IRC log of rif on 2005-12-08

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:08:12 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
15:08:12 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:17:06 [ha-k]
ha-k has joined #rif
16:19:09 [hak]
hak has joined #rif
16:26:49 [Jing]
Jing has joined #rif
16:36:43 [DZHirtle]
DZHirtle has joined #rif
16:40:12 [DZHirtle]
DZHirtle has left #rif
16:46:50 [Hirtle]
Hirtle has joined #rif
16:55:26 [Jing]
Jing has joined #rif
16:55:50 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #rif
16:56:22 [csma]
csma has joined #rif
16:56:29 [sandro]
sandro has joined #rif
16:56:45 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
16:58:47 [jos]
jos has joined #rif
17:02:17 [sandro]
zakim, who is here?
17:02:17 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has not yet started, sandro
17:02:18 [Zakim]
On IRC I see jos, Harold, sandro, csma, ChrisW, Jing, Hirtle, hak, RRSAgent, Zakim
17:03:01 [Elisa]
Elisa has joined #rif
17:05:20 [der]
der has joined #rif
17:05:33 [giorgos]
giorgos has joined #rif
17:07:37 [jos]
jos has joined #rif
17:09:35 [phitzler]
phitzler has joined #rif
17:09:54 [jos]
Scribe: Jos de Bruijn
17:09:59 [jos]
ScribeNick: jos
17:10:11 [jos]
Meeting: first RIF f2f
17:10:23 [jos]
Chair: Christian
17:12:02 [ericP]
ericP has joined #rif
17:12:10 [mdean]
mdean has joined #rif
17:12:56 [aharth]
aharth has joined #rif
17:15:30 [jos]
Topic: run through of agenda
17:17:36 [jos]
Christian: we need scribes!
17:17:37 [pfps]
pfps has joined #rif
17:18:32 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
17:18:39 [Zakim]
17:18:49 [jos]
Bijan: not all inputs in the charter are presented in the background
17:19:26 [jos]
Christian: all background info will be included in the topics
17:19:29 [sandro]
Zakim, ??P3 is JeremyC
17:19:29 [Zakim]
+JeremyC; got it
17:20:01 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.696.aaaa
17:20:02 [jos]
Topic: round of introductions
17:20:12 [jeremy]
jeremy has joined #rif
17:20:52 [jeremy]
Hi, just heard from hotel on Zakim
17:21:17 [ericP]
zakim, who is here?
17:21:17 [Zakim]
On the phone I see JeremyC, +1.650.696.aaaa
17:21:18 [Zakim]
On IRC I see jeremy, pfps, aharth, mdean, ericP, phitzler, jos, giorgos, der, Elisa, Harold, sandro, ChrisW, Jing, Hirtle, hak, RRSAgent, Zakim
17:22:17 [ChrisW]
jeremyC, can you hear anything>
17:22:25 [jeremy]
hearing very well thankyou
17:23:09 [Zakim]
+ +1.604.930.aabb
17:24:30 [vassilis]
vassilis has joined #rif
17:25:08 [bijan]
bijan has joined #rif
17:26:12 [bparsia]
bparsia has joined #rif
17:28:33 [bijan]
On paper
17:29:42 [bijan]
I'm afraid that I cannot find an electronic copy of the list
17:29:55 [sandro]
17:29:57 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone
17:29:57 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on the phone', ChrisW
17:30:00 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
17:30:00 [Zakim]
On the phone I see JeremyC, +1.650.696.aaaa, +1.604.930.aabb
17:30:25 [bijan]
Well, that's a testimony to my inability to find that list
17:30:33 [ChrisW]
zakim, aabb is meeting_room
17:30:33 [Zakim]
+meeting_room; got it
17:31:10 [jos]
Christian: observers will not be at every meeting; many observers are from OMG; other observers will become
17:31:22 [jos]
.. members after going through the red tape in their organization
17:31:37 [Zakim]
17:31:52 [sandro]
+1 617 761 6200 conf code RIFWG
17:32:22 [Zakim]
17:32:36 [m]
m has joined #RIF
17:33:16 [markus]
markus has joined #rif
17:33:56 [jos]
Topic: W3C process 101, roles and duties in a WG
17:34:23 [Zakim]
17:34:32 [m]
m has left #RIF
17:34:59 [m]
m has joined #rif
17:35:32 [jos]
Sandro: much of the content overlaps with DanC's presentation in the workshop in Washington in April
17:35:36 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #rif
17:35:46 [bijan]
zakim, loquaciate me
17:35:46 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'loquaciate me', bijan
17:37:04 [msintek]
msintek has joined #rif
17:39:58 [holger]
holger has joined #rif
17:42:56 [bijan]
Current slides:
17:43:07 [bijan]
We are currently on slide 7
17:45:42 [bijan]
Slide 13
17:47:12 [sandro]
sandro's slides (again):
17:47:49 [Allen]
Allen has joined #rif
17:48:11 [csma]
csma has joined #rif
17:48:29 [sandro]
sandro's slides (again again):
17:49:03 [Deborah]
Deborah has joined #rif
17:55:34 [bijan]
Slide 14
17:55:45 [bijan]
I note that this is not a process based constraint on the working group
17:56:57 [bijan]
Even our charter doesn't strictly bound us, since we only need to publish on use case "of interest to the working group". This could be almost none.
