Difference between revisions of "SWAO:Conference Call 20200203"
KenBaclawski (talk | contribs) |
|||
(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
== Proceedings == | == Proceedings == | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Status and Updates === | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Events === | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== CogSima ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | MikeBennett: CogSima is coming up in May. | ||
+ | |||
+ | MikeBennett: KB considering whether to have a workshop on ontologies for situation management. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Ontology Summit ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | MikeBennett: Ontology Summit got off to a good start | ||
+ | |||
+ | MikeBennett: We even had one or two new people from a more tech / Semantic Tech background. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Discussion of the new AOIS group ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | MikeBennett: AW: Their mission statement is a lot like ours. | ||
+ | |||
+ | MikeBennett: The possible outcomes of the new group's work could include furthering the mission of this SIG. | ||
+ | |||
+ | MikeBennett: AW: Consider joining with that Committee. | ||
+ | |||
+ | MikeBennett: MB: Agree - a possible outcome of applied ontology v standards is that the standards (OWL, RFD, SPARQL etc.) tend to have been the focus of the Semantic Web in any case. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Resolutions? ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | MikeBennett: AW: Propose we formally combine rather than simply disappear. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Actions ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | MikeBennett: KB will contact MG and convey the above. | ||
+ | |||
+ | MikeBennett: MB to get these notes up so KB has something to refer to. | ||
+ | |||
+ | MikeBennett: AW: The final para of their mission statement is almost directly our mission statement. | ||
+ | |||
+ | MikeBennett: MB: Would certainly want to focus on standards in e.g. finance that would make suitable business reference ontologies. There is still a need for that in e.g. Fiannce. | ||
+ | |||
+ | KenBaclawski: "Looking at the missions of SWAO and AOIS, it appears that they overlap enough that it might make sense to consider some relationship between them, possibly even a formal merger." | ||
+ | |||
+ | MikeBennett: AW: Make it more explicit that we would be looking to merge into AOIS not the other way around. | ||
+ | |||
+ | MikeBennett: AW: ' .. of SWAO into AOIS' | ||
+ | |||
+ | MikeBennett: KB proposes a joint meeting. | ||
+ | |||
+ | MikeBennett: All agree this would be good, to ensure we are all really on the same page/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Standards === | ||
+ | |||
+ | AndreaW: Here is another ref to Knowledge Graphs ... https://www.zdnet.com/article/knowledge-graph-evolution-platforms-that-speak-your-language/?hss_channel=tw-224035128&=1 | ||
+ | |||
+ | MikeBennett: KB: on standards - the new proposed SQL standard would include RDF capability. | ||
+ | |||
+ | MikeBennett: So this overlaps with SPARQL which was based on SQL originally. So it would effectively subsume SPARQL. | ||
+ | |||
+ | MikeBennett: Called SQL2020 (but don't Google that) | ||
+ | |||
+ | AndreaW: There is also a proposed RDF* standard that really improves reification. | ||
+ | |||
+ | AndreaW: https://www.stardog.com/blog/property-graphs-meet-stardog/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | MikeBennett: MB: Thereby allowing for simpler operational ontology transformations out of 'relative things' in the conceptual ontology/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | KenBaclawski: [shres transcripts from some slides] | ||
+ | |||
+ | Prospects for SQL 2020: What is going to happen inWG 3 for SQL:2020? | ||
+ | WG 3 identified these areas of interest for the next version of the SQL standard: | ||
+ | Better support for Big Data applications. | ||
+ | Graph queries. | ||
+ | Approximate queries/aggregates and uncertain data. | ||
+ | |||
+ | 16 | ||
+ | |||
+ | Integration of statistical packages (i.e./e.g., R). | ||
+ | MapReduce support. | ||
+ | Streaming/continuous queries. | ||
+ | Support for blockchains. | ||
+ | BASE transactions. | ||
+ | Any participant can bring forward a proposal for any new functionality | ||
+ | |||
+ | What is going to happen inWG 3 for SQL:2020? (cont.) | ||
+ | At its most recent meeting in January 2017,WG 3 discussed graph databases and query languages: | ||
+ | Time is right for formal standards in this area | ||
+ | Existing work | ||
+ | Technology begins to gel | ||
+ | Market demand | ||
+ | |||
+ | 17 | ||
+ | |||
+ | WG 3 is interested in property graph technology | ||
+ | Would like to work with LDBC (Graph QL Task Force) to develop formal standards | ||
+ | At the June 2017 SC 32 Plenary, WG 3 will consider: | ||
+ | Applying for a project split for SQL/Graph | ||
+ | Applying for a new work item/give notice of a preliminary new work item for a Property Graph Query* Language | ||
+ | * Query does not necessarily mean read-only retrieval operations only, but can include general DML/DDL operations. | ||
+ | |||
+ | MikeBennett: the above from KB is from an early 2017 slide deck | ||
+ | |||
+ | MikeBennett: Is SPARQL a property graph query language? | ||
+ | |||
+ | MikeBennett: No - more specific to RDF. | ||
+ | |||
+ | MikeBennett: AW: See also StarDog writeup on GraphQL and mapping to other things. SPARQL more tied to RDF and OWL. A graph query language does not deal with the semantics. | ||
+ | |||
+ | KenBaclawski: The source is a slide deck whose title slide is: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Standardizing Graph Database Functionality | ||
+ | |||
+ | An Invitation to Collaborate | ||
+ | |||
+ | Jan Michels, Keith Hare, JimMelton | ||
+ | |||
+ | ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32/WG 3 Members | ||
+ | |||
+ | February 9, 2017 | ||
+ | |||
+ | MikeBennett: This is also relevant to the Summit. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
== Attendees == | == Attendees == | ||
+ | |||
+ | * MikeBennett | ||
+ | * KenBaclawski | ||
+ | * AndreaWesterinen | ||
=== Apologies === | === Apologies === | ||
+ | |||
+ | * ToddSchneider | ||
+ | * BobbinTeegarden | ||
== Next Meetings == | == Next Meetings == |
Latest revision as of 17:11, 13 February 2020
Number | 75 |
---|---|
Duration | 1 hour60 minute 3,600 second 0.0417 day |
Date/Time | February 3 2020 19:00 GMT |
11:00 PST/2:00pm EST | |
7:00pm GMT/8:00pm CST | |
Convener | Mike Bennett |
IAOA Semantic Web Applied Ontology (SWAO) SIG
Meetings are normally on the first Monday of the month at these times.
