[ontoiop-forum] ontoiop_20141103: Chat Transcript

[Till Mossakowski]

*Chat transcript from room: ontoiop_20141103*
*2014-11-03 GMT-08:00*
*[07:43] *anonymous morphed into Rokan
*[08:00] **FabianNeuhaus: *Is there a different phone call going on?
*[08:01] *anonymous morphed into Yazmin Ibanez
*[08:01] *anonymous morphed into ConradBock
*[08:01] **MihaiCodescu: *Yes, it seems so
*[08:03] **TillMossakowski: *we need to set up a separate Skype call
*[08:03] **FabianNeuhaus: *What happens now?
*[08:03] **TillMossakowski: *please tell me you Skype names.
*[08:03] **ConradBock: *I'm not allowed to use Skype.
*[08:03] **MichaelGruninger: *My skype id is mudcatpi
*[08:03] **TillMossakowski: *I will set up a new Skype conference, using
the usual Skype facilities
*[08:04] **TerryLongstreth: *Before I forget: I'll be away for the next
two Mondays, and probably won't be able to do much. I'm planning to run
the spell checker tomorrow (for US English) but I've not tested spell
checking against a PDF, so it might be best to have it in a word
processing format,like MS Word or Openoffice.
*[08:04] **MichaelGruninger: *Sorry, I forgot that the SWAO SIG has a
monthly call (first Monday of each month) at 1000 EST.
*[08:05] **TerryLongstreth: *I can't callin on Skype today.
*[08:05] **ConradBock: *I have a telecon number we could use.
*[08:05] **FabianNeuhaus: *@Terry, it won't be easy to convert from
Latex to Word or Open Office
*[08:06] **ChristophLange: *Not sure what this "Skype" discussion means,
but in any case my username is "duke4701"
*[08:07] **ConradBock: *Can use this: 866 747 9595, Participant code:
9365317. Would that be OK?
*[08:07] **FabianNeuhaus: *@Conrad how do we use the telecon number?
*[08:08] **ConradBock: *The 866 number works internationally.
*[08:09] **ConradBock: *I opened the 866 bridge if you'd like to use it.
*[08:10] **FabianNeuhaus: *Problem with calling internationally is that
it can get expensive very quickly.
*[08:10] **ConradBock: *It might. Not sure if the 866 number has a toll
charge overseas.
*[08:11] **ConradBock: *fine if you want to use Skype. Terry and I will
just be on chat.
*[08:11] **FabianNeuhaus: *What about google hangout, you can use that,
right?
*[08:12] **ConradBock: *By the time we figure out how to to reconvene,
the original number will be open. :)
*[08:12] **TillMossakowski: *OK, what about having the Skype call for
now, and change to the usual channel in 20 mins, when the SWOA SIG has
finished its call? In the meantime, we could rely on the chat more than
usually.
*[08:12] **ConradBock: *I've never heard of Google hangout.
*[08:13] **ConradBock: *@Till. Fine for me.
*[08:13] **TillMossakowski: *OK, then let us do this. Yazmin, do you
have a Skype name?
*[08:14] **FabianNeuhaus: *@Conrad: it is a similar service like Skype
from Google. I switched to it when I was at NIST, because it was not banned.
*[08:14] **Yazmin Ibanez: *yes, it is yazmin.angelica.ibanez.garcia
*[08:14] **Yazmin Ibanez: *Mihai already added me
*[08:15] **TillMossakowski: *Concerning the DOL documents, we have made
a lot of progress in the last week.
*[08:16] **FabianNeuhaus: *Till: we added section 0
*[08:16] **FabianNeuhaus: *explanation: section 0 explains the
submissions in terms of the RFP
*[08:17] **FabianNeuhaus: *Till: section 7 has a new introduction
*[08:18] **FabianNeuhaus: *Till: section 8 has new introduction
*[08:19] **FabianNeuhaus: *Till: the grammar has been revised, because
implementation of parsers showed problems
*[08:19] **TerryLongstreth: *@Till - I checked the PDF, and the only way
to spell check is, apparently, saving it as a Word .doc or .docx, and
running the checker on the product. But you have to buy the commercial
version of ADOBE to do that. Does OMG accept LaTex?
