00:00:00 <sandro> PRESENT: csma, chrisw, gary, dave, adrian, harold, blaz, kifer, stella, leora, dean, jos, axel, sandro
00:00:00 <sandro> REMOTE: Bob
13:07:37 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rif
RRSAgent IRC Bot: RRSAgent has joined #rif ←
13:07:37 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc ←
13:09:19 <StellaMitchell> StellaMitchell has joined #rif
Stella Mitchell: StellaMitchell has joined #rif ←
13:09:34 <LeoraMorgenstern> LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
Leora Morgenstern: LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif ←
13:10:42 <csma> csma has joined #rif
Christian de Sainte Marie: csma has joined #rif ←
13:10:59 <DaveReynolds> DaveReynolds has joined #rif
Dave Reynolds: DaveReynolds has joined #rif ←
13:11:43 <sandro> sandro has joined #rif
Sandro Hawke: sandro has joined #rif ←
13:15:35 <Blaz> Blaz has joined #rif
Blaz Novak: Blaz has joined #rif ←
13:16:03 <AxelPolleres> AxelPolleres has joined #rif
Axel Polleres: AxelPolleres has joined #rif ←
13:16:19 <AdrianP> AdrianP has joined #rif
Adrian Paschke: AdrianP has joined #rif ←
13:16:31 <AxelPolleres> scribe: AxelPolleres
(Scribe set to Axel Polleres)
13:16:36 <AxelPolleres> scribenick: AxelPolleres
13:17:11 <AxelPolleres> chris showing the meeting objectives, cf. http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F11
chris showing the meeting objectives, cf. http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F11 ←
13:17:45 <AxelPolleres> chrisw: we must progress on the test cases before going to CR.
Chris Welty: we must progress on the test cases before going to CR. ←
13:17:51 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
13:17:51 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T13-17-51
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T13-17-51 ←
13:17:53 <AxelPolleres> ... main issue.
... main issue. ←
13:18:08 <sandro> RRSAgent, make record public
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, make record public ←
13:18:21 <AxelPolleres> ... agenda, cf. http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F11
... agenda, cf. http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F11 ←
13:22:38 <AxelPolleres> sandro: how shall we change morning agenda, since we lost already 1/2 hr.
Sandro Hawke: how shall we change morning agenda, since we lost already 1/2 hr. ←
13:22:49 <AxelPolleres> adrian: we can cut tc to 1/2 hr
Adrian Paschke: we can cut tc to 1/2 hr ←
13:24:12 <AdrianP> RIF test cases
Adrian Paschke: RIF test cases ←
13:24:14 <AdrianP> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Category:Test_Case
Adrian Paschke: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Category:Test_Case ←
13:24:18 <AxelPolleres> topic: Test Cases
13:25:22 <AxelPolleres> csma: let's go through them one by one.
Christian de Sainte Marie: let's go through them one by one. ←
13:25:33 <sandro> subtopic: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Annotation_Entailment
13:25:52 <AxelPolleres> 1) http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Annotation_Entailment - by jos.
1) http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Annotation_Entailment - by jos. ←
13:26:09 <AxelPolleres> ... found an error.
... found an error. ←
13:26:23 <AxelPolleres> chrisw: let's fix simple errors on the fly.
Chris Welty: let's fix simple errors on the fly. ←
13:27:41 <AxelPolleres> jos: testing whether there is an annotation in the ontology imported.
Jos De Bruijn: testing whether there is an annotation in the ontology imported. ←
13:28:07 <AxelPolleres> sandro: how do you know that it is an annotation property.
Sandro Hawke: how do you know that it is an annotation property. ←
13:28:32 <AxelPolleres> jos: for all objects of type owl:Ontology, all properties must be annotation properties...
Jos De Bruijn: for all objects of type owl:Ontology, all properties must be annotation properties... ←
13:28:36 <AxelPolleres> ... will check again.
... will check again. ←
13:29:17 <AxelPolleres> dave: not sure, whether dc:title should be declared an annotation property.
Dave Reynolds: not sure, whether dc:title should be declared an annotation property. ←
13:29:42 <sandro> add dc:title rdf:type owl:AnnotationProperty
Sandro Hawke: add dc:title rdf:type owl:AnnotationProperty ←
13:31:06 <AxelPolleres> axel: I think hijacking dc:title that way is VERY weird.
Axel Polleres: I think hijacking dc:title that way is VERY weird. ←
13:32:24 <AxelPolleres> sandro: right, you can't use dc:title then in an ontology you merge.
Sandro Hawke: right, you can't use dc:title then in an ontology you merge. ←
13:32:36 <AxelPolleres> axel: you can just create a subproperty of dc:title.
Axel Polleres: you can just create a subproperty of dc:title. ←
13:32:44 <AxelPolleres> christian: next test case.
Christian de Sainte Marie: next test case. ←
13:32:52 <sandro> subtopic: AnnotationPropertyID rdf:type owl:AnnotationProperty
13:33:02 <sandro> subtopic: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment
13:33:08 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment ←
13:33:20 <AxelPolleres> jos: that is the simplest form of inconsistency in RIF.
Jos De Bruijn: that is the simplest form of inconsistency in RIF. ←
13:33:45 <AxelPolleres> adrian: should we define a separate test category for testing inconsistency?
Adrian Paschke: should we define a separate test category for testing inconsistency? ←
13:33:52 <mdean> mdean has joined #rif
Mike Dean: mdean has joined #rif ←
13:34:12 <AxelPolleres> agreement on that trst case.
agreement on that trst case. ←
13:34:23 <AxelPolleres> chrisw: a birt more description would be in order.
Chris Welty: a birt more description would be in order. ←
13:34:53 <AxelPolleres> resolve this status to "approved"?
resolve this status to "approved"? ←
13:35:03 <ChrisW> rrsagent, pointer
Chris Welty: rrsagent, pointer ←
13:35:03 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T13-35-03
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T13-35-03 ←
13:35:07 <AxelPolleres> s/resolve/...resolve/
s/resolve/...resolve/ ←
13:35:20 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment
PROPOSED: Accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment ←
13:35:22 <sandro> PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment
PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment ←
13:35:36 <sandro> PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment with more detailed description
PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment with more detailed description ←
13:35:40 <Harold> Harold has joined #rif
Harold Boley: Harold has joined #rif ←
13:35:46 <sandro> ACTION: jos add more description to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment
ACTION: jos add more description to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment ←
13:35:46 <trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - jos
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - jos ←
13:35:46 <trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jdebruij2, jderoo)
Trackbot IRC Bot: Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jdebruij2, jderoo) ←
13:35:50 <josb> josb has joined #rif
Jos De Bruijn: josb has joined #rif ←
13:35:56 <GaryHallmark> GaryHallmark has joined #rif
Gary Hallmark: GaryHallmark has joined #rif ←
13:36:00 <sandro> ACTION: jdebruij2 add more description to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment
ACTION: jdebruij2 add more description to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment ←
13:36:02 <trackbot> Created ACTION-580 - Add more description to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2008-10-03].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-580 - Add more description to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2008-10-03]. ←
13:36:34 <sandro> RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment with more detailed description
RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment with more detailed description ←
13:36:39 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer ←
13:36:39 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T13-36-39
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T13-36-39 ←
13:36:59 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-add_1
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-add_1 ←
13:37:04 <AxelPolleres> by Axel
by Axel ←
13:40:44 <sandro> Jos: BLD 2.3 says your can't do this -- no externals in head
Jos De Bruijn: BLD 2.3 says your can't do this -- no externals in head [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
13:41:00 <sandro> Jos: oh... no, that's just atoms
Jos De Bruijn: oh... no, that's just atoms [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
13:42:48 <sandro> PROPOSED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-add_1
PROPOSED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-add_1 ←
13:43:04 <sandro> RESOLVED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-add_1
RESOLVED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-add_1 ←
13:43:09 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
13:43:09 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T13-43-09
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T13-43-09 ←
13:46:14 <sandro> PROPOSED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-add_2
PROPOSED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-add_2 ←
13:46:31 <sandro> RESOLVED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-add_2
RESOLVED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-add_2 ←
13:46:42 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
13:46:42 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T13-46-42
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T13-46-42 ←
13:50:26 <AxelPolleres> sandro: the description of subtract-variants should reference the addition variants, highlighting the duality between them.
Sandro Hawke: the description of subtract-variants should reference the addition variants, highlighting the duality between them. ←
13:53:21 <AxelPolleres> axel: I should add a variation testing for a(11) without the "termination condition" X > 0.
Axel Polleres: I should add a variation testing for a(11) without the "termination condition" X > 0. ←
13:53:58 <sandro> PROPOSED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-subtract_1
PROPOSED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-subtract_1 ←
13:54:28 <sandro> ACTION: Axel improve the description of chaining strategies
ACTION: Axel improve the description of chaining strategies ←
13:54:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-581 - Improve the description of chaining strategies [on Axel Polleres - due 2008-10-03].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-581 - Improve the description of chaining strategies [on Axel Polleres - due 2008-10-03]. ←
13:54:35 <sandro> PROPOSED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-subtract_1 and 2
PROPOSED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-subtract_1 and 2 ←
13:54:46 <sandro> RESOLVED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-subtract_1 and 2
RESOLVED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-subtract_1 and 2 ←
13:55:09 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Class_Membership
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Class_Membership ←
13:55:11 <AxelPolleres> by adrian.
by adrian. ←
13:55:32 <AxelPolleres> jos: this is not correct.
Jos De Bruijn: this is not correct. ←
13:55:55 <AxelPolleres> ... membership can't be used as terms.
... membership can't be used as terms. ←
13:56:28 <AxelPolleres> christian: adrian, please adapt, then we can revisit that test case.
Christian de Sainte Marie: adrian, please adapt, then we can revisit that test case. ←
13:56:41 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Classification_non-inheritance
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Classification_non-inheritance ←
13:56:45 <AxelPolleres> by stella.
by stella. ←
13:58:48 <AxelPolleres> dave: This testcase shows that RIF doesn't have something like class properties.
Dave Reynolds: This testcase shows that RIF doesn't have something like class properties. ←
13:59:06 <sandro> Chrisw: Instances do not inherit the properties of their classes [ Classification non-inheritance]
Chris Welty: Instances do not inherit the properties of their classes [ Classification non-inheritance] [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
13:59:28 <sandro> Chrisw: You use formulas, not facts, to give properties of all instances of a class.
Chris Welty: You use formulas, not facts, to give properties of all instances of a class. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:00:04 <sandro> Chrisw: It looks kind of like a default, but BLD doesn't have anything like that.
Chris Welty: It looks kind of like a default, but BLD doesn't have anything like that. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:02:02 <AxelPolleres> Dave: if you approach this from an OOP viewpoint, you could expect the conclusion.
Dave Reynolds: if you approach this from an OOP viewpoint, you could expect the conclusion. ←
14:02:11 <sandro> Dave: Someone coming at frames from Java might try to do this kind of (disallowed) inheritance
Dave Reynolds: Someone coming at frames from Java might try to do this kind of (disallowed) inheritance [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:02:17 <AxelPolleres> ... that is what that TC shows.
... that is what that TC shows. ←
14:02:34 <AxelPolleres> Axel: we could add a rule in a variation that does entail the conclusion.
Axel Polleres: we could add a rule in a variation that does entail the conclusion. ←
14:02:46 <sandro> PROPOSED: Accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Classification_non-inheritance
PROPOSED: Accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Classification_non-inheritance ←
14:05:28 <sandro> csma: instead of using favoritePerson, let's use cardinality->6 billion
Christian de Sainte Marie: instead of using favoritePerson, let's use cardinality->6 billion [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:05:40 <AxelPolleres> christian: the description should be extended to discuss properties of classes and instances.
Christian de Sainte Marie: the description should be extended to discuss properties of classes and instances. ←
14:06:14 <sandro> q?
Sandro Hawke: q? ←
14:06:37 <AxelPolleres> Leora: Would it be helpful to have a variant as suggested by axel?
Leora Morgenstern: Would it be helpful to have a variant as suggested by axel? ←
14:08:07 <sandro> ACTION: axel add test case related to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Classification_non-inheritance that makes all class properties apply to instances
ACTION: axel add test case related to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Classification_non-inheritance that makes all class properties apply to instances ←
14:08:08 <trackbot> Created ACTION-582 - Add test case related to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Classification_non-inheritance that makes all class properties apply to instances [on Axel Polleres - due 2008-10-03].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-582 - Add test case related to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Classification_non-inheritance that makes all class properties apply to instances [on Axel Polleres - due 2008-10-03]. ←
14:08:51 <AxelPolleres> ?X[?P -> ?V] :- And ( ?X#?Y ?Y[?P -> ?V] )
?X[?P -> ?V] :- And ( ?X#?Y ?Y[?P -> ?V] ) ←
14:12:12 <josb> josb has joined #rif
Jos De Bruijn: josb has joined #rif ←
14:12:13 <DaveReynolds_> DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif
Dave Reynolds: DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif ←
14:12:18 <GaryHallmark> GaryHallmark has joined #rif
Gary Hallmark: GaryHallmark has joined #rif ←
14:12:18 <AxelPolleres> hi back!
hi back! ←
14:12:21 <AxelPolleres> :-)
:-) ←
14:12:30 <mdean> mdean has joined #rif
Mike Dean: mdean has joined #rif ←
14:12:53 <Blaz> Blaz has joined #rif
Blaz Novak: Blaz has joined #rif ←
14:13:43 <sandro> sandro has joined #rif
Sandro Hawke: sandro has joined #rif ←
14:14:13 <AxelPolleres> variation of http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Classification_non-inheritance accepted.
variation of http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Classification_non-inheritance accepted. ←
14:14:17 <sandro> RESOLVED: Accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Classification_non-inheritance
RESOLVED: Accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Classification_non-inheritance ←
14:14:21 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
14:14:21 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T14-14-21
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T14-14-21 ←
14:15:03 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Disjunctive_Information
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Disjunctive_Information ←
14:15:12 <AxelPolleres> by jos.
by jos. ←
14:15:28 <AxelPolleres> jos: that's a nasty one, it needs a constraint solver.
Jos De Bruijn: that's a nasty one, it needs a constraint solver. ←
14:17:25 <AxelPolleres> has equality in the head, which is at risk.
has equality in the head, which is at risk. ←
14:18:23 <AxelPolleres> Sandro: description should include evil grin of jos :-)
Sandro Hawke: description should include evil grin of jos :-) ←
14:19:07 <AxelPolleres> jos: without negative guards we can't have disjunction here.
Jos De Bruijn: without negative guards we can't have disjunction here. ←
14:19:14 <sandro> sandro has joined #rif
Sandro Hawke: sandro has joined #rif ←
14:19:36 <AxelPolleres> chrisw: as long as we have equality in the head, it makes sense to have that.
Chris Welty: as long as we have equality in the head, it makes sense to have that. ←
14:19:52 <AxelPolleres> sandro: a little bit more description is in order.
