[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Minutes: XDI TC Telecon Thursday 1-2PM PT 2010-04-22
Following are the minutes of the unofficial telecon of the XDI TC at: Date: Thursday, 22 April 2010 USA Time: 1:00PM - 2:00PM Pacific Time (21:00-22:00 UTC) ATTENDING Bill Barnhill Giovanni Bartolomeo Markus Sabadello Drummond Reed John Bradley GUESTS Joe Boyle AGENDA 1) X3J (X3 FOR JSON) SERIALIZATION FORMAT PROGRESS http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xdi/201002/msg00027.html Bill reported that, although he hasn’t had much time, he has checked into it, and he’s writing a new version from the ground up. 2) PDX PROJECT Drummond explained that the project he referred to several calls ago now has the working acronym PDX (Personal Data Exchange), and involves six different companies that want to build a network of personal data stores (PDS) interlinked using XDI. Drummond, Markus, and guest Joseph Boyle have been working on a sample PDX XDI document, a working draft of which is available at: http://whisperproject.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=PDS_XDI_Document There is an initial meeting of the PDX founders next week after the Kynetx Impact Conference (which is why Drummond can’t attend next week’s telecon). Drummond will give an update on the call the week after next. 3) $HAS AND $HAS$A We continued discussion of this thread: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xdi/201004/msg00021.html First, there was complete consensus that we want to have solid consistent semantic model that is described by a Description Logic. So the issue under discussion is simply what the semantics are of the proposed $has and $has$a statements (see the email thread linked above). Drummond explained that his conclusion was summarized by saying that: +a/$has/+b <=> +a/+b +a/$has$a/+b <=> +a+b +a/$has/+b != +a/$has$a/+b +a/+b != +a+b Giovanni asked if what Drummond meant is that not every +a/+b gives origin to +a+b. Drummond said yes, that was what he meant. Giovanni asked if the viceversa held, i.e. if I have +a+b, does this imply +a/+b? Drummond was not sure about that yet - he needed to think about it. Giovanni said his understanding that +a+b is representing the set of all objects whose subject is +a and predicate is +b. Drummond said that to be more precise, +a/+b identifies the members of the set of all objects that are objects of the predicate +b on the subject +a. Giovanni asked, "But what if I need to use it as a subject in a statement?" Drummond said that is a really good point. If you want to identify that set as a subject, he agrees with Giovanni that +a+b as the identifier of that set. To quote Giovanni, "That's why I believe that +a+b is representing the set of all objects whose subject is +a and predicate is +b." Bill then wrote the following: +a/+b = set of all object values for that s, p +a+b is set of all properties of the subclass of property +b constrained to have a domain +a. One property of this subclass is the statements in which that property is used, which is related to +a/+b. Drummond put it this way: +a/+b identifies the members of the set +a+b, and +a+b identifies the set whose members fulfill +a/+b. Drummond concluded that +a/+b and +a+b are linked in that way, but the reason they are not "resolution equivalent" in the graph is that the graph can contain +a/+b, but contain no assertions about the set +a+b, and vice versa: the graph can contain assertions about the set +a+b, but not contain any instances identified by +a/+b. Giovanni then said (exact quote from IM): "Finally!!! you got it Drummond!!!" Giovanni suggested that this agreement is an important milestone for XDI. Drummond agreed and pointed out the great irony that the semantics of $has and $has$a are now the exact opposite of what they have been for the past year (as recorded in our wiki spec at http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xdi/XdiOne/RdfGraphModel). Drummond acknowledged the great service Giovanni had done in alerting the TC to this flaw in the semantics and persisting until we unearthed the solution. Drummond suggested we should update the wiki spec quickly with this new consensus so that it remains an accurate reflection of what we plan to put in the 1.0 spec. ********* We next discussed Bill's suggestion in email of a $ask predicate that would be like $get except it would explicitly ask the XDI endpoint to do semantic reasoning over the target XDI graph. In other words, it would retreive a statement from a graph that is not strictly resolveable but is inferred. Giovanni supplied the following example: ASSERTED STATEMENTS: =example+mail $1 "example@example.com" INFERRED STATEMENTS =example +mail "example@example.com" Markus says he'd like to have reasoning capability of an XDI endpoint be a capabilty that could be turned on and turned off. There was consensus that having XDI endpoints be able to self-describe their capabilities. Bill suggested that we may want to require a certain very basic reasoning capability for all XDI endpoints, and then have higher levels that could represent different powers of Description Logics. Drummond agreed because he had been assuming that all XDI endpoints would be able to calculate (infer) $has and $has$a statements - this would be a good capability to have in the core. Joseph asked if Bill had some references he could share for learning about the levels of reasoning supported in other knowledge representation systems, and that could help compare to what we have or want for specifying XDI reasoning capabilities. Bill said he had been giving training on that topic recently and would send a set of links to the list. # BILL to send links on semantic reasoning and DLs to the list. 4) NEXT CALL There will NOT be a telecon next week due to the PDX founders meeting Drummond will be attending. The next call will be in two weeks at the regular time.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]