*[08:19] **FabianNeuhaus: *Till: semantics has been very much rewritten.
*[08:19] **TerryLongstreth: *Does OMG accept LaTex?
*[08:20] **FabianNeuhaus: *Till: new appendix on tools
*[08:20] **TillMossakowski: *Suggestion for how to proceed:
*[08:20] **Yazmin Ibanez: *Couldn't we just run the spellchecker on the
latex code, as plain text ?
*[08:21] **FabianNeuhaus: *@Terry: I don't think that there is a
requirement for a particular format. Until recently OMG did not even use
Word,
*[08:21] **TillMossakowski: *1. there will be a document this evening
which is the basis for proof reading, both content and spell checking
*[08:21] **TerryLongstreth: *If we don't have it in a checkable format,
then I'd say submit it with checking. I've read through much of it and
haven't seen any egregious spelling or grammar flaws.
*[08:21] **TerryLongstreth: *C/with checking/without checking/
*[08:21] **TillMossakowski: *2. everyone can also improve the current
version
*[08:22] **ConradBock: *@Terry OMG doesn't require document source until
after the submission is adopted. The team can submit PDF generated from
any source.
*[08:23] *anonymous morphed into TaraAthan
*[08:24] **FabianNeuhaus: *@Terry, Yazmin: yes, we are using spell
checkers in Latex
*[08:24] **TillMossakowski: *@yazmin: we should use ispell -t, this can
directly check the LaTeX code. Or use a LaTeX editor that directly does
it. Never spell-check the plain tex file wth a checker that does not
understand LaTeX, because this is tedious.
*[08:25] **TillMossakowski: *this means that not Terry should do the
spell checking, but someone else.
*[08:26] **anonymous: *Hi
*[08:26] *anonymous morphed into TaraAthan
*[08:27] **FabianNeuhaus: *I think spell-checking is not really the
issue (given that we use spell-checkers). What we really need is a
native speaker to eliminate the Denglish :-)
*[08:27] **TillMossakowski: *Michael will do the spell checking over the
next weekend.
*[08:28] **FabianNeuhaus: *sourcetree
*[08:28] **TillMossakowski: *Hi Tara.
*[08:28] **TaraAthan: *It is chat only I guess?
*[08:29] **TerryLongstreth: *I will eyeball it for Engleutsch
*[08:29] **FabianNeuhaus: *@Tara, the telephone line was in use. We will
switch in few minutes.
*[08:29] **TillMossakowski: *We will start the usual call in a few
minutes (currently, the line is blocked by another call).
*[08:29] **FabianNeuhaus: *@Currently, we are partially on skype
*[08:29] **TaraAthan: *ok
*[08:30] **TerryLongstreth: *My new years resolution will be to buy a
Linux machine and install LaTex.
*[08:30] **FabianNeuhaus: *@Tara I try to invite you to the skype call.
*[08:31] **FabianNeuhaus: *(continuing my scribe duties)
*[08:31] **TaraAthan: *@Terry - I suggest you try https://www.sharelatex.com
*[08:32] **ConradBock: *@Terry There are decent Windows LaTex tools.
*[08:32] **FabianNeuhaus: *Till and Christoph discuss Lola.
*[08:33] **FabianNeuhaus: *Till/Christoph: discussion of issue 52, the
role of Lola
*[08:33] **TerryLongstreth: *I tried. My machine's too old (ca: 2005)
*[08:34] **FabianNeuhaus: *@Terry: Sharelatex is cloud-based. This
should work, I think
*[08:35] **TillMossakowski: *Annex A should be about LoLa, see issue 52.
The RDF vocabulary will then become a part of it.