17:57:14 [bijan]
Slide 16
17:57:31 [bijan]
Slide 18
17:58:29 [sandro]
slide 7
17:59:06 [jos]
ChrisW: roles and responsibilities in the WG
18:00:07 [jos]
.. many differences between how W3C and other standards bodies do things
18:00:22 [jos]
.. role: director of W3C: TimBL
18:00:45 [jos]
... role: WG chairs: Christian and ChrisW
18:00:53 [jos]
... tale credit for all the work
18:01:01 [jos]
... role: staff contact: Sandro
18:01:22 [jos]
... coordinates technical support
18:01:39 [jos]
... role: primary and alternate participants
18:02:01 [jos]
... any number of people from each organization can join the WG
18:02:16 [jos]
... each orgnization nominated one primary member
18:02:33 [jos]
... when there is a vote, each organization has one vote
18:02:56 [jos]
... the primary is responsible for representing the position of the organization and casting the vote
18:03:29 [jos]
... role: observers
18:04:34 [jos]
... role of observers not clear to ChrisW
18:04:54 [jos]
... members are expected to participate in weekly telecons
18:05:34 [jos]
... members are expected to review the documents produced by the WG
18:06:02 [Adrian]
Adrian has joined #rif
18:06:05 [jos]
... members are expected to contribute to the documents
18:06:16 [jos]
... role: editor
18:06:37 [jos]
... already editors required for use cases & requirements document and the issues list
18:07:13 [jos]
... issues list very important; maintaining is a time-consuming task
18:07:26 [jos]
... having a large number of editors on a draft doesn't work
18:07:41 [jos]
... there will be a limit of two editors by default
18:08:07 [jos]
... role: contributor/author
18:08:41 [jos]
... contributors have recognition of efforts w/o being an editor
18:09:02 [jos]
... drafts are maintained in the W3C CVS
18:09:30 [jos]
... thus, editors need to be willing to use CVS
18:10:02 [jos]
18:10:06 [jos]
... role: scribe
18:10:17 [jos]
... every telecon and f2f is scribed
18:10:47 [jos]
... everyone is expected to scribe at some point in time
18:11:00 [jos]
... role: invited expert
18:11:15 [jos]
... do not represent W3C member organizations
18:11:50 [jos]
... Jeff Pan, Ben Grosof and Michael Kifer are invited experts
18:12:11 [jos]
... role: task force
18:12:28 [sandro]
But Jeff and Ben are both temporary measures.
18:12:29 [jos]
... task force is small subgroup of WG
18:12:52 [jos]
... at discretion of chairs
18:12:54 [sandro]
(Aberdeen is joining, and MIT as a W3C host is complicated.)
18:13:15 [jos]
... liaison activities
18:13:35 [jos]
... there will be liaison positions
18:13:56 [jos]
... will be responsible for representing RIF WG in other activity
18:14:14 [jos]
... there will be coordination with other W3C WGs
18:14:57 [jos]
... for such things as document reviews, requested expertise
18:16:12 [Zakim]
18:16:52 [jeremy]
jeremy has joined #rif
18:17:03 [jp]
jp has joined #rif
18:25:30 [Allen]
Allen has joined #rif
18:25:34 [Donald]
Donald has joined #RIF
18:28:41 [edbark]
edbark has joined #rif
18:38:07 [sandro]
zakim, who is here?
18:38:07 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +1.650.696.aaaa, jeremy (muted), Giorgos_Stamou
18:38:08 [Zakim]
On IRC I see edbark, Donald, Allen, jeremy, Deborah, csma, holger, msintek, mkroetzsch, bijan, vassilis, pfps, aharth, mdean, ericP, phitzler, jos, giorgos, der, Elisa, Harold,
18:38:10 [Zakim]
... sandro, ChrisW, Jing, Hirtle, hak, RRSAgent, Zakim
18:43:13 [Mala]
Mala has joined #rif
18:45:52 [jp]
jp has joined #rif
18:47:45 [jos]
Scribe: Holger Lausen
18:48:01 [jos]
ScribeNick: holger
18:48:02 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the phone?
18:48:02 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +1.650.696.aaaa, jeremy (muted), Giorgos_Stamou
18:48:17 [sandro]
jeremy, girogos, can you hear?
18:48:20 [Zakim]
18:48:24 [holger]
Topic: Charter Over view
18:48:26 [bijan]
18:48:40 [bijan]
Slide 2
18:48:43 [giorgos]
I can hear
18:48:47 [sandro]
zakim, aaaa is Meeting_Room
18:48:48 [Zakim]
+Meeting_Room; got it
18:49:07 [holger]
Sandro: everyone should have read the charter by now
18:49:33 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the phone?