Sandro Hawke: a little bit more description is in order. ←
14:20:07 <sandro> RESOLVED: Accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Disjunctive_Information
RESOLVED: Accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Disjunctive_Information ←
14:20:15 <Harold> Harold has joined #rif
Harold Boley: Harold has joined #rif ←
14:20:38 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/EntailEverything_1
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/EntailEverything_1 ←
14:20:39 <sandro> action: jos To explain better how/why http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Disjunctive_Information is so tricky
ACTION: jos To explain better how/why http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Disjunctive_Information is so tricky ←
14:20:39 <trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - jos
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - jos ←
14:20:39 <trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jdebruij2, jderoo)
Trackbot IRC Bot: Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jdebruij2, jderoo) ←
14:20:46 <AxelPolleres> by gary
by gary ←
14:20:51 <sandro> action: jdebruij2 To explain better how/why http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Disjunctive_Information is so tricky
ACTION: jdebruij2 To explain better how/why http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Disjunctive_Information is so tricky ←
14:20:51 <trackbot> Created ACTION-583 - Explain better how/why http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Disjunctive_Information is so tricky [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2008-10-03].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-583 - Explain better how/why http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Disjunctive_Information is so tricky [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2008-10-03]. ←
14:21:03 <AxelPolleres> gary: this is waht PR systems typically can't do.
Gary Hallmark: this is waht PR systems typically can't do. ←
14:21:52 <AxelPolleres> Gary: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/EntailEverything_1 - http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/EntailEverything_6 are basically all the same.
Gary Hallmark: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/EntailEverything_1 - http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/EntailEverything_6 are basically all the same. ←
14:21:52 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
14:21:52 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T14-21-52-1
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T14-21-52-1 ←
14:24:08 <sandro> Action: josb remind people that "josb" works for assigning actions to him.
ACTION: josb remind people that "josb" works for assigning actions to him. ←
14:24:08 <trackbot> Created ACTION-584 - Remind people that \"josb\" works for assigning actions to him. [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2008-10-03].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-584 - Remind people that \"josb\" works for assigning actions to him. [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2008-10-03]. ←
14:24:22 <AxelPolleres> Axel: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/EntailEverything_1 doesn't need the p(1 2) fact.
Axel Polleres: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/EntailEverything_1 doesn't need the p(1 2) fact. ←
14:24:40 <sandro> ACTION-584 done
Sandro Hawke: ACTION-584 done ←
14:24:43 <AxelPolleres> ... similarly for http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/EntailEverything_2
... similarly for http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/EntailEverything_2 ←
14:25:30 <sandro> ACTION-584 closed
Sandro Hawke: ACTION-584 closed ←
14:25:30 <trackbot> ACTION-584 Remind people that "josb" works for assigning actions to him. closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-584 Remind people that "josb" works for assigning actions to him. closed ←
14:26:15 <AxelPolleres> christian/jos/gary desicuss that we could unify all those into one test case.
christian/jos/gary desicuss that we could unify all those into one test case. ←
14:26:30 <AxelPolleres> ... with a conjunction in the conclusion.
... with a conjunction in the conclusion. ←
14:28:08 <AxelPolleres> christian: can we make the decision right now?
Christian de Sainte Marie: can we make the decision right now? ←
14:28:38 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_conclusion_1
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_conclusion_1 ←
14:28:40 <AxelPolleres> by adrian
by adrian ←
14:29:03 <AxelPolleres> adrian: that's an implementation of factorial function
Adrian Paschke: that's an implementation of factorial function ←
14:29:40 <AxelPolleres> harold: And( .... ) is missing in the body, forall missing, infix-arithmetics not allowed.
Harold Boley: And( .... ) is missing in the body, forall missing, infix-arithmetics not allowed. ←
14:31:20 <sandro> subtopic: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality
14:32:00 <sandro> csma: we don't have an unambiguous translation to XML, so we can't consider this yet.
Christian de Sainte Marie: we don't have an unambiguous translation to XML, so we can't consider this yet. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:33:13 <AxelPolleres> Topic: UCR
14:33:23 <AxelPolleres> christian: which plans and changes?
Christian de Sainte Marie: which plans and changes? ←
14:33:59 <AxelPolleres> adrian: many of the use cases need more expressive dialects than the ones we have at the moment.
Adrian Paschke: many of the use cases need more expressive dialects than the ones we have at the moment. ←
14:34:31 <AxelPolleres> ... for example 4.3
... for example 4.3 ←
14:35:31 <Harold> Harold has joined #rif
Harold Boley: Harold has joined #rif ←
14:35:47 <AxelPolleres> ... first rule uses negation, which is not in BLD.
... first rule uses negation, which is not in BLD. ←
14:36:53 <AxelPolleres> ... there is many different negations, recall: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/negation?highlight=(Negation)
... there is many different negations, recall: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/negation?highlight=(Negation) ←
14:37:43 <AxelPolleres> christian: not include WRONG language in the document.
Christian de Sainte Marie: not include WRONG language in the document. ←
14:37:59 <Harold> I plan to rewrite the relational factorial example (http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality) to a PS version and complement it with a functional version.
Harold Boley: I plan to rewrite the relational factorial example (http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality) to a PS version and complement it with a functional version. ←
14:38:00 <AxelPolleres> ... remove "non-encodable" code examples
... remove "non-encodable" code examples ←
14:39:49 <AxelPolleres> Leora: 4.5
Leora Morgenstern: 4.5 ←
14:40:09 <AxelPolleres> ... modalities not easily expressible.
... modalities not easily expressible. ←
14:40:20 <AxelPolleres> ... also would need negation.
... also would need negation. ←
14:42:04 <AxelPolleres> Adrian: let's discuss 4.6
Adrian Paschke: let's discuss 4.6 ←
14:42:07 <Bob> Bob has joined #rif
Bob Moore: Bob has joined #rif ←
14:42:16 <AxelPolleres> Josb: first a question about abridged syntax.
Jos De Bruijn: first a question about abridged syntax. ←
14:43:22 <AxelPolleres> in the examples... what is the type of "holdsAt" "ineffective"? is it a URI, a local constant?
in the examples... what is the type of "holdsAt" "ineffective"? is it a URI, a local constant? ←
14:43:48 <AxelPolleres> s/in the examples/... in the examples/
s/in the examples/... in the examples/ ←
14:44:07 <AxelPolleres> ... that is not abridged syntax, needs to be fixed!
... that is not abridged syntax, needs to be fixed! ←
14:44:33 <AxelPolleres> Adrian: needs understanding of event calculus.
Adrian Paschke: needs understanding of event calculus. ←
14:44:58 <AxelPolleres> Chrisw: Is the intention of this rule expressible in BLD? I think yes.
Chris Welty: Is the intention of this rule expressible in BLD? I think yes. ←
14:50:21 <BobMoore> BobMoore has joined #rif
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Bob Moore: BobMoore has joined #rif ←
14:50:36 <AxelPolleres> Leora: shall we rediscuss encodings of action languages, sit.calc., event calc. in BLD? (was discussed some time ago in RIFRAF)
Leora Morgenstern: shall we rediscuss encodings of action languages, sit.calc., event calc. in BLD? (was discussed some time ago in RIFRAF) ←
14:52:09 <AxelPolleres> chrisw: abridged syntax.... we had agreement that we discuss only on syntaxes which people are willing to implement.
Chris Welty: abridged syntax.... we had agreement that we discuss only on syntaxes which people are willing to implement. ←
14:52:54 <AxelPolleres> ... for the use cases, it should be the same rationale. abridged syntax only allowed where we have a translator.
... for the use cases, it should be the same rationale. abridged syntax only allowed where we have a translator. ←
14:54:36 <AxelPolleres> jos: 4.6 and other examples need to be reparied to have unambiguous syntax.
Jos De Bruijn: 4.6 and other examples need to be reparied to have unambiguous syntax. ←
14:55:01 <mdean> mdean has joined #rif
Mike Dean: mdean has joined #rif ←
14:55:06 <ChrisW> action: adrian to update examples in UCR to presentation syntax
ACTION: adrian to update examples in UCR to presentation syntax ←
14:55:06 <trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - adrian
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - adrian ←
14:55:06 <trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. agiurca, apaschke)
Trackbot IRC Bot: Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. agiurca, apaschke) ←
14:55:23 <ChrisW> action: apaschke to update examples in UCR to presentation syntax
ACTION: apaschke to update examples in UCR to presentation syntax ←
14:55:23 <trackbot> Created ACTION-585 - Update examples in UCR to presentation syntax [on Adrian Paschke - due 2008-10-03].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-585 - Update examples in UCR to presentation syntax [on Adrian Paschke - due 2008-10-03]. ←
14:56:35 <AxelPolleres> christian: What do we do about the syntax?
Christian de Sainte Marie: What do we do about the syntax? ←
14:56:42 <ChrisW> action: apaschke to add a comment in UC 4.6 explaining that the example can be translated to BLD using some kind of encoding
ACTION: apaschke to add a comment in UC 4.6 explaining that the example can be translated to BLD using some kind of encoding ←
14:56:42 <trackbot> Created ACTION-586 - Add a comment in UC 4.6 explaining that the example can be translated to BLD using some kind of encoding [on Adrian Paschke - due 2008-10-03].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-586 - Add a comment in UC 4.6 explaining that the example can be translated to BLD using some kind of encoding [on Adrian Paschke - due 2008-10-03]. ←
14:57:34 <ChrisW> action: apaschke to remove examples in 4.3 that we have no dialect for, and add comment to make that clear
ACTION: apaschke to remove examples in 4.3 that we have no dialect for, and add comment to make that clear ←
14:57:34 <trackbot> Created ACTION-587 - Remove examples in 4.3 that we have no dialect for, and add comment to make that clear [on Adrian Paschke - due 2008-10-03].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-587 - Remove examples in 4.3 that we have no dialect for, and add comment to make that clear [on Adrian Paschke - due 2008-10-03]. ←
14:58:30 <AdrianP> AdrianP has joined #rif
Adrian Paschke: AdrianP has joined #rif ←
14:58:32 <AdrianP> I update the class membership test case
Adrian Paschke: I update the class membership test case ←
14:58:41 <ChrisW> action: leora to remove examples in 4.5 that we have no dialect for, and add comment to make that clear
ACTION: leora to remove examples in 4.5 that we have no dialect for, and add comment to make that clear ←
14:58:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-588 - Remove examples in 4.5 that we have no dialect for, and add comment to make that clear [on Leora Morgenstern - due 2008-10-03].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-588 - Remove examples in 4.5 that we have no dialect for, and add comment to make that clear [on Leora Morgenstern - due 2008-10-03]. ←
15:00:32 <AxelPolleres> dave: volunteer to correct 4.8 BLD transcription
Dave Reynolds: volunteer to correct 4.8 BLD transcription ←
15:00:36 <ChrisW> action: dave to rewrite BLD examples from UC 4.8
ACTION: dave to rewrite BLD examples from UC 4.8 ←
15:00:36 <trackbot> Created ACTION-589 - Rewrite BLD examples from UC 4.8 [on Dave Reynolds - due 2008-10-03].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-589 - Rewrite BLD examples from UC 4.8 [on Dave Reynolds - due 2008-10-03]. ←
15:02:41 <AxelPolleres> Gary: internaitonalization hasn't yet been discussed.
Gary Hallmark: internaitonalization hasn't yet been discussed. ←
15:03:22 <AxelPolleres> axel: does that just mean we should have a UC/TC which uses rdf:text?
Axel Polleres: does that just mean we should have a UC/TC which uses rdf:text? ←
15:03:39 <sandro> Sandro: something that shows off the use of language tags.
Sandro Hawke: something that shows off the use of language tags. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:03:53 <ChrisW> action: apaschke to add a requirement that is satisfied by rdf:text
ACTION: apaschke to add a requirement that is satisfied by rdf:text ←
15:03:53 <trackbot> Created ACTION-590 - Add a requirement that is satisfied by rdf:text [on Adrian Paschke - due 2008-10-03].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-590 - Add a requirement that is satisfied by rdf:text [on Adrian Paschke - due 2008-10-03]. ←
15:04:03 <AxelPolleres> COFFEEBREAK!
COFFEEBREAK! ←
15:05:09 <bmoore3> bmoore3 has joined #rif
Bob Moore: bmoore3 has joined #rif ←
15:30:09 <mdean> scribe: Mike Dean
(No events recorded for 25 minutes)
(Scribe set to Mike Dean)
15:30:22 <mdean> scribenick mdean
scribenick mdean ←
15:30:58 <mdean> nick mdean
nick mdean ←
15:31:12 <mdean> scribenick: mdean
15:31:36 <mdean> reviewing actions
reviewing actions ←
15:31:43 <mdean> NOT CP = NOT CRITICAL PATH
NOT CP = NOT CRITICAL PATH ←
15:31:53 <csma> csma has joined #rif
Christian de Sainte Marie: csma has joined #rif ←
15:31:58 <mdean> Topic: ISSUE-26: roundtripping
15:31:58 <trackbot> ISSUE-26 Replication of original rules after roundtripping to RIF [NOT CP] notes added
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-26 Replication of original rules after roundtripping to RIF [NOT CP] notes added ←
15:33:14 <mdean> Harold: BLD#Conformance_Clauses addresses roundtripping
Harold Boley: BLD#Conformance_Clauses addresses roundtripping ←
15:33:54 <mdean> ChrisW: issue addresses non-semantic things - semantics are required
Chris Welty: issue addresses non-semantic things - semantics are required ←
15:34:26 <mdean> ChrisW: metadata SHOULD be preserved
Chris Welty: metadata SHOULD be preserved ←
15:35:20 <mdean> ChrisW: ready to close issue?
Chris Welty: ready to close issue? ←
15:35:39 <mdean> josb: not sure what it means for metadata to survive roundtripping
Jos De Bruijn: not sure what it means for metadata to survive roundtripping ←
15:36:04 <mdean> josb: e.g. ordering of conjunction clauses
Jos De Bruijn: e.g. ordering of conjunction clauses ←
15:36:14 <mdean> csma: talking about explicit metadata defined in spec
Christian de Sainte Marie: talking about explicit metadata defined in spec ←
15:36:30 <mdean> josb: should be made explicit
Jos De Bruijn: should be made explicit ←
15:37:26 <mdean> josb: talking about conjunctions within metadata
Jos De Bruijn: talking about conjunctions within metadata ←
15:37:39 <mdean> csma: metadata about metadata
Christian de Sainte Marie: metadata about metadata ←
15:38:04 <mdean> ChrisW: who would really care?
