SV_MEETING_TITLE -- 20 Dec 2005

<sandro> (working on it, Chris)

<paula> hi

<paula_francois> have you seen that Paula and Francois from REWERSE also joined on the phone?

<minsu> minsu is MinsuJang

<MM> if you are not here please say your name ;)

Jeff Pan

<vassilis> +vassilis tzouvaras and giorgos stoilos in the same telephone line with giorgos stamou

<cgi-irc> GaryHallmark is here

<paula_francois> on the phone from Munich: Paula-Lavinia Patranjan and Francois Bry

<holgerl> holger lausen is here

<sandro> Donald Chapin

Chaphin?

<paula_francois> on the phone from Munich: Paula-Lavinia Patranjan and Francois Bry

<stabet> Chapin

DaveReynolds (JeremyCarroll expected)

GuizhenYang

JosDeBruijn (HolgerLausen substitutes)

MinsuJang (will be available on the irc channel)

<GaryHallmark> thanks, Bijan :)

<pfps> It is generally better if everyone mutes themselves!

<bijan> It's typically no better than your local mute if you have it

<bijan> If there's a problem with your phone, then zakim mute is better

Sandro: it is better if non-talkers mute themselves

<pfps> the problem with Zakim mutes is the pinging - so local mute is better if it works.

<sandro> pfps, zakim mutes via IRC work well

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2005Dec/0140

is agenda

Next meeting Jan 3rd

Proposed by chair, no objections

Micheal Sintek

joined

<MM> 631 is the NY area...

<ekw> Bijan

PROPOSED regular telecon time Tuesday 11AM East US

Bijan: same time as DAWG

JosDeRoo: I just came from DAWG, no clash

Bijan: OK - I'm sorry

Sandro: resolution is fixed on east coast time, with summertime things may change

With change to summertime there will be a few oddities

All W3C WG use east coast time

Proposed by chair, no objections, carried

Question about WG page and Wiki

Both publicly readable, Wiki writeable

Jeremy: I was planning to take regrets from Wiki at beginning of meeting, and include those in minutes
... is that correct?

Chair/Sandro: that sounds reasonable

<JosD> mute me

<sandro> msintek, Zakim knows you by the name I told it, MichaelSintek.

Regrets policy is expressed at:

<MM> correct, unless someone has to explicitly report in the meeting agenda

Sandro: there should only be regrets if noone from an organization is showing up?

<sandro> other way around

<ChrisW> regrets policy is here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2005Dec/0144.html

<scribe> Chair: also it doesn't make that much difference if there are too many regrets on Wiki

<scribe> Chair: if there is an agenda item for which you would like to contribute but will be late or absent, e-mail chairs

<scribe> Chair: everyone who is not familiar with Zakim and IRC should read the document on the website

http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot.html

<scribe> Chair: you should also read the document on the scribe script ...

(which one???)

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/ScribesList

person at top of list will need to scribe

Once you have scribed you go to bottom of list

Chair recommends reading ....

<ChrisW> IRC minutes script: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm

<pfps> I don't see the link to the scribe list on the group main page.

Jeremy notes he is not familiar with that script ....

<pfps> Scribing is a duty - think of it as a price of being an alternate :-)

Bijan asks about occassionally attendingalternates and scribing.

<scribe> Chair: if you are here and you are the top of the list then you scribe

<sandro> I wonder if we should give people a pass on their first time they attend. Hrm.....

<scribe> Chair: no obligation to turn up if at top of list

2. Recap of f2f (15 min)

<scribe> Chair: asks to formally agree to move deadline from Dec 20 to 21

so resolved

Jeremy: query "publish"?

<scribe> Chair: no, intent is to put a first editors draft for WG comments

Sandro: perhaps best not on the Wiki
... html

(scribe note to self: was there an action on sandro to do with website)

<ChrisW> ACTION: sandro update main web page re: meetings [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/20-rif-minutes.html#action01]

(thanks chris)

next f2f at all group meeting

which days (mon/tues) or thurs/fri will be decided

by end of year

but WG has to accept decision of all group meeting organizers

For next f2f around june, location to be decided

if you are willing to host please send to chairs list

someone: possibly with WWW conference?

