RIF F2f13 15-Apr-09

Minutes of 15 April 2009

Agenda
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F13
Present
Adrian Paschke, Axel Polleres, Changhai Ke, Christian de Sainte Marie, Christopher Welty, Dave Reynolds, Gary Hallmark, Harold Boley, John Hall, Jos de Bruijn, Michael Kifer, Sandro Hawke
Chair
Christopher Welty, Christian de Sainte Marie
Scribe
Harold Boley, Adrian Paschke, Axel Polleres, John Hall
IRC Log
Original and Editable Wiki Version
Resolutions
  1. Close ISSUE-86 and ISSUE-87, addressed by the current text of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec link
  2. publish rdf:text as a LC link
  3. For OWL-2 RL embedding of combinations, provide a (informative) embedding in BLD, pointing out that one can axiomatize equality for predicates in Core link
  4. support all OWL datatypes in RIF except owl:rational (to be discussed further) link
  5. Remove owl:realPlus since OWL removed it. link
  6. include all the builtins for xs:boolean per F&O link
  7. : we do not include owl:rational (closing issue-81) link
  8. Core will have immutable Ground Lists (no variables stored inside the list) with builtins generally paralleling the XPath "Sequence" functions (but this isn't a real XPath sequence, since it can be nested, etc). (Actual builtins to be settled in the future, soon) (If we have strong safeness in Core, then this stuff will be mostly useless in Core.) link
  9. We will not define a fallback mechanism at this stage. We'll provide some translations to Core (such as removing Do/Assert in some case) and tell producers they SHOULD do them. (Closing issue-57) link
  10. Close issue-94, without adding cardinality constraints, or other object-representation beyond frames, and with PRD having an action with replacement semantics (modify). link
Topics
<sandro> PRESENT: adrian, axel, changhai, csma, welty, reynolds, gary, harold, john_hall, jos, kifer, sandro
12:33:12 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc

RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc

12:33:30 <ChrisW> Meeting: RIF F2F13
12:39:55 <ChrisW> Chair: welty, csma
12:40:47 <ChrisW> Meeting: RIF F2f13 15-Apr-09
12:54:47 <ChrisW> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F13
12:55:00 <ChrisW> rrsagent, make minutes

(No events recorded for 21 minutes)

Christopher Welty: rrsagent, make minutes

12:55:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-minutes.html ChrisW

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-minutes.html ChrisW

12:55:55 <ChrisW> rrsagent, make logs public

Christopher Welty: rrsagent, make logs public

12:57:46 <ChrisW> ChrisW has changed the topic to: RIF 13th F2F Meeting, Cambridge MA, Agenda http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F13

Christopher Welty: ChrisW has changed the topic to: RIF 13th F2F Meeting, Cambridge MA, Agenda http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F13

13:04:15 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?

(No events recorded for 6 minutes)

Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer?

13:04:15 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc#T13-04-15

RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc#T13-04-15

13:04:23 <sandro> scribe: harold

(Scribe set to Harold Boley)

13:05:27 <ChrisW> zakim, list conferences

Christopher Welty: zakim, list conferences

13:05:27 <Zakim> I see T&S_EGOV()9:00AM, Team_W3M()8:00AM, SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM active

Zakim IRC Bot: I see T&S_EGOV()9:00AM, Team_W3M()8:00AM, SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM active

13:05:30 <Zakim> also scheduled at this time are WAI_ERTWG()8:30AM, DIG_WSRI()8:00AM

Zakim IRC Bot: also scheduled at this time are WAI_ERTWG()8:30AM, DIG_WSRI()8:00AM

13:05:34 <ChrisW> zakim, this is rif

Christopher Welty: zakim, this is rif

13:05:35 <Zakim> ok, ChrisW; that matches SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ChrisW; that matches SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM

13:05:41 <ChrisW> zakim, who is on the phone?

Christopher Welty: zakim, who is on the phone?

13:05:41 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P12, W3C

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see ??P12, W3C

13:05:53 <ChrisW> zakim, W3C is temporarily Meeting_Room

Christopher Welty: zakim, W3C is temporarily Meeting_Room

13:05:53 <Zakim> +Meeting_Room; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +Meeting_Room; got it

13:08:52 <ChrisW> zakim, Meeting_Room contains csma, josb, MichaelKifer, AxelPolleres, cke, johnHall, AdrianP, Harold, Gary, sandro, ChrisW

Christopher Welty: zakim, Meeting_Room contains csma, josb, MichaelKifer, AxelPolleres, cke, johnHall, AdrianP, Harold, Gary, sandro, ChrisW

13:08:52 <Zakim> +csma, josb, MichaelKifer, AxelPolleres, cke, johnHall, AdrianP, Harold, Gary, sandro, ChrisW; got it

Zakim IRC Bot: +csma, josb, MichaelKifer, AxelPolleres, cke, johnHall, AdrianP, Harold, Gary, sandro, ChrisW; got it

13:10:01 <Harold> Swap April 15/16 Agenda items: Tonight XML Schemas, Tomorrow Issue-93

Swap April 15/16 Agenda items: Tonight XML Schemas, Tomorrow ISSUE-93

13:11:25 <Harold> On April 17 we have to finish at 4PM.