- We will use GoToMeeting for this meeting - details at Connection Details
Contents
Agenda
- Status and updates
- Naming: SIG versus Committee
- AoB
- Next Meeting
Proceedings
Status and Updates
Events
CogSima
MikeBennett: CogSima is coming up in May.
MikeBennett: KB considering whether to have a workshop on ontologies for situation management.
Ontology Summit
MikeBennett: Ontology Summit got off to a good start
MikeBennett: We even had one or two new people from a more tech / Semantic Tech background.
Discussion of the new AOIS group
MikeBennett: AW: Their mission statement is a lot like ours.
MikeBennett: The possible outcomes of the new group's work could include furthering the mission of this SIG.
MikeBennett: AW: Consider joining with that Committee.
MikeBennett: MB: Agree - a possible outcome of applied ontology v standards is that the standards (OWL, RFD, SPARQL etc.) tend to have been the focus of the Semantic Web in any case.
Resolutions?
MikeBennett: AW: Propose we formally combine rather than simply disappear.
Actions
MikeBennett: KB will contact MG and convey the above.
MikeBennett: MB to get these notes up so KB has something to refer to.
MikeBennett: AW: The final para of their mission statement is almost directly our mission statement.
MikeBennett: MB: Would certainly want to focus on standards in e.g. finance that would make suitable business reference ontologies. There is still a need for that in e.g. Fiannce.
KenBaclawski: "Looking at the missions of SWAO and AOIS, it appears that they overlap enough that it might make sense to consider some relationship between them, possibly even a formal merger."
MikeBennett: AW: Make it more explicit that we would be looking to merge into AOIS not the other way around.
MikeBennett: AW: ' .. of SWAO into AOIS'
MikeBennett: KB proposes a joint meeting.
MikeBennett: All agree this would be good, to ensure we are all really on the same page/
Standards
AndreaW: Here is another ref to Knowledge Graphs ... https://www.zdnet.com/article/knowledge-graph-evolution-platforms-that-speak-your-language/?hss_channel=tw-224035128&=1
MikeBennett: KB: on standards - the new proposed SQL standard would include RDF capability.
MikeBennett: So this overlaps with SPARQL which was based on SQL originally. So it would effectively subsume SPARQL.
MikeBennett: Called SQL2020 (but don't Google that)
AndreaW: There is also a proposed RDF* standard that really improves reification.
AndreaW: https://www.stardog.com/blog/property-graphs-meet-stardog/
MikeBennett: MB: Thereby allowing for simpler operational ontology transformations out of 'relative things' in the conceptual ontology/
KenBaclawski: [shres transcripts from some slides]
Prospects for SQL 2020: What is going to happen inWG 3 for SQL:2020? WG 3 identified these areas of interest for the next version of the SQL standard: Better support for Big Data applications. Graph queries. Approximate queries/aggregates and uncertain data.
16
Integration of statistical packages (i.e./e.g., R). MapReduce support. Streaming/continuous queries. Support for blockchains. BASE transactions. Any participant can bring forward a proposal for any new functionality
What is going to happen inWG 3 for SQL:2020? (cont.) At its most recent meeting in January 2017,WG 3 discussed graph databases and query languages: Time is right for formal standards in this area Existing work Technology begins to gel Market demand
17
WG 3 is interested in property graph technology Would like to work with LDBC (Graph QL Task Force) to develop formal standards At the June 2017 SC 32 Plenary, WG 3 will consider: Applying for a project split for SQL/Graph Applying for a new work item/give notice of a preliminary new work item for a Property Graph Query* Language * Query does not necessarily mean read-only retrieval operations only, but can include general DML/DDL operations.
MikeBennett: the above from KB is from an early 2017 slide deck
MikeBennett: Is SPARQL a property graph query language?
MikeBennett: No - more specific to RDF.
MikeBennett: AW: See also StarDog writeup on GraphQL and mapping to other things. SPARQL more tied to RDF and OWL. A graph query language does not deal with the semantics.
KenBaclawski: The source is a slide deck whose title slide is:
Standardizing Graph Database Functionality
An Invitation to Collaborate
Jan Michels, Keith Hare, JimMelton
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32/WG 3 Members
February 9, 2017
MikeBennett: This is also relevant to the Summit.
Attendees
- MikeBennett
- KenBaclawski
- AndreaWesterinen
Apologies
- ToddSchneider
- BobbinTeegarden