Chris Welty: who would really care? ←
15:39:45 <DaveReynolds_> DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif
Dave Reynolds: DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif ←
15:39:47 <GaryHallmark_> GaryHallmark_ has joined #rif
Gary Hallmark: GaryHallmark_ has joined #rif ←
15:40:11 <josb_> josb_ has joined #rif
Jos De Bruijn: josb_ has joined #rif ←
15:41:12 <sandro> sandro has joined #rif
Sandro Hawke: sandro has joined #rif ←
15:46:20 <josb_> josb_ has joined #rif
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Jos De Bruijn: josb_ has joined #rif ←
15:46:31 <GaryHallmark_> GaryHallmark_ has joined #rif
Gary Hallmark: GaryHallmark_ has joined #rif ←
15:46:49 <Blaz> Blaz has joined #rif
Blaz Novak: Blaz has joined #rif ←
15:46:51 <DaveReynolds_> DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif
Dave Reynolds: DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif ←
15:47:00 <mdean> mdean has joined #rif
mdean has joined #rif ←
15:47:24 <mdean> csma: WG should not specify such a mechanism
Christian de Sainte Marie: WG should not specify such a mechanism ←
15:47:45 <mdean> ... should forbid subsets of Core
... should forbid subsets of Core ←
15:47:58 <mdean> ... otherwise notion of Core disappears
... otherwise notion of Core disappears ←
15:48:24 <mdean> ChrisW: profiles different than dialects
Chris Welty: profiles different than dialects ←
15:48:39 <mdean> Sandro: only WG can say what RIF is
Sandro Hawke: only WG can say what RIF is ←
15:48:58 <mdean> ChrisW: profile provides way to describe what subset of a dialect you support
Chris Welty: profile provides way to describe what subset of a dialect you support ←
15:49:06 <mdean> ... issue predates BLD
... issue predates BLD ←
15:49:21 <mdean> ... what was Core is now BLD
... what was Core is now BLD ←
15:49:49 <mdean> csma: no mechanism for profiles and don't allow subsets of Core
Christian de Sainte Marie: no mechanism for profiles and don't allow subsets of Core ←
15:50:06 <mdean> Sandro: constraints on us vs others
Sandro Hawke: constraints on us vs others ←
15:50:14 <sandro> sandro has joined #rif
Sandro Hawke: sandro has joined #rif ←
15:50:48 <mdean> Gary: forward- vs. backward-chaining example
Gary Hallmark: forward- vs. backward-chaining example ←
15:50:56 <mdean> ... how high is bar for translator implementers
... how high is bar for translator implementers ←
15:51:38 <mdean> csma: will happen - where WG should legislate is different issue
Christian de Sainte Marie: will happen - where WG should legislate is different issue ←
15:51:58 <mdean> Harold: cannot predict which other subsets of Core will be relevant (e.g. OWL RL)
Harold Boley: cannot predict which other subsets of Core will be relevant (e.g. OWL RL) ←
15:52:29 <mdean> DaveReynolds: Core document doesn't currently require all dialects to implement
Dave Reynolds: Core document doesn't currently require all dialects to implement ←
15:53:02 <mdean> ... suggest no to profiles - informal seems good enough - add later if demand warrants
... suggest no to profiles - informal seems good enough - add later if demand warrants ←
15:53:21 <csma> csma has joined #rif
Christian de Sainte Marie: csma has joined #rif ←
15:53:25 <mdean> ChrisW: no objections to this as proposed resolution
Chris Welty: no objections to this as proposed resolution ←
15:53:39 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-29 saying we will not define a notion of Profiles
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-29 saying we will not define a notion of Profiles ←
15:53:43 <AxelPolleres> AxelPolleres has joined #rif
Axel Polleres: AxelPolleres has joined #rif ←
15:53:47 <Harold> Harold has joined #rif
Harold Boley: Harold has joined #rif ←
15:53:59 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-29 saying we will not define a notion of Profiles (ie subsets of defined dialects, which are not themselves dialects)
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-29 saying we will not define a notion of Profiles (ie subsets of defined dialects, which are not themselves dialects) ←
15:54:24 <mdean> csma: wait until tomorrow for resolutions
Christian de Sainte Marie: wait until tomorrow for resolutions ←
15:54:43 <mdean> ... like waiting until the next telecon
... like waiting until the next telecon ←
15:55:13 <Harold> We MAY introduce Best Practices for RIF. Example: Attach annotations only to syntactic parts of rulesets that stay unchanged under semantics-preserving ruleset transformation. Rationale: You don't want to lose "annotation attachment points" under such transformations (cf. Gary's/Jos' tautology example).
Harold Boley: We MAY introduce Best Practices for RIF. Example: Attach annotations only to syntactic parts of rulesets that stay unchanged under semantics-preserving ruleset transformation. Rationale: You don't want to lose "annotation attachment points" under such transformations (cf. Gary's/Jos' tautology example). ←
15:55:20 <sandro> PROPOSED: We will not constraint ourselves about whether or not there will ever be a RIF dialect which is a subset of Core
PROPOSED: We will not constraint ourselves about whether or not there will ever be a RIF dialect which is a subset of Core ←
15:55:25 <mdean> ChrisW: should we constrain the WG?
Chris Welty: should we constrain the WG? ←
15:55:46 <mdean> ChrisW: proposing inverse of that
Chris Welty: proposing inverse of that ←
15:55:53 <mdean> s/constraint/constrain/
s/constraint/constrain/ ←
15:56:17 <mdean> Harold: should not constraint ourselves
Harold Boley: should not constraint ourselves ←
15:56:26 <mdean> most people feel we should not
most people feel we should not ←
15:56:30 <sandro> No objections, but CSMA wants to think about it more.
Sandro Hawke: No objections, but CSMA wants to think about it more. ←
15:57:03 <mdean> ChrisW: these 2 resolutions will close issue 29
Chris Welty: these 2 resolutions will close ISSUE-29 ←
15:57:05 <sandro> Chrisw: passing those two resolutions tomorrow will close issue-29
Chris Welty: passing those two resolutions tomorrow will close ISSUE-29 [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:57:15 <mdean> Issue 33: specification of data sources in RIF
ISSUE-33: specification of data sources in RIF ←
15:57:27 <mdean> csma: special session later, also on 37 and 38
Christian de Sainte Marie: special session later, also on 37 and 38 ←
15:57:51 <mdean> Issue 39 and 46
15:58:03 <mdean> ChrisW: 46 subsumes 39
Chris Welty: 46 subsumes 39 ←
15:58:25 <mdean> ChrisW: Michael had more general thing in mind
Chris Welty: Michael had more general thing in mind ←
15:58:43 <mdean> ChrisW: can we close 39 because we have it in BLD and then move on to more general
Chris Welty: can we close 39 because we have it in BLD and then move on to more general ←
15:59:06 <mdean> csma: discussed w.r.t. Core? May be a problem for PRD
Christian de Sainte Marie: discussed w.r.t. Core? May be a problem for PRD ←
15:59:40 <mdean> ... semantics of rule set is in conflict resolution strategy - different CRS could be a problem
... semantics of rule set is in conflict resolution strategy - different CRS could be a problem ←
16:00:12 <mdean> josb: PRD could preclude loading ruleset with different strategy
Jos De Bruijn: PRD could preclude loading ruleset with different strategy ←
16:00:35 <mdean> josb: maybe change issue
Jos De Bruijn: maybe change issue ←
16:00:49 <mdean> csma: if issue for PRD, then also an issue for Core
Christian de Sainte Marie: if issue for PRD, then also an issue for Core ←
16:01:18 <mdean> ChrisW: keep open for Core and PRD
Chris Welty: keep open for Core and PRD ←
16:01:32 <mdean> Issue 46: modules
16:01:38 <mdean> csma: related to issue 33
Christian de Sainte Marie: related to ISSUE-33 ←
16:02:24 <mdean> Michael: should be in FLD - can't substantiallly change BLD now
Michael Kifer: should be in FLD - can't substantiallly change BLD now ←
16:03:06 <mdean> josb: add to FLD and write specialization text for BLD
Jos De Bruijn: add to FLD and write specialization text for BLD ←
16:03:23 <mdean> Michael: should leave this open
Michael Kifer: should leave this open ←
16:03:49 <mdean> ChrisW added note that modules apply to FLD
ChrisW added note that modules apply to FLD ←
16:04:49 <mdean> Issue 50: Semantic metadata
16:04:57 <GaryHallmark_> GaryHallmark_ has joined #rif
Gary Hallmark: GaryHallmark_ has joined #rif ←
16:05:31 <mdean> ChrisW: opened for metadata that impacts semantics, e.g. import or PR priority, resolution strategy, negation semantics
Chris Welty: opened for metadata that impacts semantics, e.g. import or PR priority, resolution strategy, negation semantics ←
16:05:52 <mdean> Michael: problem for FLD not BLD
Michael Kifer: problem for FLD not BLD ←
16:06:18 <mdean> ChrisW: closed for BLD
Chris Welty: closed for BLD ←
16:06:36 <mdean> Harold: Peter pointed us to that issue
Harold Boley: Peter pointed us to that issue ←
16:07:03 <mdean> Michael: metadata is annotations, not import
Michael Kifer: metadata is annotations, not import ←
16:07:37 <mdean> ... FLD has no provision for metadata affecting semantics
... FLD has no provision for metadata affecting semantics ←
16:08:03 <mdean> DaveReynolds: in logic language, would make it part of language not metadata
Dave Reynolds: in logic language, would make it part of language not metadata ←
16:08:27 <sandro> so the question is what is metadata.... annotations....
Sandro Hawke: so the question is what is metadata.... annotations.... ←
16:08:32 <mdean> Michael: e.g. overrides predicate on identifiers
Michael Kifer: e.g. overrides predicate on identifiers ←
16:08:53 <mdean> Michael: depends on where you put stuff
Michael Kifer: depends on where you put stuff ←
16:09:25 <mdean> ChrisW: need to decide for FLD, already decided for BLD, what about PRD and Core?
Chris Welty: need to decide for FLD, already decided for BLD, what about PRD and Core? ←
16:09:34 <mdean> csma: still open
Christian de Sainte Marie: still open ←
16:09:49 <mdean> Sandro: would prefer that metadata not be semantic, by definition
Sandro Hawke: would prefer that metadata not be semantic, by definition ←
16:10:13 <mdean> csma: point of preserving during round-tripping
Christian de Sainte Marie: point of preserving during round-tripping ←
16:10:41 <mdean> ChrisW: how long would this discussion take?
Chris Welty: how long would this discussion take? ←
16:12:02 <mdean> ChrisW: any objections to precluding semantic metadata?
Chris Welty: any objections to precluding semantic metadata? ←
16:12:18 <sandro> michael: I don't feel comfortable closing this right now, for FLD.
Michael Kifer: I don't feel comfortable closing this right now, for FLD. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:12:18 <mdean> Harold: divide annotations into pragmas and ...
Harold Boley: divide annotations into pragmas and ... ←
16:13:25 <mdean> moved to Technical Design product (no conjunctive drop down lists)
moved to Technical Design product (no conjunctive drop down lists) ←
16:14:00 <mdean> Issue 57: Extensibility
16:14:10 <mdean> ChrisW: XTAN has no official status
Chris Welty: XTAN has no official status ←
16:14:33 <mdean> csma; relationship to 69
csma; relationship to 69 ←
16:14:57 <mdean> ChrisW: have to close or postpone all issues by Last Call
Chris Welty: have to close or postpone all issues by Last Call ←
16:15:15 <mdean> not in BLD for Last Call
not in BLD for Last Call ←
16:15:55 <mdean> Sandro: can we meet requirements without it?
Sandro Hawke: can we meet requirements without it? ←
16:16:04 <mdean> s/meet/meet our
s/meet/meet our ←
16:16:13 <sandro> Sandro: I don't think we can meet our requirements with out.
Sandro Hawke: I don't think we can meet our requirements with out. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:16:33 <mdean> csma: on tomorrow's agenda?
Christian de Sainte Marie: on tomorrow's agenda? ←
16:17:14 <mdean> csma: proposed resolution for profiles
Christian de Sainte Marie: proposed resolution for profiles ←
16:19:51 <mdean> ChrisW: just roundtripping
Chris Welty: just roundtripping ←
16:20:26 <mdean> ... return to issues in last session today
... return to issues in last session today ←
16:24:11 <mdean> Issues 37 and 38
Issues 37 and 38 ←
16:24:28 <mdean> Christian: references to external classes such as Hen
Christian de Sainte Marie: references to external classes such as Hen ←
16:24:34 <mdean> josb: Jim the Hen Handler
Jos De Bruijn: Jim the Hen Handler ←
16:25:18 <mdean> DaveReynolds: schema vs. object model (37 vs. 38) - raised but not written down
Dave Reynolds: schema vs. object model (37 vs. 38) - raised but not written down ←
16:25:40 <mdean> s/but/but formal spec/
s/but/but formal spec/ ←
16:25:51 <mdean> ... reuse JAXB mapping
... reuse JAXB mapping ←
16:26:52 <mdean> Sandro: write a spec that JAXB happens to implement
Sandro Hawke: write a spec that JAXB happens to implement ←
16:27:04 <mdean> Gary: map complex classes to frames
Gary Hallmark: map complex classes to frames ←
16:27:19 <mdean> ... JAXB is long and complicated - start with something simpler like Java Bean
... JAXB is long and complicated - start with something simpler like Java Bean ←
16:27:40 <mdean> ... handle 1-to-1 vs. set cardinality constraints
... handle 1-to-1 vs. set cardinality constraints ←
16:28:15 <mdean> ... unique properties would probably need equality in the head
... unique properties would probably need equality in the head ←
16:28:33 <mdean> ... perhaps end up with mini ontology language
... perhaps end up with mini ontology language ←
16:29:01 <mdean> DaveReynolds: XML Schema provides cardinalities
Dave Reynolds: XML Schema provides cardinalities ←
16:29:23 <mdean> ... need to know URIs to reference complex classes
... need to know URIs to reference complex classes ←
16:30:44 <mdean> s/need/just need/
s/need/just need/ ←
16:32:04 <mdean> DaveReynolds: spec'd algorithm vs. annotation mechanism
Dave Reynolds: spec'd algorithm vs. annotation mechanism ←
16:32:23 <mdean> csma: such schemas already exist
Christian de Sainte Marie: such schemas already exist ←
16:32:45 <mdean> DaveReynolds: focus on algorithm
Dave Reynolds: focus on algorithm ←
16:32:55 <bmoore3> bmoore3 has joined #rif
Bob Moore: bmoore3 has joined #rif ←
16:33:03 <mdean> Gary: JAXB handles most schemas, but it's a huge spec
Gary Hallmark: JAXB handles most schemas, but it's a huge spec ←
16:33:43 <mdean> csma: useful to any dialects?
Christian de Sainte Marie: useful to any dialects? ←
16:33:50 <mdean> Gary: seems orthogonal
Gary Hallmark: seems orthogonal ←
16:34:02 <mdean> csma: who could write strawman document?
Christian de Sainte Marie: who could write strawman document? ←
16:34:50 <mdean> Sandro: how many people would use this? is it critical?
Sandro Hawke: how many people would use this? is it critical? ←
16:34:57 <mdean> Gary: yes
Gary Hallmark: yes ←
16:35:03 <mdean> csma: agreed
Christian de Sainte Marie: agreed ←
16:35:11 <mdean> Adrian: what about black box model?
Adrian Paschke: what about black box model? ←
16:35:27 <BobMoore> BobMoore has joined #rif
Bob Moore: BobMoore has joined #rif ←
16:35:36 <mdean> csma: requires sharing XML Schema + mappin
Christian de Sainte Marie: requires sharing XML Schema + mappin ←
16:36:32 <mdean> ChrisW: black box still requires dealing with uniqueness of slots in frame syntax and access to objects
Chris Welty: black box still requires dealing with uniqueness of slots in frame syntax and access to objects ←
16:37:03 <BobMoore> Just to announce I am here - at least for a little while until I have to go down to supper
Bob Moore: Just to announce I am here - at least for a little while until I have to go down to supper ←
16:37:40 <BobMoore> Is it possible to activate the phone bridge
Bob Moore: Is it possible to activate the phone bridge ←
16:38:02 <mdean> csma: multiple models mapping on to same XML Schema
Christian de Sainte Marie: multiple models mapping on to same XML Schema ←
16:38:28 <mdean> csma: navigating schema, attribute of sub-sub-element
Christian de Sainte Marie: navigating schema, attribute of sub-sub-element ←
16:38:40 <AxelPolleres> AxelPolleres has joined #rif
Axel Polleres: AxelPolleres has joined #rif ←
16:39:05 <mdean> csma: user-defined builtins for object model methods
Christian de Sainte Marie: user-defined builtins for object model methods ←
16:39:24 <mdean> ... how do you refer to methods
... how do you refer to methods ←
16:39:41 <mdean> ... using frame syntax
... using frame syntax ←
16:39:48 <mdean> ... e.g. for Java objects
... e.g. for Java objects ←
16:40:28 <sandro> Hey, BobMoore - one minute.