18:49:33 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Meeting_Room, jeremy (muted), Giorgos_Stamou, jeremy.a
18:49:47 [sandro]
jeremy? you on two lines?
18:50:20 [holger]
... deliberables should be understood by all
18:50:24 [bijan]
Slide 3
18:50:44 [holger]
... charter is sort of project plan
18:51:56 [Zakim]
18:53:04 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #rif
18:53:10 [holger]
... about the history of the layercake
18:53:27 [holger]
... rules have been come more important and priminent in that layer cake
18:54:20 [holger]
... 2 years ago sandro drafted a charter for a *semantic* rule working group
18:54:38 [holger]
... but was not sucessfull, but now ILOG approached W3C for a more broad rule effort
18:57:33 [w3c]
w3c has joined #rif
18:57:37 [bijan]
slide 6
18:57:44 [bijan]
Slide 7
18:58:35 [holger]
... 2 phase design was result of to get good scope and fast results
19:00:09 [bijan]
Slide 8
19:00:15 [holger]
... phase 2 should be kept in mind but not worry us for now
19:01:37 [holger]
... phase 2 may start after candidate recommendation
19:02:26 [holger]
... about deadlines: if no results are shown w3c may shut down working group
19:02:36 [holger]
... however with good reason extension might negotiated
19:03:51 [holger]
bijan: are there examples for w3c groups that come to recommendation in 10 month?
19:04:11 [holger]
Sandro: I am not aware and don't follow other shedules
19:04:52 [holger]
... a problem with some working groups is that during livetime they extend feature list
19:05:09 [holger]
... should not occur to us since we have 2 phases
19:05:34 [holger]
bijan: one possability but still very challenging
19:06:01 [holger]
benjamin: have the same point timeline is very challenging
19:06:29 [holger]
... should use use cases for priotorizing
19:06:47 [holger]
dave: should stick to 2 phase approach
19:07:12 [holger]
... and to what is defined in charter
19:07:24 [holger]
Sandro: phase 1 is to set the ground
19:08:07 [holger]
benjamin: however priorities of phase 2 requirements might impact phase 1
19:09:16 [holger]
ChrisW: agrees with Benjamin part of phase 1 is to prioratize what is in phase 2
19:09:45 [holger]
... decission what is to be in phase 2 must be done before phase 2 starts
19:10:01 [bijan]
This seems to be proposing to fix the problem with the possible unrealisticness of the schedule by adding *more* and more *contentious* work in phase I.
19:10:09 [ChrisW-using-Sand]
19:10:30 [Adrian]
Adrian has joined #rif
19:10:44 [holger]
... need to agree that phase1 is not really usefull (wrt. features) but sets the ground with architecture and extension mechanism.
19:10:45 [bijan]
Ah, csma puts a stake in the ground against the extra work
19:10:53 [ChrisW-alt]
THe point: part of Phase 1 is defining Phase 2
19:11:10 [jeremy]
q+ to argue for less
19:11:26 [ChrisW-alt]
...this will happen along the way, not just at the end
19:12:14 [holger]
ugo: w3c process might be slow due to consensus need
19:12:21 [Zakim]
19:12:27 [holger]
... what is the chairs approach to that?
19:12:36 [holger]
Sandro: can you be more sepcific
19:13:19 [holger]
ugo: are you in favour of voting mechanism or are you more in favour of the w3c consensus approach?
19:13:52 [holger]
ChrisW: most of time only 2 conflicting opinions, will try to reach consensus
19:14:09 [holger]
however votes are the last method to resolve conflicts
19:14:20 [holger]
... in phase 1 I do not expect this necessary
19:14:21 [ChrisW-alt]
19:14:55 [bijan]
W3C working groups have "formal votes" and they need not *resolve* issues. Members are allowed to make a formal objection which carry *great weight* against moving to, e.g., LC or CR or REc
19:15:02 [holger]
sandro: in phase 2 2 solutions might be the outcome
19:16:21 [ChrisW-alt]
zakim, meeting_room.a is hassan
19:16:21 [Zakim]
+hassan; got it
19:16:39 [bijan]
zakim, queue?
19:16:39 [Zakim]
I see jeremy on the speaker queue
19:17:20 [holger]
pascal: necessary to distinct phase1 and phase2 issues. However some phase2 features might be only possible with specific decission in phase 1.
19:17:57 [holger]
david: own experience with eclipse environment, extensions are driven by the people who extend
19:18:16 [holger]
... however designer of the core might not always be aware of the extension possabilities
19:18:28 [ChrisW-alt]
zakim, ack jeremy
19:18:28 [Zakim]
jeremy, you wanted to argue for less
19:18:30 [Zakim]
I see no one on the speaker queue
19:18:55 [holger]
jermey: most people seem to be motivated by phase 2
19:19:31 [jp]
19:19:50 [bijan]
+1 to jermey
19:20:11 [holger]
... phase 2 should allow revisit phase 1
19:21:37 [holger]
csma: use cases are for phase 2
19:22:05 [holger]
... phase 1 only shall provide the basis of the use cases and *not* solve them
19:22:11 [bijan]
Slide 9
19:22:33 [ChrisW-alt]
The Charter:
19:22:48 [holger]
sandro: glossary not mentioned in charter, but should be at least internal glossary
19:23:46 [w3c]
w3c has joined #rif
19:24:22 [bijan]
Slide 10
19:24:36 [jeremy]
he said "this is normative, and this is ..."
