Phone conference 2008-06-05
AGENDA
- previous phone call task check and reporting
- [DONE] TASK(EDV): contact Georgina for QA
- [ON-GOING] TASK(ZH,KK): discuss about U-city on the mailing list
- [ON- GOING] TASK(EDV): give info about CEFRIEL’s traffic predictor
- [DONE] TASK(EDV,DB): come up with a polite mail to explain WP6 position wrt to D2.1.1
- [ON- GOING] TASK(EDV): make Use Case proposal more concrete in an email clarifying what is optional, mandatory and dreams
- [TO-DO] TASK(EDV): polish the slides from MIT (c) material and send them to Yi and Alice
- discussion on WP6 vision
- AOB
PARTECIPANTS:
- CEFRIEL: Emanuele Della Valle (EDV), Irene Celino (IC)
- SALTLUX: Kono Kim (KK)
- VUA: Zhisheng Huang (ZH)
- SIEMENS: Yi Huang (YH), Volker Tresp (VT)
MINUTES
- discussion about U-city
- ZH: closed world vs open world assumption
- KK: current U-City implementation relays on negation as failure
- EDV: the role of time ontology
- KK: tag the events (when it happened)
- KK: describe periods (e.g., day time vs. night time) because traffic controls are operated in a different way
- ZH: unique name assumption vs. non-unique name assumption?
- KK: e.g., two different name refer the same place or building
- KK: we need those reasoning capabilities
- EDV: is U-city a good use case for LarKC?
- ZH: it can be a good use case: impact of closed word assumption is very interesting
- EDV: Some requirements we can draw from the discussion
- designer must have control over
- closed world vs. open world
- unique name vs. non-unique name assumption
- ontological language expressivity
- TASK(EDV): tell Frank about this requirement
- TASK(ZH): set up a blog for this discussion
- TASK(ZH): bring this discussion to WP1 and WP4
- WP6 vision
- EDV: in the short-term we build to proptotypes
- CEFRIEL's traffic predictor (which stresses WP2 and WP3)
- Saltlux U-City (which stresses WP1 and WP4)
- TASK(YH) provide feedbacks vision slide7 and slide 12
- TASK(YH,EDV) discuss if CEFRIEL's TP is a good use case for LarKC
- EDV: another opportunity would we to feed U-City with real data derived from Milano traffic detector
- KK: good idea
- TASK(EDV): check the kind of data we can get from Milano Traffic detector and give visibility to WP6
- KK: another option is to build 2 prototype use OWA and the other use CWA based on the same data but for different reasoning problem.
- EDV: we should evaluate also this option.
- AOB
- KK: To make use case requirement and specifications, we have to do the followings:
- setup goal,
- describe scenario,
- collect sample doc or examle,
- suggest requirement candidate,
- discuss about it.
- make 1st draft
- EDV: we should cover step 1,2 and 3 by the end of june
- KK: we may build 2 prototype: one
ZH:I am going to create the LarKC blog accounts for all of you, so that we can continue the discussion on the blog.
- TASK(ZH): create a blog “Reasoning requirements of the Urban Computing” and distribute user accounts
- TASK(EDV) provide minutes of this phonecall
- TASK(EDV) schedule next phone call
- KK: To make use case requirement and specifications, we have to do the followings:
SUMMARY OF TASKS
- TASK(EDV): tell Frank about this requirement
- TASK(ZH): bring this discussion to WP1 and WP4
- TASK(YH) provide feedbacks vision slide7 and slide 12
- TASK(YH,EDV) discuss if CEFRIEL's TP is a good use case for LarKC
- TASK(EDV): check the kind of data we can get from Milano Traffic detector and give visibility to WP6
- TASK(ZH): create a blog “Reasoning requirements of the Urban Computing” and distribute user accounts
- TASK(all): discuss about U-city requirements on the blog
- TASK(EDV) provide minutes of this phonecall
- TASK(EDV) schedule next phone call
- TASK(EDV): polish the slides from MIT (c) material and send them to Yi and Alice