See also: IRC log
<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
<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
+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
+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
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ 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]