19:24:37 [bijan]
Tech spec, OWL compat and thats it
19:24:42 [jeremy]
OK ta
19:24:53 [bijan]
Use cases and Requer adn TEst cases "have flexibilty
19:25:16 [holger]
... real use case for the details
19:25:17 [bijan]
19:25:46 [holger]
... test cases have to prooved to be useful
19:25:57 [bijan]
Slide 11
19:26:04 [holger]
csma: tomorrow slot about concrete role of usecase and testcases
19:26:30 [ChrisW-alt]
correction: tomorrow we will discuss use cases
19:26:46 [ChrisW-alt]
...not test cases (at least as described on the agenda)
19:26:53 [bijan]
I would like to note that the RDF and OWL tests were *not* designed as confromance tests though the are sometimes used that way
19:26:54 [jeremy]
Not conformance tests !!! (my opinion)
19:26:59 [bijan]
19:27:42 [holger]
sandro: personal note on testcases good to check conformance
19:27:58 [holger]
... did this with OWL test cases.
19:28:14 [holger]
bijan: makes point that test suites are not conformence tests
19:28:34 [holger]
sandro: yes. They can however clarify
19:29:04 [holger]
csma: word conformence will be removed
19:29:36 [ChrisW-alt]
jeremy, you must speak loudly, we can barely hear you
19:29:47 [holger]
sandro: glossary are about 30 sec. answers
19:29:49 [bijan]
slide 13
19:31:08 [bijan]
slide 15
19:31:54 [holger]
... about OWL: anyone wants to discuss it now?
19:32:22 [Donald]
Donald has joined #rif
19:32:32 [holger]
... reads charter word by word
19:33:45 [holger]
csma: stresses "do not reinvent" if something can be done in OWL it should not be dublicated
19:33:50 [bijan]
Slide 14
19:35:23 [holger]
bijan: is it part of charter to have mapping of n-ary predicates to rdf?
19:35:38 [holger]
csma: no he did not say that
19:36:46 [holger]
bijan: should not close down the mapping of n-ary to triples, there are multiple ways.
19:36:59 [holger]
csma: up to the WG
19:37:10 [Mala_Mehrotra]
Mala_Mehrotra has joined #rif
19:37:41 [holger]
jon: reads out charter section shown on slite
19:38:16 [holger]
csma: "starting point" does not say too much
19:39:10 [jp]
from the charter: In order to allow interoperability with RDF and object-oriented systems, the syntax must support named arguments (also called "role" or "slot" names), allowing n-ary facts, rules, and queries to be provided through property/value interfaces.
19:39:29 [jp]
19:40:00 [holger]
dieter: need to address rdf anyway
19:40:21 [jeremy]
q+ to make process point: chair interprets charter
19:40:22 [holger]
csma: the question is if the charter prescribes already a certain way of the mapping
19:40:44 [holger]
... interprets that it does not
19:41:01 [jeremy]
19:41:02 [holger]
... suggest that there is no preimposed way to do the mapping
19:43:06 [holger]
jeremy: chairs are supposed to interpret the charter?
19:43:22 [holger]
ChrisW: not clear to me what is discussed.
19:43:28 [holger]
... lets move on
19:44:05 [holger]
sandro: compatibility with PRR
19:44:31 [bijan]
To address the other co-chairs puzzlement about the discussion, while no one objected to the point that we must deal with rdf and with nary predicates, the question was whether the *specific method* of encoding nary predicates in RDF was a charter derived constraint, or just one possible approach
19:44:53 [bijan]
Slide 16
19:45:27 [bijan]
slide 17
19:45:31 [bijan]
All done
19:46:00 [holger]
csma: asks if there is more discussion on charter
19:46:50 [holger]
benjamin: have a process question - what is the process on how to decide the shedule to be extended?
19:47:59 [holger]
csma: we will achieve the deadline
19:48:17 [holger]
... (said in my role of project manager)
19:49:28 [holger]
csma: working group is about "rule interchange format" and not "rule language for the web"
19:49:34 [holger]
... any bad fealings?
19:49:59 [holger]
... someone advertising WRL (points to dieter)
19:50:19 [holger]
bijan: I do not understand the difference.
19:51:36 [holger]
csma: question is: do we want a vendor neutral xml format for interchange? Or do we want a language that is directly executed by different engines?
19:51:50 [jeremy]
q+ to ask about semantics
19:52:04 [holger]
peter: I view both to be exactly the same
19:52:31 [holger]
jeremy: disagrees and sees both as different things
19:53:17 [bijan]
I would like to point out that we should avoid the "Semantic Web" part of the analogy
19:53:28 [holger]
... just identifying the space we are working in.