23-26May WWW conference

discussion of deadline for offering to host june f2f

pfps better to decide earlier to allow travel bookings if collocated with WWW

<scribe> chair: propose deadline for offer to host f2f by jan 31

<sandro> Also see http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F3 (and make links to interesting conflicts and co-locaiton opportunities)

no objections, resolved

<stabet> Suggestion: possibly collocate with OMG Meeting in Boston: June 26-30, 2006

sandro: conference call reservation has fixed size

if you call up and the conference is full, do *0 and speak to operator

conference is now full, so if you are trying to join speak to operator

(booking for 40 people)

ACTION sandro add *0 to speak to operator to web page on meeting logistics

3. Use Case & Requirements (20 min)

David and Allan editing

reviewing the page

there are 22 use cases, but a lot have been added recently

editors have not had a real good look at them

but they are presumably based on earlier e-mail

editors will create first editors draft from these use cases

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UseCaseTemplate

everyone interested should read use cases, and add comments

including links from one to another

<MM> Jim, I was just checking out the created use cases, they follow the template ;)

proposals to group use cases

<Zakim> jeremy, you wanted to ask if editors expected to use all of these?

Jeremy: how much editorial descretion is there to discard use cases

editors: we do not expect to have to use all of them

we may ask for feedback on which ones we use and do not use

hassan: if we put links between use cases, then we are classifying

last speaker ignored

<pfps> Dieter?

said: following up hassan

not only about classification,

some are related because of what they are dealing with

Benjamin: job of editors will be easier if we had activity on classification

<scribe> Chair: we want to have highly relevant use cases

<scribe> Chair: also about RIF, perhaps business area is not so relevant

Benjamin: there are multiple dimensions - requirements on RIF, business area

PaulV: use case should specify rule language uses and interchange requirement

<edbark> How do I put myself on the speaker queue?

<Zakim> jimh, you wanted to ask about template - missing "real world" tab

<sandro> edbark, type "q+ to say (whatever)"

JimHendler: in WebOnt and Choreography requirements

having something about where and when this thing was implemented and done

and what is the business case for it

Many of the use cases seemed 'proposed use cases' rather than 'we have a specific need'

e.g. 'my business is dependent on this'

'we use this all the time'

<scribe> Chair: suggests template should be modified to include this

jim implementation status

jeremy: will people need to revise already submitted use cases?

<edbark> to Zakim, q+

<Allen> +q

<Allen> q

<scribe> chair: we could ask everyone to add this as a comment

<GaryHallmark> +q

proposal: on exisiting use cases a comment should be added to show implementation status, and real world status

it could be in status field

proposal s/comment/status/

hassan: classification is needed
... everyone has some criteria that they have implicitly used

<GaryHallmark> just wondering how real an implementation of RIF can be when it isn't defined yet

hassan: everyone should relate their own use case to other cases
... and give explanation of why the cases are linked
... this will build up an ontology of use cases
... I am not seeing anything emerge from use cases
... looks almost arbitrary
... we should be abstracting from them

Harold: +1

<scribe> chair: proposal is that use case submitters should link their use case to others with explanations of criteria

Allen: I agree with hassan
... about need for classifying, but I am not sure if linking to others is best way
... perhaps identify requirements coming out of use case
... linking might help but isn't only/best way

<scribe> chair: to allen and david, when do you want this information?

editors: asap

holidays coming

chair suggest Dec 31 deadline

<hak> on-going interactions is good and a must!

<scribe> chair: the more interactiive the better

in producing the document

editor: stuff that is in by the end of the year will be taken into account

but later stuff may be accepted

deadline of 31st proposed and accepted

ACTION everyone provide links to other uses cases or further classifying information

(scribe missed chris comment)

chris: ?? rule language used should be mentioned in scenario section of template

<kifer> will there be an addition to the template for that classification info?