Sandro Hawke: Hey, BobMoore - one minute. ←
16:40:41 <mdean> DaveReynolds: very PRD specific
Dave Reynolds: very PRD specific ←
16:41:01 <sandro> BobMoore, it looks we're just about to break for lunch.
Sandro Hawke: BobMoore, it looks we're just about to break for lunch. ←
16:41:15 <sandro> back in 80 minutes or so.
Sandro Hawke: back in 80 minutes or so. ←
16:41:19 <mdean> ChrisW: meet-odds
Chris Welty: meet-odds ←
16:41:35 <BobMoore> What timing!!
16:41:41 <mdean> ChrisW: any other issues or barriers?
Chris Welty: any other issues or barriers? ←
16:43:07 <mdean> csma: use the schema to navigate the data
Christian de Sainte Marie: use the schema to navigate the data ←
16:43:09 <sandro> ACTION: Gary to draft a straw proposal addressing part of ISSUE-37, in the area of navigating the schema/data.
ACTION: Gary to draft a straw proposal addressing part of ISSUE-37, in the area of navigating the schema/data. ←
16:43:09 <trackbot> Created ACTION-591 - Draft a straw proposal addressing part of ISSUE-37, in the area of navigating the schema/data. [on Gary Hallmark - due 2008-10-03].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-591 - Draft a straw proposal addressing part of ISSUE-37, in the area of navigating the schema/data. [on Gary Hallmark - due 2008-10-03]. ←
16:44:41 <mdean> Gary: not going to do arbitrary XML
Gary Hallmark: not going to do arbitrary XML ←
16:45:55 <mdean> csma: use XPath?
Christian de Sainte Marie: use XPath? ←
16:45:57 <mdean> Gary: no
Gary Hallmark: no ←
16:47:01 <sandro> ACTION: csma to open issue based on the White Board line: "What about methods -- Ignore"
ACTION: csma to open issue based on the White Board line: "What about methods -- Ignore" ←
16:47:01 <trackbot> Created ACTION-592 - Open issue based on the White Board line: \"What about methods -- Ignore\" [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2008-10-03].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-592 - Open issue based on the White Board line: \"What about methods -- Ignore\" [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2008-10-03]. ←
16:47:14 <mdean> break for lunch
break for lunch ←
16:47:31 <mdean> cafeteria somewhere in this building
cafeteria somewhere in this building ←
16:47:45 <mdean> 2 or 3 restaurants in Trump Building
2 or 3 restaurants in Trump Building ←
16:47:56 <mdean> appears to have stopped raining
appears to have stopped raining ←
16:48:12 <mdean> Sony building also has food
Sony building also has food ←
16:48:45 <mdean> reconvene at 2pm
reconvene at 2pm ←
17:32:08 <Zakim> There will be an interruption of Zakim-bot services shortly expected to last less than 15 mins
(No events recorded for 43 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: There will be an interruption of Zakim-bot services shortly expected to last less than 15 mins ←
18:10:45 <LeoraMorgenstern> LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
(No events recorded for 38 minutes)
Leora Morgenstern: LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif ←
18:17:15 <BobMoore> BobMoore has joined #rif
(No events recorded for 6 minutes)
Bob Moore: BobMoore has joined #rif ←
18:28:50 <BobMoore> BobMoore has joined #rif
(No events recorded for 11 minutes)
Bob Moore: BobMoore has joined #rif ←
18:31:45 <ChrisW> ChrisW has joined #rif
Chris Welty: ChrisW has joined #rif ←
18:33:10 <csma> csma has joined #rif
Christian de Sainte Marie: csma has joined #rif ←
18:34:28 <csma> Bob, we restart in 5 minutes, with about 1 hour on Test cases, then reframing the semantics of conditions in PRD to align it with BLD.
Christian de Sainte Marie: Bob, we restart in 5 minutes, with about 1 hour on Test cases, then reframing the semantics of conditions in PRD to align it with BLD. ←
18:35:53 <csma> Ping us if/when you want to join
Christian de Sainte Marie: Ping us if/when you want to join ←
18:36:00 <BobMoore> okay trust you had a nice lunch - I am assuming the conference code is 74394
Bob Moore: okay trust you had a nice lunch - I am assuming the conference code is 74394 ←
18:37:44 <sandro> sandro has joined #rif
Sandro Hawke: sandro has joined #rif ←
18:38:49 <BobMoore> I'm ready to join
Bob Moore: I'm ready to join ←
18:39:19 <csma> ok
Christian de Sainte Marie: ok ←
18:40:05 <csma> Call Zakim (+1.617.761.6200 (US), +33 4 89 06 34 99 (F) or +44.117.370.6152
Christian de Sainte Marie: Call Zakim (+1.617.761.6200 (US), +33 4 89 06 34 99 (F) or +44.117.370.6152 ←
18:40:05 <csma> (GB)
Christian de Sainte Marie: (GB) ←
18:40:38 <csma> Conference code is as usual: 74394# ('RIFWG')
Christian de Sainte Marie: Conference code is as usual: 74394# ('RIFWG') ←
18:40:55 <csma> We are setting up the communication on our side
Christian de Sainte Marie: We are setting up the communication on our side ←
18:41:28 <csma> zakim, what is the code?
Christian de Sainte Marie: zakim, what is the code? ←
18:41:28 <Zakim> the conference code is hidden, csma
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is hidden, csma ←
18:41:43 <csma> zakim, this will be rif
Christian de Sainte Marie: zakim, this will be rif ←
18:41:43 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, csma
Zakim IRC Bot: I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, csma ←
18:41:49 <StellaMitchell> StellaMitchell has joined #rif
Stella Mitchell: StellaMitchell has joined #rif ←
18:42:14 <csma> Zakim, room for 4 for 300mn?
Christian de Sainte Marie: Zakim, room for 4 for 300mn? ←
18:42:14 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, csma.
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand your question, csma. ←
18:42:30 <csma> Zakim, room for 4 for 300 minutes?
Christian de Sainte Marie: Zakim, room for 4 for 300 minutes? ←
18:42:31 <Zakim> ok, csma; conference Team_(rif)18:42Z scheduled with code 26631 (CONF1) for 300 minutes until 2342Z
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, csma; conference Team_(rif)18:42Z scheduled with code 26631 (CONF1) for 300 minutes until 2342Z ←
18:43:13 <csma> Bob, the code is 26631, instead
Christian de Sainte Marie: Bob, the code is 26631, instead ←
18:43:22 <josb_> josb_ has joined #rif
Jos De Bruijn: josb_ has joined #rif ←
18:43:55 <Zakim> Team_(rif)18:42Z has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: Team_(rif)18:42Z has now started ←
18:43:55 <csma> Scribe: stella Mitchell
(Scribe set to Stella Mitchell)
18:44:02 <Zakim> + +0777841aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +0777841aaaa ←
18:44:06 <csma> scribenick: StellaMitchell
18:44:21 <DaveReynolds_> DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif
Dave Reynolds: DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif ←
18:44:35 <sandro> BobMoore, we're trying to figure out how to get the phone working.
Sandro Hawke: BobMoore, we're trying to figure out how to get the phone working. ←
18:44:37 <DaveReynolds> DaveReynolds has joined #rif
Dave Reynolds: DaveReynolds has joined #rif ←
18:44:49 <csma> Bob, are you +0777841aaaa?
Christian de Sainte Marie: Bob, are you +0777841aaaa? ←
18:44:59 <BobMoore> Zakim, aaaa is me
Bob Moore: Zakim, aaaa is me ←
18:44:59 <Zakim> +BobMoore; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +BobMoore; got it ←
18:45:30 <BobMoore> yes I am - Zakim says I am the first participant and I need to wait for others to join
Bob Moore: yes I am - Zakim says I am the first participant and I need to wait for others to join ←
18:46:11 <Zakim> +??P1
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P1 ←
18:46:20 <sandro> zakim, ??P1 is Meeting_Room
Sandro Hawke: zakim, ??P1 is Meeting_Room ←
18:46:20 <Zakim> +Meeting_Room; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Meeting_Room; got it ←
18:46:39 <Blaz> Blaz has joined #rif
Blaz Novak: Blaz has joined #rif ←
18:47:20 <StellaMitchell> topic: Test Cases, including FPWD plan
18:47:37 <StellaMitchell> csma: start with FPWD plan
Christian de Sainte Marie: start with FPWD plan ←
18:47:51 <AdrianP> AdrianP has joined #rif
Adrian Paschke: AdrianP has joined #rif ←
18:48:12 <StellaMitchell> csma: what do we need to publish?
Christian de Sainte Marie: what do we need to publish? ←
18:48:27 <mdean> mdean has joined #rif
Mike Dean: mdean has joined #rif ←
18:48:46 <StellaMitchell> csma: document does not currently include the test cases. Should it?
Christian de Sainte Marie: document does not currently include the test cases. Should it? ←
18:49:00 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Test
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Test ←
18:49:00 <AdrianP> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Test
Adrian Paschke: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Test ←
18:49:02 <GaryHallmark> GaryHallmark has joined #rif
Gary Hallmark: GaryHallmark has joined #rif ←
18:49:16 <StellaMitchell> Sandro: there are 3 options:
Sandro Hawke: there are 3 options: ←
18:49:35 <StellaMitchell> ... 1. owl pulbished the tests, but not the format
... 1. owl pulbished the tests, but not the format ←
18:50:04 <StellaMitchell> ... 2.currently for RIF we have the format, and other information, but not the tests themselves
... 2.currently for RIF we have the format, and other information, but not the tests themselves ←
18:50:12 <StellaMitchell> ...3 some groups do neither
...3 some groups do neither ←
18:50:22 <AxelPolleres> AxelPolleres has joined #rif
Axel Polleres: AxelPolleres has joined #rif ←
18:50:25 <StellaMitchell> ...I can't see reasons to go one way or the other
...I can't see reasons to go one way or the other ←
18:50:56 <StellaMitchell> csma: do we need to publish anything? or can we just maintain the wiki page?
Christian de Sainte Marie: do we need to publish anything? or can we just maintain the wiki page? ←
18:51:02 <StellaMitchell> jos: need versions
Jos De Bruijn: need versions ←
18:51:17 <Harold> Harold has joined #rif
Harold Boley: Harold has joined #rif ←
18:51:54 <ChrisW> who is on the phone?
Chris Welty: who is on the phone? ←
18:51:58 <StellaMitchell> sandro: can't run test cases from wiki, I am writing software to extract the cases from that
Sandro Hawke: can't run test cases from wiki, I am writing software to extract the cases from that ←
18:52:00 <ChrisW> zakim, who is on the phone?
Chris Welty: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
18:52:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see BobMoore, Meeting_Room
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see BobMoore, Meeting_Room ←
18:52:25 <StellaMitchell> adrian: I think it's good to have a separate document also
Adrian Paschke: I think it's good to have a separate document also ←
18:52:41 <StellaMitchell> csma: but does it need to be on rec track?
Christian de Sainte Marie: but does it need to be on rec track? ←
18:53:08 <StellaMitchell> jos: I don't think it needs to be rec track
Jos De Bruijn: I don't think it needs to be rec track ←
18:53:29 <StellaMitchell> csma: needs to be accessible, but rec track is a different quesiton
Christian de Sainte Marie: needs to be accessible, but rec track is a different quesiton ←
18:53:41 <StellaMitchell> leora: what do other groups do?
Leora Morgenstern: what do other groups do? ←
18:54:24 <StellaMitchell> sandro: owl did, but they were different because they included the tests and conformance clauses
Sandro Hawke: owl did, but they were different because they included the tests and conformance clauses ←
18:54:26 <ChrisW> zakim, meeting_room contains AxelPolleres, SandroHawke, JosDeBruijn, MikeDean, StellaMitchell, LeoraMorgenstern, BlazNovak, MichealKifer, DaveReynolds, AdrianPaschke, HaroldBoley, GaryHallmark, ChrisWelty, ChristianDeSainteMarie
Chris Welty: zakim, meeting_room contains AxelPolleres, SandroHawke, JosDeBruijn, MikeDean, StellaMitchell, LeoraMorgenstern, BlazNovak, MichealKifer, DaveReynolds, AdrianPaschke, HaroldBoley, GaryHallmark, ChrisWelty, ChristianDeSainteMarie ←
18:54:26 <Zakim> +AxelPolleres, SandroHawke, JosDeBruijn, MikeDean, StellaMitchell, LeoraMorgenstern, BlazNovak, MichealKifer, DaveReynolds, AdrianPaschke, HaroldBoley, GaryHallmark, ChrisWelty,
Zakim IRC Bot: +AxelPolleres, SandroHawke, JosDeBruijn, MikeDean, StellaMitchell, LeoraMorgenstern, BlazNovak, MichealKifer, DaveReynolds, AdrianPaschke, HaroldBoley, GaryHallmark, ChrisWelty, ←
18:54:29 <Zakim> ... ChristianDeSainteMarie; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: ... ChristianDeSainteMarie; got it ←
18:54:57 <ChrisW> rrsagent, make minutes
Chris Welty: rrsagent, make minutes ←
18:54:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-minutes.html ChrisW ←
18:55:07 <ChrisW> rrsagent, make logs public
Chris Welty: rrsagent, make logs public ←
18:55:18 <StellaMitchell> csma: if we do not publish the test cases, then this can be on the same web page
Christian de Sainte Marie: if we do not publish the test cases, then this can be on the same web page ←
18:55:49 <StellaMitchell> sandro: I don't think it needs to be rec track
Sandro Hawke: I don't think it needs to be rec track ←
18:56:28 <StellaMitchell> sandro: people may notice it more if there is a document
Sandro Hawke: people may notice it more if there is a document ←
18:56:58 <StellaMitchell> csma: question of whether there is a document is separate from the question of whether it is rec track
Christian de Sainte Marie: question of whether there is a document is separate from the question of whether it is rec track ←
18:57:38 <StellaMitchell> sandro: I like that the tests are normative, so you know if someone fails a test case then they have a non-conforning implementation
Sandro Hawke: I like that the tests are normative, so you know if someone fails a test case then they have a non-conforning implementation ←
18:57:52 <StellaMitchell> jos: there could be errors in the test cases
Jos De Bruijn: there could be errors in the test cases ←
18:58:41 <StellaMitchell> harold: there could be errors in the test cases, but it would be good if they are normative - and we should try to make sure they are all correct
Harold Boley: there could be errors in the test cases, but it would be good if they are normative - and we should try to make sure they are all correct ←
18:58:51 <mdean> mdean has joined #rif
Mike Dean: mdean has joined #rif ←
18:59:23 <StellaMitchell> csma: if we make them normative, then that doesn't add much work to what we have to do anyway
Christian de Sainte Marie: if we make them normative, then that doesn't add much work to what we have to do anyway ←
18:59:50 <StellaMitchell> csma: but other things, such as running the test cases, are a distraction that is not high priority
Christian de Sainte Marie: but other things, such as running the test cases, are a distraction that is not high priority ←
19:00:38 <StellaMitchell> csma: how far are we from being able to publish a document if we put all the tests in an appendix?
