ppy/OntoIOp-confcall-n54_chat-transcript_20140312b.txt ------ Chat transcript from room: ontoiop_20140312 2014-03-12 GMT-08:00 [PDT] ------ [9:02] PeterYim: . = OntoIOp team-confcall (n.54) - Wed 2014.03.12 = * 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 AGENDA - ref. http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontoiop-forum/2014-03/msg00000.html * 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 Remarks: * the session may be recorded for archival purposes. Unless otherwise documented, participants agrees to this by virtue of their participation at the session. * In case we have to mute everyone (due to extraneous noise or echo) - Mute control: *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute 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) Attendees: ChristophLange, FabianNeuhaus, MariaKeet, MichaelGruninger, OliverKutz, PeterYim (scribe), TaraAthan, TerryLongstreth (last few minites), TillMossakowski (intermittently), ZhimingLiu. == Proceedings: == [9:01] FabianNeuhaus: hi maria [9:01] FabianNeuhaus: are you on the phone? Because I don't hear anybody [9:08] PeterYim: == Meeting started (as suggested by FabianNeuhaus) ... [9:08] PeterYim: Till is not on the call yet [9:08] anonymous morphed into TillMossakowski [9:09] TillMossakowski: had some problems with finding the dial pad... [9:11] PeterYim: @Till ... do the remarks above help? (right above "Proceedings") [9:12] List of attendees: ChristophLange, FabianNeuhaus, MariaKeet, MichaelGruninger, OliverKutz, PeterYim, TaraAthan, TillMossakowski, TillMossakowski1, ZhimingLiu, anonymous [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. [9:18] TillMossakowski: yes, they helped. But sorry, my internet connection is very weak - will keep trying to join the call. Please go ahead. [9:26] ChristophLange: recapping what we had before (in the ISO OntoIOp WD) ... ISO version of conformance of a language: language is conformant if either ... [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. [9:27] ChristophLange: ^ EITHER a) b) ... e) OR there exists a translation of it into a conformant language [9:29] PeterYim: TaraAthan: if it is a either..or, then Sec 2.1 items 1 thru 5 may need to be worded differently [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. [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? [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") [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. [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? [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)? [9:36] TaraAthan: 4.7 p17 definition of serialization [9:42] ChristophLange: I didn't get this question "do you have an example where this would be needed?", what do you mean? [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 [9:45] FabianNeuhaus: Proposal: Review in next meeting section 4. Terms and Definitions [9:47] TaraAthan: p. 18 there are two definitions of institution. I believe the first one should be the definition of institute. [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). [9:50] FabianNeuhaus: 2.1.1 Do we really require EBNF or SMOF for all OMS languages? [9:50] ChristophLange: @FabianNeuhaus: ^ 2.1 item 1 (not to be confused with _section_ 2.1.1) [9:51] FabianNeuhaus: 2.1.3 Potential confusions between DOL serialization and OMS serialization here? [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. [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 [9:52] FabianNeuhaus: Shall we remove 2.1.3? [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. [9:54] ChristophLange: Only section 2.4 refers to the possibility of more than one serialization for the DOL meta-language [9:54] PeterYim: Till joins on the voice line (finally! ~4 minutes ago) [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. [9:57] ChristophLange: @MichaelGruninger: Sure, we could agree on this, and then drop section 2.4 [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 [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. [10:04] MichaelGruninger: Sorry, I need to leave now ... [10:08] FabianNeuhaus: Christoph: suggestion to remove 2.1.4 and parts of 2.1.3 as a reference to section 2.2 [10:09] ChristophLange: @FabianNeuhaus; ... and to revise section 2.2 (or to raise questions when it's not clear how to revise it) [10:09] PeterYim: TerryLongstreth joins [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 [10:13] TerryLongstreth: I can't be there at that time (an hour earlier is better for me) [10:13] PeterYim: -- session ended: 6:11pm CET -- ------