<Hirtle> I believe Chris asked about what existing rule languages can handle the need

<scribe> chair: different parts of scenario could use different rule languages

<scribe> chair: are we tralking interchange language or rule language

chris: which rule language/systems support this

some or all of actors use rule systems, and these rule systems should be identified

chris: it could go in the benefit of interchange section

<scribe> chair: it could go with actors

<MM> it can be quite hard to push to the use case's authors to already do the precise analysis wrt existing rule systems...

proposal include about each of the actors which rule languages/systems they use

<MM> yes, informal hints are much better and makes more sense

or type of rule language (e.g. production rules)

Gary: unclear if classification of use cases and classification of rule systems is the same thing

hassan: of course these classifications are orthogonal

<franconi> bye guys

<ChrisW> ciao enrico

<csma> bye enrico

<stabet> bye enrico

use cases will identifty features of systems, but also more about this use case

editors should update template

<hak> good idea!

proposal is that use case submitters should

- link their use case to others with explanations of criteria

- show implementation status,

- business need

- real world status

- rule languages/systems used by actors

- rule languages/system that already support this use case

???

suggestion that editors shoudl clearly identify what was modified

<holger> DIeterFensel is dieterf

<sandro> Hirtle and Allen on irc

action AllenAndDave update template clearly identifying what has change

suggestion that change should be discussed on e-mail fbefore the submitters have to update

<scribe> chair: isn't discussion here sufficient

<edbark> MM's idea would be great if we had time!

?: it is more efficient to have a written thing to discuss

<scribe> chair: it would be better if we had the time

<Harold> The authors only will know what links, implementations, etc. they want to add.

?: ask for two days discussion on e-mail

<scribe> chair: there isn't time

?: it was just a suggestion, agree with chair

<Harold> The editors could quickly change the template as decided today (clearly marking what they changed).

<scribe> chair: - rule languages/systems used by actors is same as - rule languages/system that already support this use case

<dieterf> are we going to extend the length of the telco or skipping topics?

ACTION allen&dave Update template in light of this discussion clearly identifying what has change

ACTION everyone update their use cases in light of changed items in template

discussion of extending telecon

<scribe> chair: suggest 30 mins extension

<stabet> agrees with Sandro

sandro: i would rather not go that way

?: +1

<ChrisW> suggest 15 mins

<ekw> agree with Sandro

<scribe> chair: we will proceed quickly through other items

sandro: have we agreed an extension?

<scribe> chair: propose 15 min extension

no objections

<kifer> bye, have to go

clearly identifying what has change

<csma> bye michael

4. OWL & RDF Compatibility (15 min)

sandro: some edits on the Wiki

I am quite impressed with the edits

sandro: does anyone want to say anyhting

pfps: it is hard to put together something without structure
... who is going to generate structure?

sandro: I thought we would agree with an enumeration approach (agreed at f2f breakout)
... it looks like you (pfps) were goind ahead with that

pfps: not convinced

<scribe> chair: let's keep enumerating and have a conf call to discuss structure

<scribe> chair: let's decide on Jan 3rd when to discuss it

sandro: I thought we were going to have discussion in main telecons, not break outs

<scribe> chair: I thought we would discuss on Jan 3rd, but technical discussion may get too deep

sandro: I don't know what are the priorities for Jan 3rd meeting

<ekw> Didn't Peter already say he wouldn't make 3 Jan telecon?

<pfps> yes, it is very unlikely that I will be available 3 Jan

<scribe> scribe: -Bijan was -JimH

discussion of date for RDF/OWL compat doc

no date decided

<edbark> several SW folks will be missing on 3 Jan

<sandro> peter, please make sure your regets are in the wiki page for that meeting.