On April 17 we have to finish at 4PM.

13:12:24 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?

Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer?

13:12:24 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc#T13-12-24

RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc#T13-12-24

13:13:51 <csma> http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-rif-minutes.html

Christian de Sainte Marie: http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-rif-minutes.html

13:13:51 <ChrisW> TOPIC: rdf:text

1. rdf:text

13:14:54 <csma> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-86 and ISSUE-87, addressed by the current text of  http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-86 and ISSUE-87, addressed by the current text of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec

13:15:43 <josb> +1

Jos de Bruijn: +1

13:15:46 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

13:17:34 <josb> The text: Despite the semantic equivalence between typed rdf:text literals and plain literals, the presence of typed rdf:text literals in an RDF graph might cause interoperability problems between RDF tools, as not all RDF tools will support rdf:text. Therefore, before exchanging an RDF graph with other RDF tools, an RDF tool that suports rdf:text MUST replace in the graph each typed...

Jos de Bruijn: The text: Despite the semantic equivalence between typed rdf:text literals and plain literals, the presence of typed rdf:text literals in an RDF graph might cause interoperability problems between RDF tools, as not all RDF tools will support rdf:text. Therefore, before exchanging an RDF graph with other RDF tools, an RDF tool that suports rdf:text MUST replace in the graph each typed...

13:17:36 <josb> ...rdf:text literal with the corresponding plain literal. The notion of graph exchange includes, but is not limited to, the process of serializing an RDF graph using any (normative or nonnormative) RDF syntax.

Jos de Bruijn: ...rdf:text literal with the corresponding plain literal. The notion of graph exchange includes, but is not limited to, the process of serializing an RDF graph using any (normative or nonnormative) RDF syntax.

13:17:43 <DaveReynolds> +1

Dave Reynolds: +1

13:17:46 <josb> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec#Relationship_with_Plain_Literals_and_xs:string

Jos de Bruijn: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec#Relationship_with_Plain_Literals_and_xs:string

13:17:47 <Harold> Harold: +1

Harold Boley: +1

13:18:01 <ChrisW> +1

Christopher Welty: +1

13:18:03 <AdrianP> +1

Adrian Paschke: +1

13:18:22 <AxelPolleres> +1

Axel Polleres: +1

13:18:24 <csma> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-86 and ISSUE-87, addressed by the current text of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-86 and ISSUE-87, addressed by the current text of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec

13:18:39 <ChrisW> action: chris to close issue-86 issue-87

ACTION: chris to close ISSUE-86 ISSUE-87

13:18:39 <trackbot> Created ACTION-732 - Close issue-86 issue-87 [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-04-22].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-732 - Close ISSUE-86 ISSUE-87 [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-04-22].

13:19:12 <DaveReynolds> Before or after SPARQL group review?

Dave Reynolds: Before or after SPARQL group review?

13:19:18 <csma> PROPOSED: publish rdf:text as a LC

PROPOSED: publish rdf:text as a LC

13:19:21 <josb> +!

Jos de Bruijn: +!

13:19:23 <josb> +1

Jos de Bruijn: +1

13:19:26 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

13:19:29 <AxelPolleres> +1

Axel Polleres: +1

13:19:31 <Harold> Harold: +1

Harold Boley: +1

13:19:36 <GaryHallmark> +1

Gary Hallmark: +1

13:19:45 <AdrianP> +1

Adrian Paschke: +1

13:19:46 <ChrisW> +1

Christopher Welty: +1

13:19:56 <DaveReynolds> 0

Dave Reynolds: 0

13:20:06 <MichaelKifer> +1

Michael Kifer: +1

13:20:56 <ChrisW> DaveR: Abstain - Would have preferred to get feedback from SparQL first

Dave Reynolds: Abstain - Would have preferred to get feedback from SparQL first [ Scribe Assist by Christopher Welty ]

13:21:06 <csma> RESOLVED: publish rdf:text as a LC

RESOLVED: publish rdf:text as a LC

13:21:30 <ChrisW> rrsagent, pointer?

Christopher Welty: rrsagent, pointer?

13:21:30 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc#T13-21-30

RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc#T13-21-30

13:22:16 <AxelPolleres> I understand that I can ask SPARQL WG to review next week already?

Axel Polleres: I understand that I can ask SPARQL WG to review next week already?

13:22:57 <sandro> AxelPolleres, you should probably wait until it's actually published, but... sure, whatever.

Sandro Hawke: AxelPolleres, you should probably wait until it's actually published, but... sure, whatever.

13:23:00 <Harold> Jos: Could we put a possible change from XML Schema 1.0 to XML Schema 1.1 on the agenda?

Jos de Bruijn: Could we put a possible change from XML Schema 1.0 to XML Schema 1.1 on the agenda?

13:23:54 <Harold> Sandro: The only reason not to go to XML Schema 1.1 would be that they are in LC (since January).

Sandro Hawke: The only reason not to go to XML Schema 1.1 would be that they are in LC (since January).

13:24:15 <Harold> Jos: Still better than referring to 'broken' one in  XML Schema 1.0.