Christian de Sainte Marie: how far are we from being able to publish a document if we put all the tests in an appendix? ←
19:00:47 <StellaMitchell> adrian: I think it is almost ready
Adrian Paschke: I think it is almost ready ←
19:01:17 <StellaMitchell> csma: how much of the document has been discussed and agreed upon?
Christian de Sainte Marie: how much of the document has been discussed and agreed upon? ←
19:02:17 <StellaMitchell> harold: we need to bring it to a high quality anyway - so that they can be used
Harold Boley: we need to bring it to a high quality anyway - so that they can be used ←
19:02:43 <StellaMitchell> csma: how hard would it be to agree on properties?
Christian de Sainte Marie: how hard would it be to agree on properties? ←
19:02:52 <StellaMitchell> sandro: it's not done yet
Sandro Hawke: it's not done yet ←
19:04:06 <StellaMitchell> sandro: should extend rdf and owl
Sandro Hawke: should extend rdf and owl ←
19:04:12 <StellaMitchell> sandro: I think
Sandro Hawke: I think ←
19:04:28 <StellaMitchell> sandro: if the definitions are the same as RDF/OWL used
Sandro Hawke: if the definitions are the same as RDF/OWL used ←
19:06:37 <StellaMitchell> chrisw: is everyone ok with doc being published as WD, and including actual test cases?
Chris Welty: is everyone ok with doc being published as WD, and including actual test cases? ←
19:07:06 <StellaMitchell> dave: nervous about including test cases in the document
Dave Reynolds: nervous about including test cases in the document ←
19:08:28 <StellaMitchell> sandro: the doc could end up being too large
Sandro Hawke: the doc could end up being too large ←
19:08:55 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/ ←
19:09:00 <StellaMitchell> sandro: a recommendation can be multple web pages
Sandro Hawke: a recommendation can be multple web pages ←
19:10:51 <StellaMitchell> adrian: show/hide buttons
Adrian Paschke: show/hide buttons ←
19:11:25 <StellaMitchell> sandro: is it ok to use RDF for the manifest file format?
Sandro Hawke: is it ok to use RDF for the manifest file format? ←
19:11:56 <Harold> In response to Sandro, if the document is too long to be printed, it should carry a label warning about this ("Please don't print this long document ...").
Harold Boley: In response to Sandro, if the document is too long to be printed, it should carry a label warning about this ("Please don't print this long document ..."). ←
19:12:07 <StellaMitchell> sandro: question to Gary, is this ok for you? will you have tools to parse RDF?
Sandro Hawke: question to Gary, is this ok for you? will you have tools to parse RDF? ←
19:14:04 <StellaMitchell> Sandro wants tests to be maintained on the wiki
Sandro wants tests to be maintained on the wiki ←
19:14:31 <StellaMitchell> not in a repository like the current document specifies
not in a repository like the current document specifies ←
19:15:41 <StellaMitchell> Gary: I don't think it's a problem - re: manifest file format
Gary Hallmark: I don't think it's a problem - re: manifest file format ←
19:16:06 <sandro> sounds like it's okay to be RDF-centric in test-case management for now.
Sandro Hawke: sounds like it's okay to be RDF-centric in test-case management for now. ←
19:18:42 <sandro> SPARQL test cases --- looks like a WD, but it's not.... http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/r2
Sandro Hawke: SPARQL test cases --- looks like a WD, but it's not.... http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/r2 ←
19:19:36 <sandro> chrisw: prefer to have text of test cases in WD --- 8
Chris Welty: prefer to have text of test cases in WD --- 8 [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:19:48 <sandro> chrisw: prefer not to have it in --- 3
Chris Welty: prefer not to have it in --- 3 [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:20:14 <StellaMitchell> chrisw: what other things do people expect to see in the WD that is not here
Chris Welty: what other things do people expect to see in the WD that is not here ←
19:20:34 <StellaMitchell> ...none were identified
...none were identified ←
19:20:58 <StellaMitchell> chrisw: so, we need to work out properties and include text of test cases
Chris Welty: so, we need to work out properties and include text of test cases ←
19:21:24 <Harold> Dave, we could have an "In doubt leave it out" policy for the set of approved WD test cases.
Harold Boley: Dave, we could have an "In doubt leave it out" policy for the set of approved WD test cases. ←
19:23:07 <StellaMitchell> chrisw: test cases task force will meet monday 11:00 est
Chris Welty: test cases task force will meet monday 11:00 est ←
19:23:33 <StellaMitchell> chrisw: have estimate by tues of how long it would take to get this ready to be reviewed as a WD
Chris Welty: have estimate by tues of how long it would take to get this ready to be reviewed as a WD ←
19:24:05 <ChrisW> action: csma to put Test Cases working draft schedule on agenda for next telecon
ACTION: csma to put Test Cases working draft schedule on agenda for next telecon ←
19:24:05 <trackbot> Created ACTION-593 - Put Test Cases working draft schedule on agenda for next telecon [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2008-10-03].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-593 - Put Test Cases working draft schedule on agenda for next telecon [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2008-10-03]. ←
19:24:26 <StellaMitchell> topic: reviewing test cases
19:24:47 <sandro> subtopic: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_conclusion_1
19:25:46 <StellaMitchell> csma: any problems with this
Christian de Sainte Marie: any problems with this ←
19:26:05 <StellaMitchell> chrisw: could use more in the description
Chris Welty: could use more in the description ←
19:26:19 <sandro> PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_conclusion_1
PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_conclusion_1 ←
19:26:29 <sandro> RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_conclusion_1
RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_conclusion_1 ←
19:26:35 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
19:26:35 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T19-26-35
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T19-26-35 ←
19:27:19 <ChrisW> action: Stella to add more to the description of use case equality in conclusion1
ACTION: Stella to add more to the description of use case equality in conclusion1 ←
19:27:19 <trackbot> Created ACTION-594 - Add more to the description of use case equality in conclusion1 [on Stella Mitchell - due 2008-10-03].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-594 - Add more to the description of use case equality in conclusion1 [on Stella Mitchell - due 2008-10-03]. ←
19:27:39 <StellaMitchell> csma: equality_in_conculsion2
Christian de Sainte Marie: equality_in_conculsion2 ←
19:27:45 <StellaMitchell> csma: any objections?
Christian de Sainte Marie: any objections? ←
19:28:58 <sandro> Chrisw: It would be nice to have some real-world example for this.
Chris Welty: It would be nice to have some real-world example for this. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:29:20 <StellaMitchell> chrisw: for description - say why you would write a rule like this
Chris Welty: for description - say why you would write a rule like this ←
19:29:32 <StellaMitchell> chrisw: test cases are examples too
Chris Welty: test cases are examples too ←
19:29:33 <sandro> Chrisw: put in a concrete example....
Chris Welty: put in a concrete example.... [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:30:04 <sandro> PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_conclusion_2
PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_conclusion_2 ←
19:30:12 <sandro> RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_conclusion_2
RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_conclusion_2 ←
19:30:16 <ChrisW> action: Stella to add more to the description of use case equality in conclusion2
ACTION: Stella to add more to the description of use case equality in conclusion2 ←
19:30:16 <trackbot> Created ACTION-595 - Add more to the description of use case equality in conclusion2 [on Stella Mitchell - due 2008-10-03].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-595 - Add more to the description of use case equality in conclusion2 [on Stella Mitchell - due 2008-10-03]. ←
19:30:19 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
19:30:19 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T19-30-19
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T19-30-19 ←
19:30:40 <StellaMitchell> csma: equality_in_condition
Christian de Sainte Marie: equality_in_condition ←
19:31:58 <StellaMitchell> csma: in this test case, the conclusion is exhaustive
Christian de Sainte Marie: in this test case, the conclusion is exhaustive ←
19:32:02 <StellaMitchell> jos: no, it's not
Jos De Bruijn: no, it's not ←
19:32:58 <StellaMitchell> sandro: would be nice to see what isn't entailed, as well as what is entailed - n the same test case
Sandro Hawke: would be nice to see what isn't entailed, as well as what is entailed - n the same test case ←
19:34:19 <StellaMitchell> various -- in this case, the conclusion is not a proper document
various -- in this case, the conclusion is not a proper document ←
19:34:39 <StellaMitchell> dave: updated to be a document
Dave Reynolds: updated to be a document ←
19:35:07 <sandro> PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_condition
PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_condition ←
19:35:13 <sandro> RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_condition
RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_condition ←
19:35:20 <sandro> RRSAgent, show pointer
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, show pointer ←
19:35:20 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'show pointer', sandro. Try /msg RRSAgent help
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I'm logging. I don't understand 'show pointer', sandro. Try /msg RRSAgent help ←
19:35:23 <sandro> RRSAgent, show pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, show pointer? ←
19:35:23 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'show pointer'
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'show pointer' ←
19:35:28 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
19:35:28 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T19-35-28
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T19-35-28 ←
19:35:54 <AxelPolleres> what about testcases like modeling equalities from OWL - e.g. by inverseFunctionalProperties... - for head equality? do we want that? I have one here: http://axel.deri.ie/~axepol/presentations/20080922KeynoteXinnovationsPhDworkshopBerlin.pdf, slide 31, with the test data from slide 22, basically.
Axel Polleres: what about testcases like modeling equalities from OWL - e.g. by inverseFunctionalProperties... - for head equality? do we want that? I have one here: http://axel.deri.ie/~axepol/presentations/20080922KeynoteXinnovationsPhDworkshopBerlin.pdf, slide 31, with the test data from slide 22, basically. ←
19:36:49 <AxelPolleres> stella, let me know, if that looks worthwhile, I can shape it in the right format.
Axel Polleres: stella, let me know, if that looks worthwhile, I can shape it in the right format. ←
19:37:48 <ChrisW> PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Guards_and_subtypes
PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Guards_and_subtypes ←
19:37:54 <ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Guards_and_subtypes
RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Guards_and_subtypes ←
19:37:59 <ChrisW> rrsagent, show pointer
Chris Welty: rrsagent, show pointer ←
19:37:59 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'show pointer', ChrisW. Try /msg RRSAgent help
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I'm logging. I don't understand 'show pointer', ChrisW. Try /msg RRSAgent help ←
19:38:02 <ChrisW> rrsagent, show pointer?
Chris Welty: rrsagent, show pointer? ←
19:38:02 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'show pointer'
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'show pointer' ←
19:38:09 <StellaMitchell> axel, yes that would be good
axel, yes that would be good ←
19:38:11 <ChrisW> rrsagent, pointer?
Chris Welty: rrsagent, pointer? ←
19:38:11 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T19-38-11
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T19-38-11 ←
19:38:22 <ChrisW> rrsagent, anything
Chris Welty: rrsagent, anything ←
19:38:22 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'anything', ChrisW. Try /msg RRSAgent help
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I'm logging. I don't understand 'anything', ChrisW. Try /msg RRSAgent help ←
19:39:25 <ChrisW> action: josb to update description of Inconsistent entailment
ACTION: josb to update description of Inconsistent entailment ←
19:39:25 <trackbot> Created ACTION-596 - Update description of Inconsistent entailment [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2008-10-03].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-596 - Update description of Inconsistent entailment [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2008-10-03]. ←
19:39:49 <ChrisW> PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Inconsistent_Entailment
PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Inconsistent_Entailment ←
19:39:59 <ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Inconsistent_Entailment
RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Inconsistent_Entailment ←
19:40:05 <ChrisW> rrsagent, pointer?
Chris Welty: rrsagent, pointer? ←
19:40:05 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T19-40-05
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T19-40-05 ←
19:40:57 <StellaMitchell> test case individual data separation inconsistency
test case individual data separation inconsistency ←
19:41:09 <StellaMitchell> chrisw: is this still true?
Chris Welty: is this still true? ←
19:41:44 <StellaMitchell> jos: a is a class, and then we say everything is of type a
Jos De Bruijn: a is a class, and then we say everything is of type a ←
19:41:51 <StellaMitchell> chrisw: is this still true in OWL2?
Chris Welty: is this still true in OWL2? ←
19:41:58 <StellaMitchell> jos: yes, I think it does
Jos De Bruijn: yes, I think it does ←
19:42:11 <StellaMitchell> chrisw: in owl1.1 you could use same iri as both a class and an instance
Chris Welty: in owl1.1 you could use same iri as both a class and an instance ←
19:42:31 <StellaMitchell> jos: oops, I was talking about a different test case
Jos De Bruijn: oops, I was talking about a different test case ←
19:43:06 <StellaMitchell> jos: in owl-dl there is a separation between individual domains and data value domains
Jos De Bruijn: in owl-dl there is a separation between individual domains and data value domains ←
19:44:40 <StellaMitchell> csma: any objections to this test case?
Christian de Sainte Marie: any objections to this test case? ←
19:45:00 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
19:45:00 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T19-45-00
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T19-45-00 ←
19:45:03 <ChrisW> PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Individual-Data_Separation_Inconsistency
PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Individual-Data_Separation_Inconsistency ←
19:45:08 <ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Individual-Data_Separation_Inconsistency
RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Individual-Data_Separation_Inconsistency ←
19:45:15 <ChrisW> rrsagent, pointer?
Chris Welty: rrsagent, pointer? ←
19:45:15 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T19-45-15
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T19-45-15 ←
19:45:23 <StellaMitchell> csma: test case "local constant"
Christian de Sainte Marie: test case "local constant" ←
19:45:47 <StellaMitchell> jos: in BLD LC WD, this was true , entailment relation doesn't preserve names of local constants
Jos De Bruijn: in BLD LC WD, this was true , entailment relation doesn't preserve names of local constants ←
19:46:20 <StellaMitchell> mk: in the current BLD, this is no longer true
Michael Kifer: in the current BLD, this is no longer true ←
19:46:33 <StellaMitchell> mk, jos: this test isn't valid wrt to the current BLD
mk, jos: this test isn't valid wrt to the current BLD ←
19:47:18 <StellaMitchell> csma: test case: named_argument_uniterms/frames1
Christian de Sainte Marie: test case: named_argument_uniterms/frames1 ←
19:48:06 <StellaMitchell> daver: tihs case, together with the other named_argument uniterm/frame give the idea
Dave Reynolds: tihs case, together with the other named_argument uniterm/frame give the idea ←
19:48:16 <StellaMitchell> daver: can cross link between the 2 tests
Dave Reynolds: can cross link between the 2 tests ←
19:51:17 <StellaMitchell> jos: for 2nd one, the conclusion is not a valid question
Jos De Bruijn: for 2nd one, the conclusion is not a valid question ←
19:52:05 <StellaMitchell> jos: ...because a predicate can only occur in one context
Jos De Bruijn: ...because a predicate can only occur in one context ←
19:52:15 <sandro> someone should produce a Negative Syntax Test from this: ex:p(ex:a->1 ex:b->2) and ex:p(ex:a->1)
Sandro Hawke: someone should produce a Negative Syntax Test from this: ex:p(ex:a->1 ex:b->2) and ex:p(ex:a->1) ←
19:52:25 <StellaMitchell> jos: even if it is in a separate document
Jos De Bruijn: even if it is in a separate document ←
19:53:00 <StellaMitchell> csma: repeat the arg names
Christian de Sainte Marie: repeat the arg names ←
19:53:05 <StellaMitchell> mk, dave: no, not allowed
mk, dave: no, not allowed ←
19:54:41 <StellaMitchell> csma: if rhis cannot be expressed in RIF, why do we need named arguement uniterms?