<scribe> chair: given peter will not be on 3rd Jan, maybe not appropriate to discuss at that meeting

<sandro> ["OWL Compatibility"]

<pfps> hmm, are the regrets requirements retroactive?

sandro: if use case links are relevant to this compatibility, link use case to OWL Compatibility

me to pfps: yes - not worth complaining

<scribe> chair: this in addition to list of earlier

<pfps> some automated mechanisms for generating meeting pages would be very useful

also links to classification too

ACTION jeremy modify minutes of previous section to include these links

<Zakim> ChrisW, you wanted to ask for compatibility use cases

ChrisW: it would be good to have more use cases on compatibility

<scribe> chair: +1

?: if pfps wants structure, why doesn't jos and pfps propose structure

pfps: neither of us have status with repsect to the document

<scribe> chair: we will discuss structure next year

<scribe> chair: is there one document, why two pages?

sandro: breakout had consensus on one document with two sections

<scribe> chair: are there any objections to this?

sandro: we don't need to decide now.

<scribe> chair: resolved there will be one document on RDF and OWL compat

<paula> +paula

5. Classification (15 min)

chris if there are exisitng articles on classifying rule systems please post links to web pages

benjamin: the link I posted this morning is pertinent to it, I will post more links

chris: if people can think of good use cases which demonstrate differences in different semantic approaches to rules
... is phase 1 classification important, there was discussion

digression into function-free or full horn as phase 1

seems to be full horn

?? what was the action to put soemthing on wiki, can someone scribe that please

pfps: what are teh requirements on list ??

<csma> action on harold to put a link to RuleML classification on wiki

<Benjamin> Benj wants to get on queue

<bijan> er

<stabet> Benjamin: type q+

chris: you are saying it is not clear what the current classificationd desiderata are

<bijan> ack

ACTION chris clarify desiderata forlist of classifications

Benjamin: I am a bit worried about classification of rules as opposed to rule systems

Benajmain: on wikis how radical an edit is polite?

I am hesitant to do drastic editing, but also hesitant to see things charge off in wrong direction

chrisW: have discussion on e-mail

sandro: add note to bottom of wiki page

<scribe> chair: if you add something please identify yourself on wiki

<scribe> chair: you added this at this time

?: on wikipedia there is a discussion page about each page

sandro: discussion can be below a line on the page

?: let's do that

<pfps> +1

if you offend someone discuss offline

<ekw> +1

benjamin: would be helpful to have guidelines for wiki usage

ACTION sandro add link about wiki usage

<bijan> I also worry about us moving to using a wiki as the primary medium for working group work as this is a fairly radical departure from normal WG practice

Harold we should look to charter for ...

e.g. datatypes should be brought in

<bijan> Not only is it noval for us, it's noval for W3C observers

<sandro> bijan, I'd love to talk with you about this -- maybe this isn't the place. :-)

<ChrisW> suggest we move this to email and adjourn

<bijan> It's WG business

<bijan> I'll send an email

<bijan> as well

<ChrisW> "this" == current phone discussino

<Zakim> jeremy, you wanted to propose discussion on mailing list

edbark agreed with harold

<stabet> shares Ed's concern

it is improtant to address things that affect the way rule language works, as well as things in charter

?? what was atcion on harold

<Harold> I suggest, in particular, to do a Phase 1 fine classification

<MM> Happy holidays to everybody!

<scribe> chair: propse close, happy xmass and new year

<stabet> bye everyone thanks!

<stabet> -stabet

<deborah_n> quit bye

<minsu> ë²¼ã…‘ã……

<GaryHallmark> -

<minsu> quit

axel particpated ..

?? where is log?

I will try and have minutes ready in the next couple of hours, need a break now though

<ChrisW> thanks jeremy!!!!

<sandro> understood, Jeremy! THANKS!

<csma> thanx jeremy

<MM> esp in the first meetings when you can't recognize all the voices jeremy... I don't envy you ;)

<sandro> I just want to see how well RRSagent does does for this:

- DRAFT -

SV_MEETING_TITLE

20 Dec 2005

Attendees

Contents

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output