Jos de Bruijn: Still better than referring to 'broken' one in XML Schema 1.0.

13:24:38 <Harold> ... Talking about  XML Schema  DATATYPES.

... Talking about XML Schema DATATYPES.

13:25:29 <sandro> PROPOSED: We'll use XML Schema Datatypes 1.1 (not XML Schema Datatyoes 1.0) in our specs.

PROPOSED: We'll use XML Schema Datatypes 1.1 (not XML Schema Datatyoes 1.0) in our specs.

13:25:43 <josb> +1

Jos de Bruijn: +1

13:25:49 <sandro> Jos: It makes lots of things well defined that are not currently well defined.

Jos de Bruijn: It makes lots of things well defined that are not currently well defined. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

13:25:54 <DaveReynolds> +1

Dave Reynolds: +1

13:26:09 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

13:28:16 <Harold> Harold: What about the W3C XML Schema validator XSV? When will it be upgraded?

Harold Boley: What about the W3C XML Schema validator XSV? When will it be upgraded?

13:29:40 <Harold> Sandro: Has been maintained by Henry Thompson.

Sandro Hawke: Has been maintained by Henry Thompson.

13:30:39 <Harold> Harold: XSV is also 'responsible' for validating Datatypes at the 'leaf' level of XML instance trees.

Harold Boley: XSV is also 'responsible' for validating Datatypes at the 'leaf' level of XML instance trees.

13:31:03 <ChrisW> ISSUE: Update all specs to reference XML Schema datatypes 1.1

ISSUE: Update all specs to reference XML Schema datatypes 1.1

13:31:03 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-98 - Update all specs to reference XML Schema datatypes 1.1 ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/98/edit .

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-98 - Update all specs to reference XML Schema datatypes 1.1 ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/98/edit .

13:31:27 <ChrisW> topic: ISSUE-95 (List Datatype)

2. ISSUE-95 (List Datatype)

13:37:06 <AxelPolleres> q+ to ask about connection to rdf:List and accessor built-ins

(No events recorded for 5 minutes)

Axel Polleres: q+ to ask about connection to rdf:List and accessor built-ins

13:38:58 <DaveReynolds> q+ to ask about Core

Dave Reynolds: q+ to ask about Core

13:40:04 <Harold> Axel: How are 'Seq lists' related to RDF lists?

Axel Polleres: How are 'Seq lists' related to RDF lists?

13:40:30 <Harold> ... awkward to have 3 different kinds of lists.

... awkward to have 3 different kinds of lists.

13:40:42 <Harold> Jos: Lists in RDF have no semantics.

Jos de Bruijn: Lists in RDF have no semantics.

13:41:12 <Harold> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Lists#Semantics

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Lists#Semantics

13:44:31 <Harold> Christian: Content of an XML list cannot be complex.

Christian de Sainte Marie: Content of an XML list cannot be complex.

13:45:18 <AxelPolleres> If we doe the semantics purely in terms of pairs, then it would be closer to RDF lists.

Axel Polleres: If we doe the semantics purely in terms of pairs, then it would be closer to RDF lists.

13:45:22 <Harold> ... Non-ground lists would not be allowed in PRD.

... Non-ground lists would not be allowed in PRD.

13:45:36 <AxelPolleres> ... Harold, you confirmed this (?)

Axel Polleres: ... Harold, you confirmed this (?)

13:46:40 <Harold> I think, yes.

I think, yes.

13:46:53 <josb> eeeeeh RDF lists dont have semantics, so how can our semantics be close to that?

Jos de Bruijn: eeeeeh RDF lists dont have semantics, so how can our semantics be close to that?

13:48:01 <Harold> Christian: What about  Forall ?x IF p(Seq(a ?x c)) THEN ...

Christian de Sainte Marie: What about Forall ?x IF p(Seq(a ?x c)) THEN ...

13:48:43 <AxelPolleres> jos, it would be nice to be able to - at least - convert between well-formed RDF lsits and RIF lists, that might be possible with a bunch of RIF rules... like constructing lists in Prolog.

Axel Polleres: jos, it would be nice to be able to - at least - convert between well-formed RDF lsits and RIF lists, that might be possible with a bunch of RIF rules... like constructing lists in Prolog.

13:49:55 <GaryHallmark> PRD should have no problem with vars in lists provided the rule is safe

Gary Hallmark: PRD should have no problem with vars in lists provided the rule is safe

13:50:50 <Harold> Harold: Only difference is if the above ?x is universal (as above) or existential.

Harold Boley: Only difference is if the above ?x is universal (as above) or existential.

13:50:56 <sandro> PRD will not actually handle unbound variables stored in a list.

Sandro Hawke: PRD will not actually handle unbound variables stored in a list.

13:51:13 <sandro> cke: List contain concrete values

Changhai Ke: List contain concrete values [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

13:51:23 <GaryHallmark> ... begging the question, what are the safe binding patterns for List

Gary Hallmark: ... begging the question, what are the safe binding patterns for List

13:51:45 <Harold> Harold: Existential in queries.

Harold Boley: Existential in queries.