Christian de Sainte Marie: if rhis cannot be expressed in RIF, why do we need named arguement uniterms? ←
19:55:01 <StellaMitchell> daver: I kind of agree
Dave Reynolds: I kind of agree ←
19:55:31 <StellaMitchell> mk: can we go back and remove restrictoins such as no polymorphic symbols
Michael Kifer: can we go back and remove restrictoins such as no polymorphic symbols ←
19:56:25 <StellaMitchell> chrisw: would be nice to capture named-argument uniterms as a negative syntax test
Chris Welty: would be nice to capture named-argument uniterms as a negative syntax test ←
19:56:29 <StellaMitchell> dave: will do it now
Dave Reynolds: will do it now ←
19:56:55 <ChrisW> PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Named_Argument_Uniterms/Frames_1
PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Named_Argument_Uniterms/Frames_1 ←
19:57:12 <StellaMitchell> sandro: and change the names of the tests
Sandro Hawke: and change the names of the tests ←
19:58:44 <sandro> PROPOSED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/No_polymorphic_symbols
PROPOSED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/No_polymorphic_symbols ←
19:58:53 <StellaMitchell> csma: test case: no polymorphic symbols
Christian de Sainte Marie: test case: no polymorphic symbols ←
19:59:07 <StellaMitchell> csma: syntax error - rejected by consumer
Christian de Sainte Marie: syntax error - rejected by consumer ←
19:59:29 <StellaMitchell> sandro: description should highligh that buy has 3 parms in one place, and 4 in another
Sandro Hawke: description should highligh that buy has 3 parms in one place, and 4 in another ←
19:59:55 <ChrisW> action: Stella to update description in http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/No_polymorphic_symbols
ACTION: Stella to update description in http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/No_polymorphic_symbols ←
19:59:55 <trackbot> Created ACTION-597 - Update description in http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/No_polymorphic_symbols [on Stella Mitchell - due 2008-10-03].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-597 - Update description in http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/No_polymorphic_symbols [on Stella Mitchell - due 2008-10-03]. ←
20:00:01 <ChrisW> PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/No_polymorphic_symbols
PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/No_polymorphic_symbols ←
20:00:10 <ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/No_polymorphic_symbols
RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/No_polymorphic_symbols ←
20:00:14 <sandro> PROPOSED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/No_polymorphic_symbols
PROPOSED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/No_polymorphic_symbols ←
20:00:20 <ChrisW> rrsagent, pointer?
Chris Welty: rrsagent, pointer? ←
20:00:20 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T20-00-20
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T20-00-20 ←
20:00:49 <StellaMitchell> csma: test case: non-annotation entailment
Christian de Sainte Marie: test case: non-annotation entailment ←
20:00:57 <StellaMitchell> jos: this is the complement of annotation entailment test case
Jos De Bruijn: this is the complement of annotation entailment test case ←
20:01:45 <StellaMitchell> jos: in the earlier test case we were talking about owl-dl annotation entialment and this is plain owl-dl enatailment, so annotation properties are not considered in the entailment
Jos De Bruijn: in the earlier test case we were talking about owl-dl annotation entialment and this is plain owl-dl enatailment, so annotation properties are not considered in the entailment ←
20:02:04 <StellaMitchell> chrisw: why do we need to prevent entailment of annotation properties?
Chris Welty: why do we need to prevent entailment of annotation properties? ←
20:02:32 <StellaMitchell> jos: just following what is in owl
Jos De Bruijn: just following what is in owl ←
20:03:09 <ChrisW> action: josb to update description of http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Non-Annotation_Entailment
ACTION: josb to update description of http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Non-Annotation_Entailment ←
20:03:09 <trackbot> Created ACTION-598 - Update description of http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Non-Annotation_Entailment [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2008-10-03].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-598 - Update description of http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Non-Annotation_Entailment [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2008-10-03]. ←
20:03:20 <ChrisW> PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Non-Annotation_Entailment
PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Non-Annotation_Entailment ←
20:03:26 <ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Non-Annotation_Entailment
RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Non-Annotation_Entailment ←
20:03:32 <ChrisW> rrsagent, pointer?
Chris Welty: rrsagent, pointer? ←
20:03:32 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T20-03-32
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T20-03-32 ←
20:03:33 <StellaMitchell> csma: test case: owl combination vocabulary separation inconsistency1
Christian de Sainte Marie: test case: owl combination vocabulary separation inconsistency1 ←
20:04:05 <StellaMitchell> jos: again, mixing of individual and concrete domains
Jos De Bruijn: again, mixing of individual and concrete domains ←
20:07:10 <StellaMitchell> axel: this would not be syntactially correct in owl-dl
Axel Polleres: this would not be syntactially correct in owl-dl ←
20:07:14 <StellaMitchell> various -- but this is RIF
various -- but this is RIF ←
20:07:20 <StellaMitchell> ...combination with OWL-DL
...combination with OWL-DL ←
20:08:11 <StellaMitchell> csma: axel, do you object?
Christian de Sainte Marie: axel, do you object? ←
20:08:12 <ChrisW> PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWL_Combination_Vocabulary_Separation_Inconsistency_1
PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWL_Combination_Vocabulary_Separation_Inconsistency_1 ←
20:08:16 <StellaMitchell> axel: no
Axel Polleres: no ←
20:08:51 <ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWL_Combination_Vocabulary_Separation_Inconsistency_1
RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWL_Combination_Vocabulary_Separation_Inconsistency_1 ←
20:08:57 <ChrisW> rrsagent, pointer?
Chris Welty: rrsagent, pointer? ←
20:08:57 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T20-08-57
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T20-08-57 ←
20:09:05 <AxelPolleres> my concern/ confusion basically was along the following lines:
Axel Polleres: my concern/ confusion basically was along the following lines: ←
20:09:30 <StellaMitchell> sandro: will these (the ones applicable to core) turn into core tests?
Sandro Hawke: will these (the ones applicable to core) turn into core tests? ←
20:09:55 <StellaMitchell> test case; owl combination vocabulary separation inconsistency2
test case; owl combination vocabulary separation inconsistency2 ←
20:09:56 <AxelPolleres> e.g. the pD* entailment rules from ter Horst 2005 would have no problems with http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWL_Combination_Vocabulary_Separation_Inconsistency_1 if written in RIF.
Axel Polleres: e.g. the pD* entailment rules from ter Horst 2005 would have no problems with http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWL_Combination_Vocabulary_Separation_Inconsistency_1 if written in RIF. ←
20:10:20 <StellaMitchell> chrisw: is this still in owl2, object properties, datatype properties...?
Chris Welty: is this still in owl2, object properties, datatype properties...? ←
20:10:22 <StellaMitchell> jos: yes
Jos De Bruijn: yes ←
20:10:46 <StellaMitchell> jos: but in owl2 you have punning, but you can always determine from the context
Jos De Bruijn: but in owl2 you have punning, but you can always determine from the context ←
20:11:06 <StellaMitchell> dave: I thought that was dropped for object properties
Dave Reynolds: I thought that was dropped for object properties ←
20:11:08 <AxelPolleres> ... it is just that I was astonished - hadn't realizzed that - when something is not in OWL DL syntactically we infer inconsistency... but if that is the agreement - and I don't have a better suggestion - then that's fine.
Axel Polleres: ... it is just that I was astonished - hadn't realizzed that - when something is not in OWL DL syntactically we infer inconsistency... but if that is the agreement - and I don't have a better suggestion - then that's fine. ←
20:12:02 <sandro> recent change in OWL2: "The major change to this document since the version of 11 April 2008 reflects the major revamping of the functional syntax to disallow punning between classes and datatypes and between object, data, and annotation properties. Some minor changes were made to reflect changes in the Functional Syntax."
Sandro Hawke: recent change in OWL2: "The major change to this document since the version of 11 April 2008 reflects the major revamping of the functional syntax to disallow punning between classes and datatypes and between object, data, and annotation properties. Some minor changes were made to reflect changes in the Functional Syntax." ←
20:12:36 <StellaMitchell> axel: punning is not trivially combinable with our rules
Axel Polleres: punning is not trivially combinable with our rules ←
20:13:12 <ChrisW> PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWL_Combination_Vocabulary_Separation_Inconsistency_2
PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWL_Combination_Vocabulary_Separation_Inconsistency_2 ←
20:13:22 <ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWL_Combination_Vocabulary_Separation_Inconsistency_2
RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWL_Combination_Vocabulary_Separation_Inconsistency_2 ←
20:13:29 <ChrisW> rrsagent, pointer?
Chris Welty: rrsagent, pointer? ←
20:13:29 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T20-13-29
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T20-13-29 ←
20:13:58 <StellaMitchell> test case: frame slots are independent
test case: frame slots are independent ←
20:14:24 <StellaMitchell> ...renamed from named/arg untierms...
...renamed from named/arg untierms... ←
20:14:44 <StellaMitchell> csma: any objection to accepting this?
Christian de Sainte Marie: any objection to accepting this? ←
20:14:45 <ChrisW> PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Frame_slots_are_independent
PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Frame_slots_are_independent ←
20:15:14 <ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Frame_slots_are_independent
RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Frame_slots_are_independent ←
20:15:18 <ChrisW> rrsagent, pointer?
Chris Welty: rrsagent, pointer? ←
20:15:18 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T20-15-18
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T20-15-18 ←
20:15:42 <ChrisW> PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Named_Argument_Uniterms_non-polymorphic
PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Named_Argument_Uniterms_non-polymorphic ←
20:16:11 <ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Named_Argument_Uniterms_non-polymorphic
RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Named_Argument_Uniterms_non-polymorphic ←
20:16:22 <ChrisW> rrsagent, pointer?
Chris Welty: rrsagent, pointer? ←
20:16:22 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T20-16-22
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T20-16-22 ←
20:17:53 <StellaMitchell> csma: who read the description of semantics of conditions in PRD?
Christian de Sainte Marie: who read the description of semantics of conditions in PRD? ←
20:17:58 <StellaMitchell> ...a few
...a few ←
20:19:19 <StellaMitchell> csma: in 1st WD, the semantics was described operationally
Christian de Sainte Marie: in 1st WD, the semantics was described operationally ←
20:19:32 <StellaMitchell> ...question was rasied of how we relate this to DTB?
...question was rasied of how we relate this to DTB? ←
20:19:54 <StellaMitchell> ...suggestion was to describe semantics of conditions in PRD in the same was as in BLD
...suggestion was to describe semantics of conditions in PRD in the same was as in BLD ←
20:20:38 <StellaMitchell> chrisw: I don't understand the link, between need to link to DTB and how to specify conditions
Chris Welty: I don't understand the link, between need to link to DTB and how to specify conditions ←
20:21:31 <StellaMitchell> chrisw: question about what is being done here, with actions vs. conditions
Chris Welty: question about what is being done here, with actions vs. conditions ←
20:22:06 <StellaMitchell> gary: prd: start with rules and facts, then ask which rules you want to fire
Gary Hallmark: prd: start with rules and facts, then ask which rules you want to fire ←
20:22:21 <StellaMitchell> ...conditions tell you which to fire (might only pick some of them)
...conditions tell you which to fire (might only pick some of them) ←
20:22:36 <StellaMitchell> ...the rules that fire cause actions to be executed
...the rules that fire cause actions to be executed ←
20:22:52 <StellaMitchell> ...actions change state of things
...actions change state of things ←
20:22:55 <StellaMitchell> ...then repeat
...then repeat ←
20:23:49 <StellaMitchell> csma: semantics of facts in actions is the same as semantics of facts in conditions
Christian de Sainte Marie: semantics of facts in actions is the same as semantics of facts in conditions ←
20:24:48 <StellaMitchell> csma: adrian proposed a definition that is as similar to BLD as possible
Christian de Sainte Marie: adrian proposed a definition that is as similar to BLD as possible ←
20:25:03 <StellaMitchell> gary: it is possible to just point to BLD from here?
Gary Hallmark: it is possible to just point to BLD from here? ←
20:26:44 <StellaMitchell> csma: Definition of Satisfaction is the important point
Christian de Sainte Marie: Definition of Satisfaction is the important point ←
20:28:39 <StellaMitchell> gary: why do we need extra substitution step mapping variables to ?
Gary Hallmark: why do we need extra substitution step mapping variables to ? ←
20:29:13 <StellaMitchell> csma: we wanted to mention this in the plenary so that semantisists can comment
Christian de Sainte Marie: we wanted to mention this in the plenary so that semantisists can comment ←
20:29:36 <StellaMitchell> jos: why don't use you a semantic structure?