19:53:44 [bijan]
I.e., Peter just meant, I think, that developing a Rule Interchange Language requires developing a Rule Language
19:54:08 [bijan]
s/Rule Interchange Language/Rule Interchange Format/
19:54:19 [holger]
... to exchange rules in a common format and not to design a new language
19:54:43 [jeremy]
wasn't me speaking above
19:54:58 [bijan]
Was it...hassan?
19:55:16 [holger]
who was it?
19:55:47 [giorgos]
not me
19:55:52 [jeremy]
19:55:54 [hak]
It was me - Hassan Ait-Kaci
19:57:33 [holger]
Edd: issue is weather the interpretations are well enough defined such that the interachange and the extension do not modify the interpretation
19:58:29 [holger]
dieter: Should not include all features but apply the 80/20 rule to include 20% feature to achieve 80%
19:59:49 [jeremy]
q+ to illustrate raising hand on IRC
19:59:56 [jeremy]
20:00:02 [bijan]
well done
20:00:38 [holger]
joshua: the tricky part is not to design some particular features, but to identify overlaps and concrete interpretations and to characterize the difference between concrete rule language
20:01:08 [holger]
csma: closes session
20:01:10 [Zakim]
20:01:37 [holger]
20:01:44 [msintek]
msintek has left #rif
20:02:01 [Zakim]
20:03:31 [PaulV]
PaulV has joined #rif
20:07:58 [PaulV]
20:16:07 [Hirtle]
Hirtle has left #rif
20:46:47 [Zakim]
20:47:35 [der]
der has joined #rif
20:50:18 [giorgos]
giorgos has joined #rif
20:56:19 [Zakim]
20:56:52 [Zakim]
21:00:16 [Jing]
Jing has joined #rif
21:00:40 [Zakim]
21:00:54 [sandro]
sandro has joined #rif
21:02:38 [phitzler]
phitzler has joined #rif
21:02:54 [markus]
markus has joined #rif
21:02:56 [Mala_Mehrotra]
Mala_Mehrotra has joined #rif
21:03:05 [jeremy]
earlier could you hear hassan better than me?
21:03:17 [jeremy]
was problem my end or yours?
21:04:43 [msintek]
msintek has joined #rif
21:05:44 [jos]
jos has joined #rif
21:06:02 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #rif
21:06:08 [Zakim]
21:06:12 [sandro]
I thought it was pretty similar
21:06:30 [jeremy]
ahh, i could hear hassan really well
21:06:36 [ugo]
ugo has joined #rif
21:06:43 [jeremy]
so problem was your end
21:06:46 [bijan]
bijan has joined #rif
21:08:01 [Allen]
Allen has joined #rif
21:08:19 [Donald]
Donald has joined #rif
21:08:20 [aharth]
aharth has joined #rif
21:08:35 [hirtle]
hirtle has joined #rif
21:09:32 [GaryH]
GaryH has joined #rif
21:09:37 [csma]
csma has joined #rif
21:10:15 [PaulV]
PaulV has joined #rif
21:10:35 [der]
Scribe: Dave Reynolds
21:10:45 [der]
ScribeNick: der
21:10:47 [mdean]
mdean has joined #rif
21:10:48 [Elisa]
Elisa has joined #rif
21:11:00 [holger]
holger has joined #rif
21:11:15 [der]
Topic: History of KR standardization, Ben Grosof
21:11:29 [der]
Slides: to be posted
21:13:16 [jp]
jp has joined #rif
21:15:27 [hirtle]
hirtle has joined #rif
21:15:34 [der]
Highlighting CLIPS syntax as a de facto rule interchange, at least in past
21:15:46 [jp]
? is there a link to this presentation?
21:16:10 [der]
Not yet, to be posted
21:16:17 [hirtle]
as in, after the talk?
21:16:23 [jp]
k tnx
21:17:15 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has left #rif
21:17:23 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #rif
21:17:36 [Zakim]
21:20:37 [bijan]
I would like to point out that I find much of this presentation tendentious
21:23:35 [der]
Bijan corrects SWRL comments on implementation - there exists a non-FOL reasoner, non-LP implmentation, Kaon
21:23:47 [bijan]
I guess it depends on what you mean by "non-LP"
21:23:55 [ChrisW]
tendentious: Marked by a strong implicit point of view; partisan: a tendentious account of the recent elections.
21:24:16 [jp]
while your at it define "inference"
21:24:22 [mkroetzsch]
21:24:38 [vassilis]
vassilis has joined #rif
21:24:39 [bijan]
I mean, KAON2 works by a (somewhat complex) reduction to positive disjuctive datalog
21:24:45 [giorgos]
giorgos has joined #rif
21:24:50 [bijan]
But this is very difference than, say, AL Log
21:25:06 [bijan]
very different
21:25:41 [bijan]
What I mean is that KAON2 implements a direct decision procedure for a rather expressive subset of SWRL (namely DL Safe SHIQ rules)
21:26:45 [mkroetzsch]
21:32:42 [der]
[slides on semantics and examples, inferencing, ontology, skipped over, not presented]
21:32:48 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #rif
21:32:58 [ugo]
ugo has left #rif
21:35:32 [der]
Sandro: use some of material as basis for glossary? Benjamin maintain?