13:52:38 <DaveReynolds> q+

Dave Reynolds: q+

13:53:09 <Harold> Christian: What about  Forall ?x IF Seq(a ?x c) = Seq(?y c b) THEN ...

Christian de Sainte Marie: What about Forall ?x IF Seq(a ?x c) = Seq(?y c b) THEN ...

13:54:23 <Harold> Harold: ?y is existential here.

Harold Boley: ?y is existential here.

13:54:58 <ChrisW> ack axel

Christopher Welty: ack axel

13:54:58 <Zakim> AxelPolleres, you wanted to ask about connection to rdf:List and accessor built-ins

Zakim IRC Bot: AxelPolleres, you wanted to ask about connection to rdf:List and accessor built-ins

13:55:00 <ChrisW> ack dave

Christopher Welty: ack dave

13:55:00 <Zakim> DaveReynolds, you wanted to ask about Core and to

Zakim IRC Bot: DaveReynolds, you wanted to ask about Core and to

13:55:42 <Harold> Dave: What does this mean for safeness?

Dave Reynolds: What does this mean for safeness?

13:55:59 <Harold> Michael: We have to extend the safeness condition for lists.

Michael Kifer: We have to extend the safeness condition for lists.

13:56:25 <Harold> Dave: Disguised function symbols in Core.

Dave Reynolds: Disguised function symbols in Core.

13:56:26 <josb> Dave, we would not allow variables in lists in the head

Jos de Bruijn: Dave, we would not allow variables in lists in the head

13:56:32 <josb> and perhaps also not in the body

Jos de Bruijn: and perhaps also not in the body

13:57:01 <josb> (in Core)

Jos de Bruijn: (in Core)

13:58:24 <Harold> Harold: Dave is saying you can encode functions using lists, eg the first element of a list could be the function symbol, the remaining ones its arguments.

Harold Boley: Dave is saying you can encode functions using lists, eg the first element of a list could be the function symbol, the remaining ones its arguments.

13:59:25 <Harold> Michael: Need to think more about it. Still, we could extend the safeness condition to lists.

Michael Kifer: Need to think more about it. Still, we could extend the safeness condition to lists.

13:59:52 <Harold> Christian: How implemented in JRules etc.?

Christian de Sainte Marie: How implemented in JRules etc.?

14:00:08 <DaveReynolds> It seems to me if you can't construct new lists they are pointless, if you can that you can have non-terminating generation of recursive datastructures. That would preclude datalog engines and the notion of strong safety. OK by me but seems like a bit change.

Dave Reynolds: It seems to me if you can't construct new lists they are pointless, if you can that you can have non-terminating generation of recursive datastructures. That would preclude datalog engines and the notion of strong safety. OK by me but seems like a bit change.

14:00:24 <DaveReynolds> s/bit/big/

Dave Reynolds: s/bit/big/

14:01:04 <Harold> Changhai: Yes, can be implemented.

Changhai Ke: Yes, can be implemented.

14:02:40 <Harold> Michael: If we don't allow open lists in the head, and are always smaller than in the body, then it could be in Core.

Michael Kifer: If we don't allow open lists in the head, and are always smaller than in the body, then it could be in Core.

14:03:29 <Harold> Jos: Better: no lists in Core.

Jos de Bruijn: Better: no lists in Core.

14:04:13 <Harold> Axel/Sandro/Gary: Emulate lists with built-ins.

Axel/Sandro/Gary: Emulate lists with built-ins.

14:04:15 <sandro> sandro: This is just another builtin.

Sandro Hawke: This is just another builtin. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

14:04:27 <sandro> sandro: (as far as Datalog/Core is concerned.)

Sandro Hawke: (as far as Datalog/Core is concerned.) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

14:04:36 <Harold> s/can be implemented/can be implemented, but would be rather advanced/

s/can be implemented/can be implemented, but would be rather advanced/

14:05:08 <Harold> Axel: Do we really need (these 'amputated') lists in Core?

Axel Polleres: Do we really need (these 'amputated') lists in Core?

14:05:46 <Harold> ... Cause we could have the distinguished function Pair symbol.

... Cause we could have the distinguished function Pair symbol.

14:06:04 <Harold> Changhai: What about disjunctions?

Changhai Ke: What about disjunctions?

14:06:17 <Harold> ... Lists that mostly would be constant.

... Lists that mostly would be constant.

14:07:37 <Harold> Christian: For all customers, if ?x is the bank account list and length of ?x is greater than 3 ....

Christian de Sainte Marie: For all customers, if ?x is the bank account list and length of ?x is greater than 3 ....

14:07:59 <Harold> ... You still need some kind of list type.

... You still need some kind of list type.

14:08:32 <Harold> ... To check that there is this (finite) list of the customers' bank account.

... To check that there is this (finite) list of the customers' bank account.

14:09:29 <Harold> ... Would it be advisable to have some list processing operators in Core, and then have list terms in BLD and (slightly different) in Core?

... Would it be advisable to have some list processing operators in Core, and then have list terms in BLD and (slightly different) in Core?

14:09:56 <Harold> Jos: Will lead to discrepancy with BLD.

Jos de Bruijn: Will lead to discrepancy with BLD.