Jos De Bruijn: why don't use you a semantic structure? ←
20:29:39 <StellaMitchell> csma: we do
Christian de Sainte Marie: we do ←
20:30:07 <StellaMitchell> csma: but we also have operational semantics for the action part
Christian de Sainte Marie: but we also have operational semantics for the action part ←
20:30:27 <StellaMitchell> jos: the set of facts is equivalent to a semantic structure, and go directly from w to w1
Jos De Bruijn: the set of facts is equivalent to a semantic structure, and go directly from w to w1 ←
20:30:37 <StellaMitchell> s/w1/w'/
s/w1/w'/ ←
20:31:54 <StellaMitchell> csma: I'd like to see it written as a draft, and then we have to relate it to the working memory
Christian de Sainte Marie: I'd like to see it written as a draft, and then we have to relate it to the working memory ←
20:32:01 <StellaMitchell> ...and take into consideration the target audience
...and take into consideration the target audience ←
20:32:41 <StellaMitchell> gary: "w" is very syntactic
Gary Hallmark: "w" is very syntactic ←
20:32:52 <StellaMitchell> ,,,2 different things in syntax map to same thing in the domain
,,,2 different things in syntax map to same thing in the domain ←
20:33:35 <StellaMitchell> adrian: and it needs to be restructured
Adrian Paschke: and it needs to be restructured ←
20:34:02 <StellaMitchell> csma: no, I moved it into the "instantiate rules" part
Christian de Sainte Marie: no, I moved it into the "instantiate rules" part ←
20:34:25 <StellaMitchell> csma:...but I agree that the document needs to be reorganized
Christian de Sainte Marie: ...but I agree that the document needs to be reorganized ←
20:35:37 <StellaMitchell> jos: you need the substitution because of assert and .. in head
Jos De Bruijn: you need the substitution because of assert and .. in head ←
20:35:56 <StellaMitchell> chrisw: not if you define it as transitions
Chris Welty: not if you define it as transitions ←
20:35:58 <StellaMitchell> jos: ok
Jos De Bruijn: ok ←
20:38:08 <StellaMitchell> csma: we can in one of several ways, but currently it is incorrect
Christian de Sainte Marie: we can in one of several ways, but currently it is incorrect ←
20:38:56 <StellaMitchell> ... (definition of pattern matching)
... (definition of pattern matching) ←
20:39:03 <StellaMitchell> ...get rid of sigma
...get rid of sigma ←
20:41:03 <StellaMitchell> .chrisw: target audience may not understand what the variable mapping means
.chrisw: target audience may not understand what the variable mapping means ←
20:41:24 <StellaMitchell> csma: we need to add a paragraph to explain variable binding
Christian de Sainte Marie: we need to add a paragraph to explain variable binding ←
20:42:05 <StellaMitchell> csma: in signature, adrian introduced a function "type"
Christian de Sainte Marie: in signature, adrian introduced a function "type" ←
20:42:14 <StellaMitchell> adrian: that is to introduce a multi-sorted type system
Adrian Paschke: that is to introduce a multi-sorted type system ←
20:42:35 <StellaMitchell> csma: I'm not sure this is required for PRD
Christian de Sainte Marie: I'm not sure this is required for PRD ←
20:43:06 <StellaMitchell> gary: you can do type referencing with guards
Gary Hallmark: you can do type referencing with guards ←
20:43:33 <StellaMitchell> csma: and a few other things that could be removed from the signatures
Christian de Sainte Marie: and a few other things that could be removed from the signatures ←
20:43:44 <StellaMitchell> daver: and another mistake: frames don't have an arity
Dave Reynolds: and another mistake: frames don't have an arity ←
20:44:15 <StellaMitchell> gary: this is supposed to be mirroring BLD in the syntax area
Gary Hallmark: this is supposed to be mirroring BLD in the syntax area ←
20:44:30 <StellaMitchell> csma: but syntax is what we will define semantics of
Christian de Sainte Marie: but syntax is what we will define semantics of ←
20:44:54 <StellaMitchell> csma: and other simpler things
Christian de Sainte Marie: and other simpler things ←
20:45:22 <ChrisW> taking a break
Chris Welty: taking a break ←
20:45:33 <StellaMitchell> csma: the main point was about the semantics of pattern matching
Christian de Sainte Marie: the main point was about the semantics of pattern matching ←
20:48:42 <ChrisW> ACTION: AdrianP to reformulate PRD condition semantics without substitution
ACTION: AdrianP to reformulate PRD condition semantics without substitution ←
20:48:42 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - AdrianP
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - AdrianP ←
20:49:14 <ChrisW> ACTION: AdrianPaschke to reformulate PRD condition semantics without
ACTION: AdrianPaschke to reformulate PRD condition semantics without ←
20:49:14 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - AdrianPaschke
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - AdrianPaschke ←
20:49:30 <ChrisW> ACTION: AdrianP to reformulate PRD condition semantics without
ACTION: AdrianP to reformulate PRD condition semantics without ←
20:49:59 <ChrisW> ACTION: APaschke to reformulate PRD condition semantics without
ACTION: APaschke to reformulate PRD condition semantics without ←
20:49:59 <trackbot> Created ACTION-599 - Reformulate PRD condition semantics without [on Adrian Paschke - due 2008-10-03].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-599 - Reformulate PRD condition semantics without [on Adrian Paschke - due 2008-10-03]. ←
21:04:29 <AxelPolleres> AxelPolleres has joined #rif
(No events recorded for 14 minutes)
Axel Polleres: AxelPolleres has joined #rif ←
21:06:44 <BobMoore> Guys & gals I'm falling asleep - it's been a very long day. I'll try and be a more active participant tomorrow. Enjoy dinner
Bob Moore: Guys & gals I'm falling asleep - it's been a very long day. I'll try and be a more active participant tomorrow. Enjoy dinner ←
21:07:01 <sandro> Enjoy, BobMoore
Sandro Hawke: Enjoy, BobMoore ←
21:07:01 <Blaz> scribenick Blaz
Blaz Novak: scribenick Blaz ←
21:07:12 <Blaz> scribenick: Blaz
(Scribe set to Blaz Novak)
21:07:21 <Zakim> -BobMoore
Zakim IRC Bot: -BobMoore ←
21:07:38 <Blaz> chrisw: open issues in BLD: roundtripping; at risk: external frames (because there was confusion about exactly what they were), equality in the conclusion, scrictness requirement @ conformance
Chris Welty: open issues in BLD: roundtripping; at risk: external frames (because there was confusion about exactly what they were), equality in the conclusion, scrictness requirement @ conformance ←
21:07:41 <StellaMitchell> ScribeNick: Blaz
21:09:36 <Blaz> chrisw: at the last f2f we discussed the idea of 'consumer' that implements extensions; we added the clause there may be a strictness mode that will reject everything that is not in BLD
Chris Welty: at the last f2f we discussed the idea of 'consumer' that implements extensions; we added the clause there may be a strictness mode that will reject everything that is not in BLD ←
21:10:48 <Blaz> csma: the point is it is not a requirement
Christian de Sainte Marie: the point is it is not a requirement ←
21:11:24 <Blaz> chrisw: there is no harm in leaving "at risk" in for now
Chris Welty: there is no harm in leaving "at risk" in for now ←
21:12:17 <Zakim> -Meeting_Room
Zakim IRC Bot: -Meeting_Room ←
21:12:18 <Zakim> Team_(rif)18:42Z has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: Team_(rif)18:42Z has ended ←
21:12:20 <Zakim> Attendees were +0777841aaaa, BobMoore, AxelPolleres, SandroHawke, JosDeBruijn, MikeDean, StellaMitchell, LeoraMorgenstern, BlazNovak, MichealKifer, DaveReynolds, AdrianPaschke,
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were +0777841aaaa, BobMoore, AxelPolleres, SandroHawke, JosDeBruijn, MikeDean, StellaMitchell, LeoraMorgenstern, BlazNovak, MichealKifer, DaveReynolds, AdrianPaschke, ←
21:12:22 <Zakim> ... HaroldBoley, GaryHallmark, ChrisWelty, ChristianDeSainteMarie
Zakim IRC Bot: ... HaroldBoley, GaryHallmark, ChrisWelty, ChristianDeSainteMarie ←
21:12:29 <Blaz> csma: equality in the conclusion remains 'at risk', because some of the implementers might want not to implement it
Christian de Sainte Marie: equality in the conclusion remains 'at risk', because some of the implementers might want not to implement it ←
21:13:58 <Blaz> jos: it might be possible to introduce an inconsistency even without this
Jos De Bruijn: it might be possible to introduce an inconsistency even without this ←
21:15:18 <Blaz> mk: nobody will implement this anyway
Michael Kifer: nobody will implement this anyway ←
21:15:29 <Blaz> mk: we should do something about conformance, then
Michael Kifer: we should do something about conformance, then ←
21:15:50 <Blaz> csma: we can not remove it now
Christian de Sainte Marie: we can not remove it now ←
21:16:22 <josb> also with RDF and RDFS combinations we can have inconsistencies, because there can be inconsistencies in these languages
Jos De Bruijn: also with RDF and RDFS combinations we can have inconsistencies, because there can be inconsistencies in these languages ←
21:17:46 <Blaz> what is the terminology - head/body? condition/conclusion?
what is the terminology - head/body? condition/conclusion? ←
21:18:00 <Blaz> chrisw: the language should be made consistent
Chris Welty: the language should be made consistent ←
21:18:19 <Blaz> mk: 'premise' is used a lot, 'body' is used in a couple of places
Michael Kifer: 'premise' is used a lot, 'body' is used in a couple of places ←
21:18:28 <Blaz> mk: 'body'/'head' is used in the translation to XML too
Michael Kifer: 'body'/'head' is used in the translation to XML too ←
21:18:47 <Blaz> mk: conclusion and premise?
Michael Kifer: conclusion and premise? ←
21:19:25 <Blaz> voting on "premise" and "condition"
voting on "premise" and "condition" ←
21:19:38 <Blaz> condition wins
condition wins ←
21:20:09 <sandro> ignoring Axel and Sandro saying "if-part"
Sandro Hawke: ignoring Axel and Sandro saying "if-part" ←
21:20:19 <sandro> not really a WG decision.
Sandro Hawke: not really a WG decision. ←
21:20:32 <sandro> Chrisw: At very least, get rid of Body and Head.
Chris Welty: At very least, get rid of Body and Head. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:20:58 <Blaz> chrisw: leaving equality at risk
Chris Welty: leaving equality at risk ←
21:21:28 <Blaz> chrisw: what is external about external frames
Chris Welty: what is external about external frames ←
21:21:42 <Blaz> mk: it's just like external predicates... it's just the same thing, but different syntax
Michael Kifer: it's just like external predicates... it's just the same thing, but different syntax ←
21:22:20 <Blaz> csma: P(a,b) .. if P has a fixed interpretation, then this is an external: Ext[P(a,b)]
Christian de Sainte Marie: P(a,b) .. if P has a fixed interpretation, then this is an external: Ext[P(a,b)] ←
21:23:13 <StellaMitchell> mk: you are asking an external source, and it tells you yes or no
Michael Kifer: you are asking an external source, and it tells you yes or no [ Scribe Assist by Stella Mitchell ] ←
21:23:22 <StellaMitchell> ... you are making a query to an external source
Stella Mitchell: ... you are making a query to an external source ←
21:24:17 <Blaz> csma: [to mk] is it a way to address 'external methods' ?
Christian de Sainte Marie: [to mk] is it a way to address 'external methods' ? ←
21:25:15 <Blaz> Ext[P(a,b)] vs. Ext(a[P->b]) -- is using the same device for differrent purposes
Ext[P(a,b)] vs. Ext(a[P->b]) -- is using the same device for differrent purposes ←
21:25:31 <Blaz> csma: my understanding of the current def. of 'external' is that it is a function
Christian de Sainte Marie: my understanding of the current def. of 'external' is that it is a function ←
21:25:51 <Blaz> mk: originally, the idea was just to do builtins, then we discussed that people might want to access external datasources
Michael Kifer: originally, the idea was just to do builtins, then we discussed that people might want to access external datasources ←
21:25:58 <Blaz> csma: but this is completely different
Christian de Sainte Marie: but this is completely different ←
21:26:00 <Blaz> mk: no
Michael Kifer: no ←
21:26:12 <Blaz> dave: the builtin location is part of a step
Dave Reynolds: the builtin location is part of a step ←
21:26:25 <Blaz> mk: you can not really draw a boundary between external sources and builtins
Michael Kifer: you can not really draw a boundary between external sources and builtins ←
21:26:30 <Blaz> csma: I think it is wrong
Christian de Sainte Marie: I think it is wrong ←
21:26:56 <Blaz> mk: it really means a query to some source
Michael Kifer: it really means a query to some source ←
21:27:06 <Blaz> mk: we are just asking a query
Michael Kifer: we are just asking a query ←
21:27:23 <Blaz> csma: I agree they are the same
Christian de Sainte Marie: I agree they are the same ←
21:27:52 <Blaz> csma: if a and P are both IRIs .. which one is external?
Christian de Sainte Marie: if a and P are both IRIs .. which one is external? ←
21:28:03 <Blaz> mk: if a is an IRI, it means 'query me this way'
Michael Kifer: if a is an IRI, it means 'query me this way' ←
21:28:25 <Blaz> mk: if it's not an IRI, but some other constant .. you would do some other thing .. the object tells you how to query it
Michael Kifer: if it's not an IRI, but some other constant .. you would do some other thing .. the object tells you how to query it ←
21:28:49 <Blaz> mk: it's a matter of modelling. you can model something as a predicate, relation, class,
Michael Kifer: it's a matter of modelling. you can model something as a predicate, relation, class, ←
21:29:22 <Blaz> csma: in Ext[P(a,b)] there is no ambiguity. what is external is 'P'. if both are equivalent...
Christian de Sainte Marie: in Ext[P(a,b)] there is no ambiguity. what is external is 'P'. if both are equivalent... ←
21:29:47 <Blaz> mk: I'm saying I can think of situations where you have an object that is sitting externally and that object can be asked various things
Michael Kifer: I'm saying I can think of situations where you have an object that is sitting externally and that object can be asked various things ←
21:29:59 <Blaz> mk: and that object http://www.ibm.com/ and P would be 'president' ..
Michael Kifer: and that object http://www.ibm.com/ and P would be 'president' .. ←
21:30:29 <Blaz> csma: when I receive a document where there is an external frame and I have to deserialize it .. how do I know which is extenral? I know when I'm executing it, but how do I know when I'm deserializing it ?
Christian de Sainte Marie: when I receive a document where there is an external frame and I have to deserialize it .. how do I know which is extenral? I know when I'm executing it, but how do I know when I'm deserializing it ? ←
21:30:46 <Blaz> csma: this is an interchange format; when I see an XML document I want do deserialize it into my own lanugage
Christian de Sainte Marie: this is an interchange format; when I see an XML document I want do deserialize it into my own lanugage ←
21:30:59 <Blaz> mk: how do you perform calls to external sources?
Michael Kifer: how do you perform calls to external sources? ←
21:31:23 <Blaz> csma: I'm not saying we do not need it
Christian de Sainte Marie: I'm not saying we do not need it ←
21:32:03 <Blaz> csma: I have to know wether 'a' is stored in an object database at the address given by 'a' or if 'P' is ____. I need to know it syntactically
Christian de Sainte Marie: I have to know wether 'a' is stored in an object database at the address given by 'a' or if 'P' is ____. I need to know it syntactically ←
21:32:20 <Blaz> chrisw: I don't understand the role of externals
Chris Welty: I don't understand the role of externals ←
21:32:55 <Blaz> mk: if you're getting a document with an ext. and unless you know how to call the external, you can not use it ..
Michael Kifer: if you're getting a document with an ext. and unless you know how to call the external, you can not use it .. ←
21:33:42 <Blaz> csma: then, what you're saying, it is indeed related to the question about user defined data models and functions. this is what I hear
Christian de Sainte Marie: then, what you're saying, it is indeed related to the question about user defined data models and functions. this is what I hear ←
21:33:47 <Blaz> dave nods no
dave nods no ←
21:34:04 <Blaz> mk: for the predicate you have to know how many arguments it has. then you also have to know the model of the predicate.
Michael Kifer: for the predicate you have to know how many arguments it has. then you also have to know the model of the predicate. ←
21:34:19 <Blaz> chrisw: the moment you use it, you find out its model. why do you need external?
Chris Welty: the moment you use it, you find out its model. why do you need external? ←
21:34:27 <Blaz> mk: otherwise you'll have to try to match it to your own predicates
Michael Kifer: otherwise you'll have to try to match it to your own predicates ←
21:34:37 <Blaz> csma: external tells you its interpretation is fixed outside the ruleset
Christian de Sainte Marie: external tells you its interpretation is fixed outside the ruleset ←
21:34:47 <Blaz> csma: fixed interpretation is a nice way to say it.
Christian de Sainte Marie: fixed interpretation is a nice way to say it. ←
21:34:56 <Blaz> gary: it's fixed but you might not know what it is
Gary Hallmark: it's fixed but you might not know what it is ←
21:35:05 <Blaz> csma: it's interpretaiton is external to the ruleset
Christian de Sainte Marie: it's interpretaiton is external to the ruleset ←
21:35:44 <Blaz> csma: to me it is clear if I find an ext. predicate I know there is a specification of that predicate somewhere and I have to know it if I want do do something and it might be an extension if it is a call to a database or an intention of ...
Christian de Sainte Marie: to me it is clear if I find an ext. predicate I know there is a specification of that predicate somewhere and I have to know it if I want do do something and it might be an extension if it is a call to a database or an intention of ... ←
21:35:57 <Blaz> csma: I can not get what an external frame means
Christian de Sainte Marie: I can not get what an external frame means ←
21:37:17 <Blaz> chrisw: the question is: what is external: in Ext[P(a b)] it's P. how about in Ext(a(P->b]) ?