21:35:41 [Deborah]
Deborah has joined #rif
21:35:41 [der]
BG: depends
21:36:04 [der]
Topic: W3C recommendations of relevance, Sandro
21:36:36 [sandro]
sandros slides:
21:38:46 [ChrisW-alt]
slide 7
21:39:41 [der]
Bijan: why is web arch relevant, given RIF charter is for interchange?
21:40:29 [der]
Sandro: e.g. use of URIs etc as in RDF and OWL is part of this group's charter
21:41:26 [der]
Bijan questions how formally Sandro represents tbl and DanC
21:42:37 [der]
PPS: points out that people who know XSD are likely confused by it, e.g. xsd:duration
21:42:59 [der]
21:44:51 [Zakim]
21:45:09 [ChrisW-alt]
21:45:26 [Zakim]
21:45:36 [der]
[not as scribe: I think S in SPARQL is Simple, at least according to some members]
21:45:46 [ChrisW-alt]
zakim, who is on the phone?
21:45:46 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Meeting_Room, hassan, ??P25, jeremy
21:46:37 [jos]
jos has joined #rif
21:47:20 [bijan]
[der see: and
21:47:34 [der]
Harold: MathML is good for describing functions
21:47:48 [ChrisW-alt]
zakim, ?p25 is PedramAbrari
21:47:48 [Zakim]
sorry, ChrisW-alt, I do not recognize a party named '?p25'
21:47:57 [ChrisW-alt]
zakim, ??p25 is PedramAbrari
21:47:57 [Zakim]
+PedramAbrari; got it
21:48:09 [der]
.. a sub-initiative might be logical fns in MathML for user defined functions
21:49:25 [der]
Topic: Harold Boley, glossary entries
21:49:47 [der]
Anyone know the URL for the slides?
21:58:30 [der]
Slides presented by authors of each entry - MK for f-logic, Mike Dean for SWRL, Jos for WRL
22:01:04 [sandro]
22:01:20 [der]
ChrisW points out we treat these languages as examples of this that must interoperate, not as languages to argue over
22:01:31 [der]
22:01:48 [der]
.. just covered web rule languages in this section
22:02:22 [der]
Discussion on how to do interchange w/o defining "a language"
22:03:01 [der]
Grosof: need "X language" terminology where X can be ..
22:03:08 [sandro]
Execution Language
22:03:08 [sandro]
Authoring Language
22:03:08 [sandro]
RDF Encoding Syntax
22:03:08 [sandro]
Concrete Syntax
22:03:08 [sandro]
Abstraction Sytnax
22:04:04 [der]
Jos: horn logic used ambiguously - subset of FOL v. LP
22:06:59 [der]
Topic: Chris Menzel, Common Logics
22:07:50 [jos]
What was especially strange is the interpretation of Harold of Datalog. All model-theoretic definitions of Datalog in the literature are based on minimal Herbrand models and *not* first-order models
22:08:20 [der]
ChrisW: introduces CL, owl & rdf embedding, not kif but descended ..
22:08:40 [der]
.. has formal semantics which we will need too
22:10:41 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
22:13:09 [Harold]
As I mentioned in the glossary overiew, the current entries give a top-level characterization.
22:14:26 [sandro]
(laughter at KIF example's english being amusingly different from KIF version)
22:14:26 [Harold]
Further distinctions such as FOL vs. LP semantics should be added for Datalog, Horn logic, and (indeed) for more expressive languages.
22:16:55 [der]
Slide on KIF is first order provokes discussion on whether it is really fully expressable in first order
22:17:31 [sandro]
cm's conclusion: KIF maybe isn't needed any more, if every tool starts working with RIF
22:21:19 [jos]
I think we need a different name for the function-free subset of Horn logic (with safety condition)
22:21:46 [jos]
Using "Datalog" is IMHO not clear
22:21:46 [sandro]
a name other than "datalog" ?
22:21:48 [sandro]
22:22:20 [jos]
Yes, because Datalog is based on minimal model semantics, whereas Harold also wanted to describe first-order semantics
22:22:33 [phitzler]
In that case we should probably also avoid "Datalog" because it's ambiguoug as to semantics. Depending on whom you ask.
22:23:02 [phitzler]
practical solution is to make it a practice to always state which semantics you mean
22:23:06 [jos]
Maybe we should start using citations when talking ;)
22:24:04 [jos]
22:26:48 [jos]
How and when will the glossary be published? It would be helpful to have this common terminology asap.
22:28:19 [sandro]
My suggestion is people put it into the RIF Wiki as quick as they can.
