Re: [regrep-semantic] Reg/Rep + Reasoning Use Cases

[Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>]

ewallace@cme.nist.gov wrote:

>Farrukh wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I found the document very well thought out and a very good articulation 
>>of the alternative design approaches for supporting reasoning in the 
>>context of our SCM work.
>>    
>>
>
>Will there be any minutes from today's telecon?  Were any decisions taken?
>  
>
There will be minutes (my AI). No decisions were taken though I am under 
the impression that
in previous meeting that I missed and whose minutes will be posted 
(Carl's AI) the team was leaning
toward options 3 in Jeff's document.

>  
>
>>Lastly, I think we should include in our planned deliverables a concrete 
>>binding between OWL and RIM and leave other Ontology languages
>>to be defined elsewhere. I think even in the loosely coupled approach we 
>>need to make sure that OWL support is explicitly defined.
>>    
>>
>
>This implies to me that you chose alternative 3.?
>  
>
Leaning toward is how I would characterize my sense of where we are.

PS: It was a good discussion. We missed you today Evan. Thanks for 
sending regrets in advance. Other team members please do same. Thanks.

-- 
Regards,
Farrukh