Chris Welty: the question is: what is external: in Ext[P(a b)] it's P. how about in Ext(a(P->b]) ? ←
21:37:26 <Blaz> mk: the meaning of this is not a part of your ruleset
Michael Kifer: the meaning of this is not a part of your ruleset ←
21:37:39 <Blaz> jos: could you view this as an external ternary predicate [the second one]
Jos De Bruijn: could you view this as an external ternary predicate [the second one] ←
21:37:44 <Blaz> jos: that has a fixed interpretation
Jos De Bruijn: that has a fixed interpretation ←
21:38:03 <Blaz> mk: you also know there should be some protocol to say 'send me this stuff..'
Michael Kifer: you also know there should be some protocol to say 'send me this stuff..' ←
21:38:16 <AxelPolleres> "This section introduces the notion of external schemas, which serve as templates for externally defined terms. These schemas determine which externally defined terms are acceptable in a RIF dialect." from FLD, section 2.5
Axel Polleres: "This section introduces the notion of external schemas, which serve as templates for externally defined terms. These schemas determine which externally defined terms are acceptable in a RIF dialect." from FLD, section 2.5 ←
21:38:38 <AxelPolleres> THis means the externally definined schemas are hard-wired with a dialect.
Axel Polleres: THis means the externally definined schemas are hard-wired with a dialect. ←
21:39:19 <Blaz> csma: in the second case, even if you have an IRI, where do I send my query?
Christian de Sainte Marie: in the second case, even if you have an IRI, where do I send my query? ←
21:39:49 <Blaz> csma: I did not say you have to send it there; but if you have that address, then being able to identify P tells you exactly what to do
Christian de Sainte Marie: I did not say you have to send it there; but if you have that address, then being able to identify P tells you exactly what to do ←
21:40:24 <Blaz> csma: I'm not thinking about anything magical
Christian de Sainte Marie: I'm not thinking about anything magical ←
21:40:54 <Blaz> mk: you have an address and there is some XML. if you want to talk to this address, you have to know what message to send. wether there are 2 or 5 arguments. what this message is to be
Michael Kifer: you have an address and there is some XML. if you want to talk to this address, you have to know what message to send. wether there are 2 or 5 arguments. what this message is to be ←
21:41:20 <Blaz> csma: I perfectly understand this. my question is:
Christian de Sainte Marie: I perfectly understand this. my question is: ←
21:41:39 <Blaz> csma: my understanding was: P unambigously identifies this address
Christian de Sainte Marie: my understanding was: P unambigously identifies this address ←
21:41:41 <Blaz> mk: no
Michael Kifer: no ←
21:41:48 <Blaz> csma: how do I know this address?
Christian de Sainte Marie: how do I know this address? ←
21:42:11 <Blaz> chrisw interrupts the discussion
chrisw interrupts the discussion ←
21:42:31 <Blaz> chrisw: who understands external frames?
Chris Welty: who understands external frames? ←
21:42:37 <Blaz> chrisw: jos you try to explain it
Chris Welty: jos you try to explain it ←
21:42:55 <Blaz> csma: give me an example
Christian de Sainte Marie: give me an example ←
21:42:59 <Blaz> jos: I have no idea what they are good for
Jos De Bruijn: I have no idea what they are good for ←
21:43:12 <Blaz> axel: I think they are completely redundant
Axel Polleres: I think they are completely redundant ←
21:43:45 <Blaz> axel: which external things are allowed in External? it is defined in RIF DTB in coherent set of schemata. it is fixed for a dialect.
Axel Polleres: which external things are allowed in External? it is defined in RIF DTB in coherent set of schemata. it is fixed for a dialect. ←
21:43:54 <Blaz> axel: the dialect has to define what the fixed semantics of this is
Axel Polleres: the dialect has to define what the fixed semantics of this is ←
21:44:26 <Blaz> csma: the point is, your dialect has to specifiy a consistent schema and define what it means
Christian de Sainte Marie: the point is, your dialect has to specifiy a consistent schema and define what it means ←
21:44:47 <Blaz> csma: BLD does not specify any consistent schema for external frames
Christian de Sainte Marie: BLD does not specify any consistent schema for external frames ←
21:44:57 <Blaz> csma: if you want to have them, you have to provide a schema
Christian de Sainte Marie: if you want to have them, you have to provide a schema ←
21:45:21 <Blaz> chrisw: the claim that 4 people just agreed to is that external frames are useless
Chris Welty: the claim that 4 people just agreed to is that external frames are useless ←
21:45:34 <Blaz> chrisw: this only has use if you're extending BLD with your datatypes
Chris Welty: this only has use if you're extending BLD with your datatypes ←
21:45:59 <Blaz> csma: I did not think of that you have to provide a consistent schema
Christian de Sainte Marie: I did not think of that you have to provide a consistent schema ←
21:46:24 <Blaz> chrisw: so maybe extending a definition of external frames .. just a little note: "meant for extending datatypes for use with BLD"
Chris Welty: so maybe extending a definition of external frames .. just a little note: "meant for extending datatypes for use with BLD" ←
21:47:40 <Blaz> chrisw: don't ever question understanding ...
Chris Welty: don't ever question understanding ... ←
21:48:00 <Blaz> chrisw: does it make sense to pull the 'at risk' statement?
Chris Welty: does it make sense to pull the 'at risk' statement? ←
21:49:41 <Blaz> chrisw: would you object to removing external frames?
Chris Welty: would you object to removing external frames? ←
21:50:58 <Blaz> mk: you have one KB somewhere and this tells you how to represent things
Michael Kifer: you have one KB somewhere and this tells you how to represent things ←
21:51:46 <Blaz> axel: if that is a datasource that allows you to query frames, then you'd need to give the address anyway; so you couldn't pack it in an external schema
Axel Polleres: if that is a datasource that allows you to query frames, then you'd need to give the address anyway; so you couldn't pack it in an external schema ←
21:51:57 <Blaz> mk: we are going to a different level
Michael Kifer: we are going to a different level ←
21:52:14 <Blaz> mk: we can express everything with predicates and do not need frames at all ...
Michael Kifer: we can express everything with predicates and do not need frames at all ... ←
21:52:37 <Blaz> axel: but frames are convenient
Axel Polleres: but frames are convenient ←
21:53:06 <Blaz> mk: the question is 'do we need frames at all or not' -- it's the same discussion
Michael Kifer: the question is 'do we need frames at all or not' -- it's the same discussion ←
21:53:20 <Blaz> chrisw: anyway. let's stop.
Chris Welty: anyway. let's stop. ←
21:53:35 <Blaz> chrisw: so we got to the point of 'there would be objections to removing external frames'
Chris Welty: so we got to the point of 'there would be objections to removing external frames' ←
21:53:45 <Blaz> chrisw: anyone against removing 'at risk' ?
Chris Welty: anyone against removing 'at risk' ? ←
21:53:48 <Blaz> noone against
noone against ←
21:54:00 <Blaz> chrisw: let's add this to the list of resolutions to be passed tomorow
Chris Welty: let's add this to the list of resolutions to be passed tomorow ←
21:54:14 <Blaz> : remove at-risk for external.
: remove at-risk for external. ←
21:54:21 <Blaz> chrisw: roundtriping
Chris Welty: roundtriping ←
21:54:43 <Blaz> mk: did we decide on at-risk on equality?
Michael Kifer: did we decide on at-risk on equality? ←
21:54:52 <Blaz> chrisw: we're keeping it
Chris Welty: we're keeping it ←
21:54:59 <AxelPolleres> Why then not allow any "parametrizable string template" for external schemata? by that, we could e.g. for free get external calls to SPARQL endpoints or SQL databases, etc. etc.
Axel Polleres: Why then not allow any "parametrizable string template" for external schemata? by that, we could e.g. for free get external calls to SPARQL endpoints or SQL databases, etc. etc. ←
21:55:34 <Blaz> csma: did we decide to keep at risk for 'strictness conformance'?
Christian de Sainte Marie: did we decide to keep at risk for 'strictness conformance'? ←
21:55:34 <AxelPolleres> ... That would generalize the external schemas in a very beneficial way!
Axel Polleres: ... That would generalize the external schemas in a very beneficial way! ←
21:55:40 <Blaz> chrisw: no
Chris Welty: no ←
21:57:19 <AxelPolleres> ... e.g. External( ?X ?Y "SELECT ?X FROM WHERE { ... ?Y ... }" ) would be a possible schema.
Axel Polleres: ... e.g. External( ?X ?Y "SELECT ?X FROM WHERE { ... ?Y ... }" ) would be a possible schema. ←
21:57:19 <Blaz> csma: we kept it because we'll wait for implementations
Christian de Sainte Marie: we kept it because we'll wait for implementations ←
21:58:11 <AxelPolleres> ... whereas we currently enforce "RIF term syntax" for the external calls, which is unnecessarily restrictive.
Axel Polleres: ... whereas we currently enforce "RIF term syntax" for the external calls, which is unnecessarily restrictive. ←
21:58:12 <Blaz> chrisw: the only place we talked about roundtripping is in conformance section
Chris Welty: the only place we talked about roundtripping is in conformance section ←
21:58:49 <Blaz> chrisw: jos complained that 'what does it mean to maintain the semantic meaning' is not specific enough
Chris Welty: jos complained that 'what does it mean to maintain the semantic meaning' is not specific enough ←
21:59:33 <Blaz> jos: this whole paragraph can be removed; it doesn't say much
Jos De Bruijn: this whole paragraph can be removed; it doesn't say much ←
21:59:52 <Blaz> chrisw: it's trying to say that conformance does not mean things need to look the same
Chris Welty: it's trying to say that conformance does not mean things need to look the same ←
22:00:02 <Blaz> jos: this paragraph does not say anything about conformance
Jos De Bruijn: this paragraph does not say anything about conformance ←
22:00:30 <Blaz> csma: [reads] "a nonconformant implementation might not preserve the semantics in the roundtrip"
Christian de Sainte Marie: [reads] "a nonconformant implementation might not preserve the semantics in the roundtrip" ←
22:00:55 <Blaz> jos: does anyone want to have some paragraph about roundtripping?
Jos De Bruijn: does anyone want to have some paragraph about roundtripping? ←
22:01:23 <Blaz> csma: the question was should we say something about survivability of metadata? this is the important point
Christian de Sainte Marie: the question was should we say something about survivability of metadata? this is the important point ←
22:01:56 <Blaz> chrisw: we could add metadata survivability here [a couple paragraphs earlier]
Chris Welty: we could add metadata survivability here [a couple paragraphs earlier] ←
22:02:46 <Blaz> csma: in some test cases there is a notion of 'the same ruleset' if you send me the ruleset back
Christian de Sainte Marie: in some test cases there is a notion of 'the same ruleset' if you send me the ruleset back ←
22:03:10 <Blaz> jos: the only notion we have now is 'semantics preserving mapping'
Jos De Bruijn: the only notion we have now is 'semantics preserving mapping' ←
22:03:53 <Blaz> csma: if we have that notion of keeping the identity of a document, they can keep the metadata as XML and send it back when they return the document
Christian de Sainte Marie: if we have that notion of keeping the identity of a document, they can keep the metadata as XML and send it back when they return the document ←
22:04:00 <Blaz> csma: wedo not have the notion of the identity of document here
Christian de Sainte Marie: wedo not have the notion of the identity of document here ←
22:04:07 <Blaz> csma: this is probably why it does not make sense
Christian de Sainte Marie: this is probably why it does not make sense ←
22:04:27 <Blaz> csma: our processing model is just producer/consumer. it does not define roundtripping of documents
Christian de Sainte Marie: our processing model is just producer/consumer. it does not define roundtripping of documents ←
22:04:38 <Blaz> csma: so the notion of surviving metadata is not defined as well
Christian de Sainte Marie: so the notion of surviving metadata is not defined as well ←
22:04:41 <Blaz> mk: it could be a recommendation
Michael Kifer: it could be a recommendation ←
22:05:11 <Blaz> csma: we have test cases where the notion of passing metadata along makes sense .. but perhaps not in BLD .. maybe in PRD
Christian de Sainte Marie: we have test cases where the notion of passing metadata along makes sense .. but perhaps not in BLD .. maybe in PRD ←
22:05:22 <Blaz> harold: it could be just conformant, or annotation conformant
Harold Boley: it could be just conformant, or annotation conformant ←
22:05:32 <Blaz> harold: it is a stronger level of 'conformant'
Harold Boley: it is a stronger level of 'conformant' ←
22:06:11 <Blaz> csma: you have metadata about something that is identified uniquely -- if you use the same identifier for something, you can use the same metadata
Christian de Sainte Marie: you have metadata about something that is identified uniquely -- if you use the same identifier for something, you can use the same metadata ←
22:06:15 <Blaz> jos: it is attached to structural elements
Jos De Bruijn: it is attached to structural elements ←
22:06:45 <Blaz> chrisw: here is the proposal: I proposed we remove this paragraph because it does not say anything
Chris Welty: here is the proposal: I proposed we remove this paragraph because it does not say anything ←
22:07:08 <Blaz> chrisw: and add here the intention of 'metadata survivability' to [first bulletpoint in RIF-BLD specific clauses]
Chris Welty: and add here the intention of 'metadata survivability' to [first bulletpoint in RIF-BLD specific clauses] ←
22:08:07 <Blaz> chrisw: "conformant producers and consumers ... should ... preserve annotations ... where possible"
Chris Welty: "conformant producers and consumers ... should ... preserve annotations ... where possible" ←
22:08:31 <Blaz> chrisw: anyone opposed?
Chris Welty: anyone opposed? ←
22:08:34 <Blaz> noone.
noone. ←
22:08:46 <Blaz> chrisw: for tomorow, we will vote on this resolution
Chris Welty: for tomorow, we will vote on this resolution ←
22:09:20 <Harold> Annotations ''should'' survive BLD round-tripping whenever possible.
Harold Boley: Annotations ''should'' survive BLD round-tripping whenever possible. ←
22:09:40 <Harold> Annotations ''should'' survive BLD transformations whenever possible.
Harold Boley: Annotations ''should'' survive BLD transformations whenever possible. ←
22:10:28 <DaveReynolds> action: chrisw to draft revised metadata conformance wording for BLD
ACTION: chrisw to draft revised metadata conformance wording for BLD ←
22:10:28 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - chrisw
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - chrisw ←
22:10:37 <DaveReynolds> action: chris to draft revised metadata conformance wording for BLD
ACTION: chris to draft revised metadata conformance wording for BLD ←
22:10:37 <trackbot> Created ACTION-600 - Draft revised metadata conformance wording for BLD [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-10-03].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-600 - Draft revised metadata conformance wording for BLD [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-10-03]. ←
22:13:59 <AdrianP> logout
Adrian Paschke: logout ←
22:14:03 <ChrisW> rrsagent, make logs public
Chris Welty: rrsagent, make logs public ←
22:14:08 <ChrisW> zakim, list attendees
Chris Welty: zakim, list attendees ←
22:14:08 <Zakim> sorry, ChrisW, I don't know what conference this is
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, ChrisW, I don't know what conference this is ←
22:14:17 <ChrisW> rrsagent, make minutes
Chris Welty: rrsagent, make minutes ←
22:14:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-minutes.html ChrisW ←
This revision (#2) generated 2008-09-27 15:41:04 UTC by 'unknown', comments: 'Not called DRAFT in heading'