22:28:37 [jos]
URI of the RDF wiki?
22:28:56 [sandro]
22:32:32 [der]
Slide on CL's ability to allow syntactic restiction ..
22:32:53 [der]
.. Dieter asks for clarification how the integrity constraint works
22:33:10 [der]
.. see Pat Hayes for more details on that
22:33:11 [GaryH]
GaryH has joined #rif
22:34:09 [der]
.. dialect is purely syntactic notion (but has semantic implications)
22:34:42 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the phone?
22:34:42 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Meeting_Room, hassan, PedramAbrari, jeremy (muted)
22:35:36 [jos]
How do we organize discussion around entries in the glossary? Email or in-line comments in the Wiki?
22:36:08 [bijan]
That's a tendentious claim!
22:36:23 [bijan]
(That first order roughtly means "compact")
22:36:53 [jos]
\me as a non-native speaker wonders what 'tendentious' means
22:37:34 [bijan]
<ChrisW>tendentious: Marked by a strong implicit point of view; partisan: a tendentious account of the recent elections.
22:37:38 [jp]
from Meriam webster: marked by a tendency in favor of a particular point of view : BIASED
22:38:08 [bijan]
It has a strong connotation of "contentious" or "controversial"
22:38:34 [bijan]
It is not usually, at least in my usage, a pejorative *per se*
22:39:16 [der]
Sandro: would xcl dialect restricted to horn fit with RIF phase 1?
22:39:33 [der]
cm: yes
22:39:54 [sandro]
cm: I think so ... not sure what exactly you need
22:40:10 [der]
pfps: CL with equality won't be horn ..
22:40:34 [sandro]
"A Horrocks Sentence"
22:41:29 [der]
.. cm: use dialect restrictions to prevent the punning which the pseudo-higher order allows
22:42:43 [sandro]
"It depends what you mean by 'having a different meaning'" :-)
22:43:25 [sandro]
(CM and PFPS going on.... we beyond what most of us are following.)
22:44:50 [sandro]
Harold: SCL ... CL ?
22:45:11 [sandro]
CM: SCL was an unnecessary diversion that has been channeled back into CL
22:45:11 [der]
SCL? cm: unnecessary diversion, all channeled back into CL
22:46:20 [der]
Dieter: can you express transitive closure?
22:47:00 [pfps]
A Horrocks sentence is something like (forall x forall y x=y) implies (Pa implies Qb)
22:47:11 [der]
.. cm tries to clarify question ... taken off line
22:47:12 [sandro]
People on the phone: please get on the queue by saying "q+' on IRC
22:47:16 [pfps]
This is an axiom in CL but not in FOL
22:47:23 [pfps]
It is also an FOL sentence
22:48:24 [mkroetzsch]
There was a question for the CL Website. It is
22:48:38 [der]
mk: (refering to Dieter question) can't express that one relation is a transitive conclusion of another
22:48:40 [sandro]
kifer: to express that one relationion is a transitive closure of another relation
22:48:56 [der]
22:49:00 [pfps]
Consider the following rule: x=y
22:49:30 [pfps]
This brings up divergences between FOL and CL
22:49:37 [sandro]
kifer: is not possible in FOL
22:51:05 [Zakim]
22:51:13 [Zakim]
22:51:36 [hak]
quit #rif
22:52:21 [jos]
If I understand it correctly, the sentence is an axiom in CL, because x=y ensures that P and Q are actually interpreted as the same relation; is this correct?
22:55:40 [ircleuser]
ircleuser has joined #rif
22:56:29 [ircleuser]
23:06:13 [JosD]
JosD has joined #rif
23:18:29 [Zakim]
+ +aacc
23:18:37 [ekw]
ekw has joined #rif
23:20:01 [Zakim]
23:20:47 [phitzler]
phitzler has joined #rif
23:23:43 [pfps]
in response to jos: yes
23:23:52 [MarkusK]
MarkusK has joined #rif
23:24:38 [mdean]
scribe: Mike Dean
23:24:39 [PaulV]
PaulV has joined #rif
23:24:59 [mdean]
Topic: Christian: tomorrow's schedule
23:25:15 [mdean]
morning: 1 use case per person
23:25:48 [mdean]
pet use cases, not necessary real - why you think RIF is interested/needed
23:26:00 [mdean]
interests of everyone, plus useful base
23:26:10 [mdean]
5 minutes/person
23:26:33 [mdean]
maybe we'll all have the same idea and be done very fast :-)
23:26:53 [mdean]
in afternoon, take a few more elaborated use cases (e.g. from email list)
23:27:11 [mdean]
identify candidates for Use Case and Requirements document
23:27:22 [mdean]
what's needed, etc.
23:27:24 [JosD]
JosD has joined #rif
23:27:48 [mdean]
dissect case to see what is useful, missing
23:27:54 [mdean]
shopping list of what we want in use cases
23:28:35 [mdean]
random selection or ask for volunteers (cadavers)
23:29:24 [mdean]
homework for tonight: synthesize/consolidate use cases
23:29:57 [mdean]
call for volunteers now
23:30:33 [hirtle]
volunteer for what, exactly?