14:10:15 <Harold> Sandro: Data could come from RDF.

Sandro Hawke: Data could come from RDF.

14:10:28 <Harold> ... List operators would be in Core.

... List operators would be in Core.

14:11:50 <Harold> Christian: You could write  Forall ?x ?y IF ?x{Att->?y]  AND  func:length(?y) < 3

Christian de Sainte Marie: You could write Forall ?x ?y IF ?x{Att->?y] AND func:length(?y) < 3

14:12:30 <Harold> ... without needing to completely define what the list ?y actually is.

... without needing to completely define what the list ?y actually is.

14:12:42 <Harold> Michael: Semantics would still be provided.

Michael Kifer: Semantics would still be provided.

14:13:13 <Harold>  Christian/Sandro: Would not need to defined in Core, only in BLD and PRD.

Christian/Sandro: Would not need to defined in Core, only in BLD and PRD.

14:13:30 <Harold> Gary: May make sense.

Gary Hallmark: May make sense.

14:13:47 <Harold> Christian: In DTB.

Christian de Sainte Marie: In DTB.

14:14:12 <Harold> Gary: You have to say it's a list, just as it could be an integer etc.

Gary Hallmark: You have to say it's a list, just as it could be an integer etc.

14:14:31 <Harold> ... (but not give details)

... (but not give details)

14:14:54 <Harold> Sandro: Confused why you cannot construct lists in Core.

Sandro Hawke: Confused why you cannot construct lists in Core.

14:15:58 <Harold> Jos: Christian proposes special lists in Core.

Jos de Bruijn: Christian proposes special lists in Core.

14:16:16 <Harold> Michael: You can allow ground lists in Core.

Michael Kifer: You can allow ground lists in Core.

14:16:39 <Harold> Chrisw: Head and body?

Christopher Welty: Head and body?

14:16:46 <Harold> Michael: Yes.

Michael Kifer: Yes.

14:17:07 <Harold> Gary: But it should be something useful.

Gary Hallmark: But it should be something useful.

14:17:38 <Harold> Chrisw: No variables inside lists.

Christopher Welty: No variables inside lists.

14:19:36 <Harold> Christian:  Forall ?x ?y IF Seq(a b c) = ?y would be allowed?

Christian de Sainte Marie: Forall ?x ?y IF Seq(a b c) = ?y would be allowed?

14:19:40 <Harold> Michael: Yes.

Michael Kifer: Yes.

14:21:13 <Harold> Harold: OK, let's introduce Core ground lists plus their built-ins.

Harold Boley: OK, let's introduce Core ground lists plus their built-ins.

14:21:14 <DaveReynolds> Gary - we don't non-termination, that's the whole E-S strong safety!

Dave Reynolds: Gary - we don't non-termination, that's the whole E-S strong safety!

14:22:17 <GaryHallmark> dave, is E-S harder to spec with lists than with e.g. numeric-add?

Gary Hallmark: dave, is E-S harder to spec with lists than with e.g. numeric-add?

14:22:48 <DaveReynolds> Gary - the point is that E-S eliminates all useful constructions of lists.

Dave Reynolds: Gary - the point is that E-S eliminates all useful constructions of lists.

14:23:15 <Harold> Christian:  Forall ?x ?y IF Seq(a ?x c) = ?y AND ?x =b

Christian de Sainte Marie: Forall ?x ?y IF Seq(a ?x c) = ?y AND ?x =b

14:23:35 <DaveReynolds> Gary - If you want useful list construction just have Jos' safety construction and drop the goal of allowing datalog engines.

Dave Reynolds: Gary - If you want useful list construction just have Jos' safety construction and drop the goal of allowing datalog engines.

14:23:53 <Harold> ... Groundability could be handled like the safeness condition.

... Groundability could be handled like the safeness condition.

14:24:59 <ChrisW> q?

Christopher Welty: q?

14:25:45 <Harold> Harold: 'Save groundability' notion could be introduced, even if 'conservative' (not catching all groundable cases): Better than only 'plain' ground lists.

Harold Boley: 'Save groundability' notion could be introduced, even if 'conservative' (not catching all groundable cases): Better than only 'plain' ground lists.

14:27:16 <DaveReynolds> Could the list of options go in the minutes?

Dave Reynolds: Could the list of options go in the minutes?

14:27:28 <Harold> Christian: Three options on whiteboard: One is a short version of the above.

Christian de Sainte Marie: Three options on whiteboard: One is a short version of the above.

14:27:53 <Harold> 12 mins break now.

12 mins break now.

14:28:21 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?

Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer?

14:28:21 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc#T14-28-21

RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc#T14-28-21

14:28:44 <GaryHallmark> I sense one problem is that I would like to see Core grow to the intersection of PRD/BLD and others would like ot see it shrink to finite models only...

Gary Hallmark: I sense one problem is that I would like to see Core grow to the intersection of PRD/BLD and others would like ot see it shrink to finite models only...

14:28:57 <GaryHallmark> s/ot/to

Gary Hallmark: s/ot/to

14:28:59 <Harold>  Christian's three options:

Christian's three options:

14:29:18 <Harold> 1) Ground lists + builtins in Core

1) Ground lists + builtins in Core

14:30:15 <DaveReynolds> Gary - agreed. That was the whole debate over this E-S strong safety notion. I'd be happy to have a non-termination in Core and have usable lists.

