q

Payam: DOLCE ultra-light conceptual level not very extensive

<krzysztof_j> +q

<michael_> +q

Laurent: when we are bringing new users, they are usually concerned with only a part of the ontology

<krzysztof_j> ok, i prefer version 1, if everybody prefers option2 this is still fine. please let us just decide on it.

<michael_> +q

<krzysztof_j> +q

<krzysztof_j> (sorry)

<laurent_lefort_cs> Vote 1st pass: do we want to align +1 = yes -1 = no

<laurent_lefort_cs> +1

<krzysztof_j> +1

<michael_> +1

<Bermudez_Luis> +1

<krp> +1

<Payam> +1


<Arthur> +1

<krzysztof_j> 2nd option: have a fixed alignment DUL + Our-Sensor-Top + our Sensor-Device

<krzysztof_j> 3nd option: have a fixed alignment DUL + Our-Sensor-Top and an *optional* alignment between Our-Sensor-Top + Sensor-Device

<krzysztof_j> (3rd)

<krzysztof_j> lol

<laurent_lefort_cs> Vote for all-fixed-align +1 optionally-align -1

<laurent_lefort_cs> -1

<krzysztof_j> ?

<Bermudez_Luis> +q

<krzysztof_j> +1

<laurent_lefort_cs> Clarification 2nd option = +1 and 3rd option = -1

<krzysztof_j> +q

<krp> Is there any reason we can't look at the proposed alignment, then decide if it's "optional"?

<Bermudez_Luis> My call got disconnected

<michael_> +q

<krp> (I'm torn, on principal I see it's doesn't entirely make sense for optional, but that's hard to judge without studying the implications)

Michael: sensor-top and sensor-device are overlapped

<krzysztof_j> We would use GCI between them

<michael_> +q

<krzysztof_j> GCI

<Payam> +q

<Bermudez_Luis> I cannot get to the call.. so my vote .. [DUL + Sensor Top] +1 and [Sensor Top + Sensor Device] +1

<michael_> +q

<krzysztof_j> luis: thanks, me too

<krzysztof_j> (but which one if the official)

michael: why not to have an aligned ontology + script to create a non-aligned one

<krzysztof_j> ok, i agree with that

<laurent_lefort_cs> michael: can we do the official one with the alignement and have a "simplification" script for the non-ontologists

<krzysztof_j> i agree with he simplification script if the default version if the fixed alignment version

<Payam> +q

<michael_> I'm satisfied and ready to vote

<krzysztof_j> me too

<michael_> Andriy, it was Michael, not Payam - no worries

<krzysztof_j> Payam:we have the alignment see:

<krzysztof_j> http://www.personal.psu.edu/kuj13/OuM/OuM.owl

<krzysztof_j> i would propose to got for michael's proposal

<krzysztof_j> +1

<krzysztof_j> (sorry)

<laurent_lefort_cs> Vote: alignment + method to simplify

<michael_> +1

<krzysztof_j> +1

<laurent_lefort_cs> +1

<Payam> +1


<krp> +1

<Arthur> +1

Laurent: we need to close as many parts of the ontology as possible and document them
... more examples are needed

<krzysztof_j> thanks!

<michael_> thanks, bye

<krp> thanks, bye

<Payam> thanks, bye

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2010/07/20 14:28:19 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/sesnsor/sensor/
Succeeded: s/Laureant/Laurent/
Succeeded: s/[ayam/Payam/
Succeeded: s/witht/with/
Succeeded: s/Payam: why not to have an aligned/michael: why not to have an aligned/
Succeeded: s/CGI/GCI/
Succeeded: s/thnaks/thanks/
Found ScribeNick: Andriy
Inferring Scribes: Andriy
Default Present: michael_, +44.190.827.aaaa, Arthur, Andriy, Payam, laurent_lefort_cs, +1.301.358.aabb, krzysztof_j, krp
Present: michael_ +44.190.827.aaaa Arthur Andriy Payam laurent_lefort_cs +1.301.358.aabb krzysztof_j krp
Regrets: Simon David
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-ssn/2010Jul/0018.html
Got date from IRC log name: 20 Jul 2010
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/07/20-ssn-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]