23:30:41 [hirtle]
the "homework"?
23:31:17 [mdean]
Harold Boley, Dave Reynolds, Paul, Benjamin, Vassilis, Mala, Bijan, Uli
23:31:25 [bijan]
I didn't volunteer
23:31:34 [bijan]
I volunteered uli
23:31:37 [mdean]
23:31:54 [sandro]
23:31:57 [sandro]
23:32:02 [sandro]
Volunteers Paula
23:33:15 [mdean]
morning will be more personal
23:33:31 [mdean]
no prescribed format initially
23:34:01 [mdean]
Christian removes hat to present a few PRR glossary entries
23:34:08 [Zakim]
23:34:18 [mdean]
and OMG standards
23:34:41 [jeremy]
Ahh - my call got dropped, but I'm flaking anyway
23:34:59 [ChrisW]
ok - g'nite then?
23:35:01 [jeremy]
I think I'll go to bed, and not redial ... see you all tomorrow
23:35:13 [mdean]
5 entries: meta-model, production rule, PRR, SOA, JSR 94
23:35:30 [mdean]
slides presumably to be made available
23:35:48 [sandro]
ciao, Jeremy!
23:36:06 [mdean]
meta-model is the ontology for a model
23:36:09 [mdean]
extends UML
23:36:24 [mdean]
no definition of meta-model in OMG literature :-(
23:37:55 [mdean]
pfps skeptical of rule language ontology
23:38:32 [bijan]
Now *that* is contentious :)
23:39:03 [mdean]
OMG MOF, UML, and other standards are relevant to meta-models
23:39:56 [mdean]
?: translation between rule languages if they share meta-model?
23:40:12 [mdean]
syntax only?
23:40:23 [mdean]
christian: no, semantics too
23:40:38 [mdean]
barkmeyer: some confusion even within OMG
23:40:43 [MarkusK]
^?^Pascal Hitzler^
23:40:49 [mdean]
23:41:14 [mdean]
barkmeyer: mapping between meta-models
23:41:32 [mdean]
christian: that's what is meant by sharing
23:41:43 [mdean]
grosof: sweetrules translations, e.g. jess to xsb
23:42:02 [mdean]
grosof: distinctions necessary to handle, e.g. negation, properly
23:42:20 [mdean]
back to briefing slides
23:42:28 [mdean]
slide: production rule
23:42:56 [mdean]
consequent is action or list of actions
23:43:23 [mdean]
couldn't find statistics - but major vendors have 1000s of active customers
23:43:38 [mdean]
users demanding standard rule interchange format
23:43:50 [mdean]
vendors willing to implement
23:45:14 [mdean]
slide: PRR
23:45:23 [mdean]
Production Rule Representation
23:45:35 [mdean]
under specification at OMG
23:45:51 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #rif
23:46:08 [mdean]
follow link to PRR Core UML diagram
23:47:31 [mdean]
provides operational semantics not logic
23:48:56 [mdean]
PRR support not much of a constraint
23:49:50 [mdean]
defining PRR OCL (constraint language)
23:50:48 [mdean]
translation to/from IRL and OCL via meta-models
23:51:10 [mdean]
Bijan: what are constraints expressed in UML diagram?
23:51:20 [mdean]
Evan: constraints are separate package
23:51:32 [mdean]
weaker than Z
23:52:01 [mdean]
OCL = Object Constraint Language
23:52:32 [mdean]
Paul: extension to OCL for rules
23:52:53 [mdean]
?: difference between production rule and rule?
23:53:06 [mdean]
not every rule is a production rule
23:53:32 [mdean]
color on diagram is slightly different (hard to see) - provides for future extensions (other classes of rules)
23:53:33 [hak]
23:54:14 [mdean]
PRR white paper in January
23:54:24 [mdean]
slide: SOA
23:54:29 [hak]
23:54:35 [mdean]
Service Oriented Architecture
23:54:41 [mdean]
end of OMG definitions
23:55:11 [mdean]
large class of use cases
23:55:41 [mdean]
RIF must be able to refer to web service as procedural attachment
23:55:51 [mdean]
Slide: JSR 94
23:55:58 [mdean]
informative, not constraining
23:56:25 [mdean]
RIF would be standard rule language for JSR 94
23:56:39 [mdean]
part of the motivation for vendors to implement RIF
23:57:08 [mdean]
no apparent impact on design of RIF
23:57:54 [mdean]
Slide: SBVR
23:58:13 [hak]
who is speaking?
23:58:18 [mdean]
Donald Chapin
23:58:25 [hak]
Where are his slides?
23:58:40 [mdean]
not posted yet
23:58:51 [mdean]
Semantics of Business Vocabulary & Business Rules
23:58:59 [mdean]
Business Modelling and Integration Domain Task Force
23:59:08 [mdean]
OMG ^^
23:59:22 [mdean]
"Semantic Beaver" (SBVR)