Dave Reynolds: Gary - agreed. That was the whole debate over this E-S strong safety notion. I'd be happy to have a non-termination in Core and have usable lists.

14:33:26 <AxelPolleres>  FYI: The reference to XML Schema DT 1.1 in rdf:text has been fixed

Axel Polleres: FYI: The reference to XML Schema DT 1.1 in rdf:text has been fixed

14:33:36 <Harold> 2) Safe lists (no unbound var inside lists) + builtins in Core

2) Safe lists (no unbound var inside lists) + builtins in Core

14:34:16 <Harold> 3) Same as 2) but PRD (no lists in Core)

3) Same as 2) but PRD (no lists in Core)

14:35:02 <Zakim> -DaveReynolds

Zakim IRC Bot: -DaveReynolds

14:36:47 <Zakim> +??P4

Zakim IRC Bot: +??P4

14:36:50 <Zakim> -Meeting_Room

Zakim IRC Bot: -Meeting_Room

14:36:51 <Zakim> +Meeting_Room

Zakim IRC Bot: +Meeting_Room

14:37:15 <Harold> Harold: Christian's option 2) corresponds to above 'safe groundability'.

Harold Boley: Christian's option 2) corresponds to above 'safe groundability'.

14:42:30 <ChrisW> scribe: AdrianP

(No events recorded for 5 minutes)

(Scribe set to Adrian Paschke)

14:42:43 <ChrisW> TOPIC: Issue-94 (Objects)

3. ISSUE-94 (Objects)

14:43:02 <ChrisW> zakim, who is on the phone?

Christopher Welty: zakim, who is on the phone?

14:43:02 <Zakim> On the phone I see Meeting_Room, DaveReynolds

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Meeting_Room, DaveReynolds

14:43:03 <Zakim> Meeting_Room has csma, josb, MichaelKifer, AxelPolleres, cke, johnHall, AdrianP, Harold, Gary, sandro, ChrisW

Zakim IRC Bot: Meeting_Room has csma, josb, MichaelKifer, AxelPolleres, cke, johnHall, AdrianP, Harold, Gary, sandro, ChrisW

14:43:05 <AdrianP> csma: sent slides

Christian de Sainte Marie: sent slides

14:45:23 <AdrianP> Harold: we discussed a year ago that OWL cardinality constraints can be used

Harold Boley: we discussed a year ago that OWL cardinality constraints can be used

14:46:32 <AdrianP> Harold: not defined in RIF, delegate to OWL, for instance

Harold Boley: not defined in RIF, delegate to OWL, for instance

14:47:13 <AdrianP> csma: in PRD the is action modify which has semantics of assert with replacement semantics

Christian de Sainte Marie: in PRD the is action modify which has semantics of assert with replacement semantics

14:47:14 <sandro> csma: action MODIFY is like assert, but with replacement semantics.

Christian de Sainte Marie: action MODIFY is like assert, but with replacement semantics. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

14:49:04 <AdrianP> csma: modify = replace all the values and assert new ones

Christian de Sainte Marie: modify = replace all the values and assert new ones

14:49:12 <sandro> new ONE

Sandro Hawke: new ONE

14:50:40 <AdrianP> cke: object model can be changed in option 4

Changhai Ke: object model can be changed in option 4

14:51:20 <AdrianP> csma: interchange object model can be outside of RIF, e.g. in UML or XML Schema

Christian de Sainte Marie: interchange object model can be outside of RIF, e.g. in UML or XML Schema

14:52:21 <AdrianP> Gary: frames are general; need to be mapped into a concrete data model;

Gary Hallmark: frames are general; need to be mapped into a concrete data model;

14:52:48 <AdrianP> Gary: do some analysis and figure out the implied data model

Gary Hallmark: do some analysis and figure out the implied data model

14:53:57 <AdrianP> Gary: declare the data types and constraints - then you don't need the complex analysis

Gary Hallmark: declare the data types and constraints - then you don't need the complex analysis

14:54:06 <AdrianP> Sandro: why not option 5

Sandro Hawke: why not option 5

14:54:38 <AdrianP> Gary: option 5 does not ensure interoperability

Gary Hallmark: option 5 does not ensure interoperability

14:55:10 <sandro> csma: Option 5.5 -- have a standard metadata field for linking to an XML Schema

Christian de Sainte Marie: Option 5.5 -- have a standard metadata field for linking to an XML Schema [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

14:55:25 <AdrianP> Gary: data model might not be XML schema

Gary Hallmark: data model might not be XML schema

14:55:48 <AdrianP> Chrisw: option 6 you would need to duplicate the data model in RIF

Christopher Welty: option 6 you would need to duplicate the data model in RIF

14:56:27 <AdrianP> Michael: agree with Gary- if something is specified out of RIF but affects the semantics

Michael Kifer: agree with Gary- if something is specified out of RIF but affects the semantics