*[08:36] **TillMossakowski: *Tara: the vocabulary should be kept as a
separate file, and imported as a module.
*[08:36] **TillMossakowski: *Tara: OMG has certain requirements for
ontology URLs. MAybe purl.net/DOL will not work.
*[08:37] **TillMossakowski: *Elisa knows more.
*[08:37] **TerryLongstreth: *@Tara & @Fabian Thanks for the pointer. If
I've time, I'll play with it when I get back from my trip.
*[08:37] **FabianNeuhaus: *Let's switch to the other line
*[08:37] **TillMossakowski: *Attention: we will now switch to the usual
channel (e.g. join.conference at Skype)
*[08:38] **TillMossakowski: *Conrad, Terry: can you join us there?
*[08:40] **TillMossakowski: *Dial-in: * Phone (US): +1 (206) 402-0100
... when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758# * Skype:
"join.conference" ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758# ** 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 (425)
440-5100 ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758#
*[08:41] **ConradBock: *Conrad joins
*[08:43] **ConradBock: *Again
*[08:44] **TillMossakowski: *Conrad, please tell us when you have joined.
*[08:45] **TillMossakowski: *decision to delete "K. Annex (informative):
Annotation Vocabularies"
*[08:47] **TillMossakowski: *discussion about how to make UML class
diagrams DOL conformant
*[08:48] **TillMossakowski: *this means we need to specify a formal
semantics for UML class diagrams
*[08:48] **TillMossakowski: *There are two options: 1. fUML, 2.
literature by Alexander Knapp
*[08:49] **TillMossakowski: *Alexander Knapp writes on option 1:
*[08:49] **TillMossakowski: *I've checked with the current fUML
specification, version 1.1 as of August 2013. Chapter 7 specifies which
parts of UML static structures are included in fUML, and chapter 8 gives
their semantics. This semantics explains which instances (values) comply
with which classes and data types. However, the semantics is not
describing directly what the denotation of a class diagram is. Two
citations from the specification which I found interesting: -
"Foundational UML does not contain association actions, so it does not
provide semantics for link objects." (p. 116) - "However, the exact
behavior to be specified for polymorphic operation dispatching is a
semantic variation point in fUML." (p. 117)
*[08:50] **TaraAthan: *Is it possible to evaluate fUML and recommend
improvements that would bring it into conformance?
*[08:53] **TillMossakowski: *Reference for fUML:
http://www.omg.org/spec/FUML/
*[08:58] **FabianNeuhaus:
*http://philebus.tamu.edu/cmenzel/Papers/AxiomaticSemantics.pdf
*[09:02] **TillMossakowski: *The Knapp paper:
http://www4.in.tum.de/~cengarle/papers/TUM-I0807.pdf
*[09:02] **MichaelGruninger: *Need to go now ...
*[09:04] **TillMossakowski: *see also
http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/agbkb/publikationen/bibsearch/detail_e.htm?pk_int=3014
*[09:18] **TillMossakowski: *Conrad: suggestion: we put an empty stub in
the annex with UML class diagram DOL-conformance, and discuss this at
the OMG meeting
*[09:20] **TillMossakowski: *then we could try get the Knapp version in,
and if we do not succeed, we can still remove the annex.
*[09:22] **TillMossakowski: *I think we can also try to improve the
fUML-based semantics and make it DOL conformant. However, I do not want
to commit ourselves that this must be done before we get the DOL
standard accepted.
*[09:24] **TillMossakowski: *Tara: the DOL standard could then foster an
interesting investigation, which however will not be part of the DOL
standard.
*[09:34] *List of attendees: ChristophLange, ConradBock, FabianNeuhaus,
MichaelGruninger, MihaiCodescu, OliverKutz, Rokan, TaraAthan,
TerryLongstreth, TillMossakowski, Yazmin Ibanez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.ovgu.de/pipermail/ontoiop-forum/attachments/20141103/76df8bbd/attachment-0001.html>