ISO 15926 as OWL May 7th 2012
Time: 2012-12-05, 09.00AM-11.00AM (CEST)
Venue: Physical meeting and web conference
Chair: Lillian Hella
Minutes: Lillian Hella
Present: Alan Doniger (web), David Leal (web), Magne Valen-Sendstad (web), Onno Paap (web), Martin Giese (phone), Hans Teijgeler, Arild Waaler, Johan W. Klüwer, Victor Agroskin, Kari Anne Haaland Thorsen, Ian Glendinning, Lillian Hella, Devesh Sachar (web), Keith Willshaw (web), Mikhail Fedorov (web), Rahul Patil (web), Rurik Greenall, Markus Stumptner, Darius Kanga, Gabriel Lopes, Geiza H. Da Silva, Glen Worrall, Thore Langeland, Alan Johnston, Frode Myren, Wenche Havn, Odd Vagle, Neil McPhater, Kurt Aadnøy, Nils-Petter Ottesen, Oskar Fredagsvik and Nils Sandsmark
- Short introduction of participants
- Available information sources
- Existing OWL DL versions available from PCA web
- The simplified representation in ISO 15926-8
- OWL 2 version for EPIM’s ReportingHub
- High level requirements and design choices
Minutes of Meetings
1. Short introduction of participants
Presentation of participants were given – name, company and relation to ISO 15926 for all.
2. Available information sources
- Existing OWL DL versions available from PCA web - https://www.posccaesar.org/wiki/ISO15926inOWL
- The simplified representation in ISO 15926-8 https://www.posccaesar.org/browser/PCAmembersArea/standards/15926/008%20TS%20publication
- OWL 2 version for EPIM’s ReportingHub (not available yet, but will be made available)
Other existing sources of information where not suggested during the meeting, but can be considered later if others need to be added. The way of working will influence the relevance of information sources.
3. High level requirements and design choices
See project description for more details: https://www.posccaesar.org/svn/pub/ISO15926asOWL/20110923_ISO15926_OWL2_Native_V2.pdf
Other requirements and design choices can be added later, but this is the starting point. Additional sources were not suggested during the meeting.
Several topics were up for discussion and some clarifications were made. Topics discussed can be covered in more detail in future meetings;
- How to deal with informal objectives (e.g. that it should look simple and easy to work with) in addition to the formal ones? Can they be combined? We need to be able to describe complex relations, which does not conflict with existing part 7-9
- ISO15926-2 and description logics are highlighted as necessary for tool support and need to be a baseline for the work.
- Should alignment/mapping to other upper ontologies be part of the project? DOLCE was mentioned as one basic formal ontology, and is an upper ontology that is acknowledged in the RDF community and could therefore be used as an ontological basis. Are there others that should be considered too?
- Scope needs to be clarified – what is in and what is not to be included?
- Focus on representations of Part 2, and content according to Part 2. native real semantics so that it fits at the OWL level
- Part 8 covers the separation of taxonomy and dictionary
Action 12.01: Send comments or other feedback in two weeks, i.e. before May 21 (All)
Action 12.02: Call next meeting in June (Lillian)