14:56:56 <AdrianP> Gary: like to have syntax where you know the semantics

Gary Hallmark: like to have syntax where you know the semantics

14:57:30 <AdrianP> Gary: like to explicitly know how to translate it into the specific execution data model

Gary Hallmark: like to explicitly know how to translate it into the specific execution data model

14:58:47 <AdrianP> Harold: multi-valued treated like a set

Harold Boley: multi-valued treated like a set

14:58:56 <AdrianP> Harold: replace the whole set with a new one

Harold Boley: replace the whole set with a new one

14:59:11 <AdrianP> Harold: single-valued is a special case

Harold Boley: single-valued is a special case

14:59:34 <AdrianP> Harold: like in F-Logic

Harold Boley: like in F-Logic

14:59:55 <AdrianP> Michael: in F-Logic you have types which indicate that

Michael Kifer: in F-Logic you have types which indicate that

15:00:51 <AdrianP> Sandro: seems to be reasonable that type information is additionally provided

Sandro Hawke: seems to be reasonable that type information is additionally provided

15:01:02 <sandro> Gary: I'm not saying type infpormation should be mandatory, just that it should be possible to supply.

Gary Hallmark: I'm not saying type infpormation should be mandatory, just that it should be possible to supply. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:01:29 <AdrianP> csma: why not using existing syntax for describing the data model?

Christian de Sainte Marie: why not using existing syntax for describing the data model?

15:01:51 <AdrianP> Gary: should be specified in the language we are using, i.e. RIF

Gary Hallmark: should be specified in the language we are using, i.e. RIF

15:01:58 <sandro> Gary: I want to specified my RIF data model using RIF constructs.

Gary Hallmark: I want to specified my RIF data model using RIF constructs. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:02:17 <AdrianP> csma: what about a mapping von XML Schema to RIF

Christian de Sainte Marie: what about a mapping von XML Schema to RIF

15:02:49 <AdrianP> Gary: cardinality constraints seem to be a very small extension of the RIF syntax

Gary Hallmark: cardinality constraints seem to be a very small extension of the RIF syntax

15:03:04 <AdrianP> Gary: we should provide this expressiveness in RIF

Gary Hallmark: we should provide this expressiveness in RIF

15:03:05 <Harold> PRD's Modify construct would just be a special case by replacing a singleton-set value; BLD could also be extended with a Modify construct, which would replace general set values.

Harold Boley: PRD's Modify construct would just be a special case by replacing a singleton-set value; BLD could also be extended with a Modify construct, which would replace general set values.

15:03:25 <AdrianP> cke: in XML schema we have all this kind of expersivness

Changhai Ke: in XML schema we have all this kind of expersivness

15:04:59 <AdrianP> Gary: but not solved in RIF

Gary Hallmark: but not solved in RIF

15:05:28 <AdrianP> csma: impacts the semantics of rules or not?

Christian de Sainte Marie: impacts the semantics of rules or not?

15:05:54 <AdrianP> csma: seems to me that it is external to RIF

Christian de Sainte Marie: seems to me that it is external to RIF

15:05:58 <sandro> (It doesn't affect the entailments.   It may affect type-errors and performance.)

Sandro Hawke: (It doesn't affect the entailments. It may affect type-errors and performance.)

15:07:34 <DaveReynolds> Surely it does affect entailments. If you say "slot s has cardinality 1" then a rule o[s->"a", s->"b"] would raise and error.

Dave Reynolds: Surely it does affect entailments. If you say "slot s has cardinality 1" then a rule o[s->"a", s->"b"] would raise and error.

15:07:38 <DaveReynolds> s/and/an/

Dave Reynolds: s/and/an/

15:07:58 <AdrianP> Gary: option 6 introduce singleton and set to distinguish

Gary Hallmark: option 6 introduce singleton and set to distinguish

15:08:23 <AdrianP> Sandro: may affect type checking, performance, ...

Sandro Hawke: may affect type checking, performance, ...

15:09:24 <AdrianP> cke: option 6 example is this information part of the rule?

Changhai Ke: option 6 example is this information part of the rule?

15:09:32 <AdrianP> Gary: yes

Gary Hallmark: yes

15:10:12 <AdrianP> Michael: how to define interoperability?

Michael Kifer: how to define interoperability?

15:10:24 <AdrianP> Gary: would be like type checking

Gary Hallmark: would be like type checking

15:10:56 <AdrianP> Gary: basically like a constraint

Gary Hallmark: basically like a constraint

15:11:17 <AdrianP> Gary: this example is only for frames

Gary Hallmark: this example is only for frames

15:11:37 <Harold>  PRD: Given single-valued obj[slot->oldval], the statement Modify(obj, slot, newval) leads to obj[slot->newval].

Harold Boley: PRD: Given single-valued obj[slot->oldval], the statement Modify(obj, slot, newval) leads to obj[slot->newval].

15:11:50 <Harold>  BLD: Given multi-valued obj[slot->oldval1] AND ... AND obj[slot->oldvalN], i.e. obj[slot->{oldval1, ..., oldvalN}], the statement Modify(obj,slot,newval) also leads to obj[slot->newval].

