IW Meeting 2011-03-10

From Inference Web

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Meeting info

Agenda

Notes

Tim's review pre-meeting

We finished that meeting with Patrick interested in writing up an example of incorporating provenance into opendap. One point I'd like the group to consider is the relative investment in opendap provenance. How far are we going to pursue this work, why, and what precedence does it take among our existing pursuits?

One agenda item I would like to add is an early design for how we would express, for Layered PML, the logical organization of different subsets of axioms. The short of it would be to reify the axioms and dcterms:isPartOf them to [ a pmlL:Layer ] . We could then materialize the ontology for a given layer (using "just" SPARQL). These reifications would also allow us to describe the Quads that Li has suggested to associate the PML instance construct, the PML tool response, and the benefit to the user (within the context of a particular use case). I think this provides a clear path of progression from our current 4-component "state of the union" work towards a final PML Layered design.

Another agenda item I would like to add is a review of Leo's notion of Container as a superclass of Source. I am working on the design for the provenance of a triple store's named graph and would benefit from the previous experiences and insights that UTEP has had in their work (my named graph is a leo:Sink that I am populating from some pmlp:Source turtle dump file on the web).

Meeting transcript

[11:21:10 AM] changcs1: hill climbing is being used in combined proofs. the A-B proofs result is out. next we are working on real proofs. SEU140+1 will be done today. then SEU140+2... one question I have is when you have multiple combined proofs having the same gcc numbers, which one we should choose for the next run (climbing further).
[11:30:25 AM] deborah_mcguinness: we might get a status update from geoff on the may paper - both where he is and what he needs from us.
[11:42:21 AM] liding2006: if two proofs have the same number, they should meet the ultimate goal
[11:44:55 AM] liding2006: is gcc number is correct?
[11:45:09 AM | Edited 11:45:12 AM] liding2006: is gcc number good enough?
[11:48:18 AM] liding2006: the key question is "how many proofs have the best gcc number in average?"
[11:50:44 AM | Edited 11:50:54 AM] liding2006: which proofs have  been returned to geoff
[11:54:41 AM] liding2006: in general, replace sub-tree
[11:55:31 AM] liding2006: two difference
[11:56:26 AM] liding2006: 1. different measure,   size of tree;  gcc of tree
[12:04:49 PM | Edited 12:04:59 PM] liding2006: todo: clarify the problem and solution -- li
[12:06:16 PM | Edited 12:06:49 PM] liding2006: todo: more measureable problems
[12:10:01 PM] liding2006: generalizable hypotheses
[12:10:42 PM] liding2006: e.g. categorize cobmined proofs
[12:12:39 PM] liding2006: e.g. generate random sample combined proofs, how to gurantee it
[12:13:59 PM | Edited 12:14:51 PM] liding2006: e.g summarize a collection of alternative proof, proof clustering
[12:17:29 PM | Edited 12:18:17 PM] liding2006: e.g. declare our linked proofs in LOD cloud, claim number of triples, generate a statistical page
[12:33:37 PM] liding2006: http://data-gov.tw.rpi.edu/ws/lodcx.php

Personal tools
Navigation