Harold Boley: BLD: Given multi-valued obj[slot->oldval1] AND ... AND obj[slot->oldvalN], i.e. obj[slot->{oldval1, ..., oldvalN}], the statement Modify(obj,slot,newval) also leads to obj[slot->newval].

15:12:35 <AdrianP> csma: will lead us to a new data model language

Christian de Sainte Marie: will lead us to a new data model language

15:12:58 <AdrianP> csma: all this already exists in othere languages

Christian de Sainte Marie: all this already exists in othere languages

15:15:03 <AdrianP> Chrisw: sounds like option 4

Christopher Welty: sounds like option 4

15:16:29 <Harold> My proposal is compatible with option 4.

Harold Boley: My proposal is compatible with option 4.

15:17:53 <Harold> (Without need fro static analysis)

Harold Boley: (Without need fro static analysis)

15:18:13 <Harold> Just add a modify operator that ALWAYS replaces ALL values.

Harold Boley: Just add a modify operator that ALWAYS replaces ALL values.

15:18:46 <Harold> (ALWAYS: in PRD and all follow-up languages extending BLD)

Harold Boley: (ALWAYS: in PRD and all follow-up languages extending BLD)

15:19:26 <AdrianP> csma: first two options mean add information explicitly

Christian de Sainte Marie: first two options mean add information explicitly

15:19:59 <AdrianP> csma: three is use a new construct for different multiplicity

Christian de Sainte Marie: three is use a new construct for different multiplicity

15:20:04 <Harold> When I wrote "BLD: Given multi-valued ..." I meant a future BLD extension allowing a Modify.

Harold Boley: When I wrote "BLD: Given multi-valued ..." I meant a future BLD extension allowing a Modify.

15:20:15 <AdrianP> csma: 4 and 5 ignore

Christian de Sainte Marie: 4 and 5 ignore

15:20:30 <AdrianP> csma: 6 include some external description

Christian de Sainte Marie: 6 include some external description

15:20:55 <AdrianP> csma: 5 include some external description

Christian de Sainte Marie: 5 include some external description

15:21:08 <AdrianP> csma: 6 add syntax to RIF

Christian de Sainte Marie: 6 add syntax to RIF

15:21:56 <AdrianP> Michael: out-of-band does not make sense from the point of interoperability

Michael Kifer: out-of-band does not make sense from the point of interoperability

15:22:29 <AdrianP> Chrisw: option 5 relies on other external mechanism

Christopher Welty: option 5 relies on other external mechanism

15:25:43 <AdrianP> Sandro: Gary, would a new error type work for you?

Sandro Hawke: Gary, would a new error type work for you?

15:27:05 <AdrianP> Gary: PRD you can directly indicate errors

Gary Hallmark: PRD you can directly indicate errors

15:29:03 <GaryHallmark> example of constraint rules: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0135.html

Gary Hallmark: example of constraint rules: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0135.html

15:29:14 <AdrianP> Michael: thought the problem was, that Gary sees problems when you translate Core into PRD

Michael Kifer: thought the problem was, that Gary sees problems when you translate Core into PRD

15:30:12 <AdrianP> Gary: for instance should be able to say that a person only have one birthday

Gary Hallmark: for instance should be able to say that a person only have one birthday

15:30:34 <AdrianP> Gary: should be able to explicity say this in terms of a cardinality constraint

Gary Hallmark: should be able to explicity say this in terms of a cardinality constraint

15:31:07 <AxelPolleres> isn't modify just delete all existing values and add the new value?

Axel Polleres: isn't modify just delete all existing values and add the new value?

15:32:49 <sandro> chrisw: The issue is: Should we have Cardinality Constraints (and perhaps Type Constraints) in Core?

Christopher Welty: The issue is: Should we have Cardinality Constraints (and perhaps Type Constraints) in Core? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:32:54 <AdrianP> Gary: issue is with core; can I have an explicity cardinality constraint in core

Gary Hallmark: issue is with core; can I have an explicity cardinality constraint in core

15:33:14 <sandro> kifer: f-logic has it.

Michael Kifer: f-logic has it. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:34:30 <AxelPolleres> Answer set programming has it as well.

Axel Polleres: Answer set programming has it as well.

15:35:00 <AdrianP> Harold: f-logic and RuleML have special syntactic constructs to distinguish cardinality

Harold Boley: f-logic and RuleML have special syntactic constructs to distinguish cardinality

15:35:24 <AdrianP> Michael: SWRL has cardinality constraints

Michael Kifer: SWRL has cardinality constraints

15:35:35 <sandro> kifer: SWRL and Flora-2 have cardinality constraints.

Michael Kifer: SWRL and Flora-2 have cardinality constraints. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:35:46 <AxelPolleres> OWL implies equalities, doesn't have card constraints.

Axel Polleres: OWL implies equalities, doesn't have card constraints.

15:36:45 <sandro> jos: at-most-2 cardinality gives you disjunction.    at-most-1 cardinality adds equality.

Jos de Bruijn: at-most-2 cardinality gives you disjunction. at-most-1 cardinality adds equality. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:38:03 <AdrianP> Harold: integrity constraints could be introduced and used to define cardinality constraints

Harold Boley: integrity constraints could be introduced and used to define cardinality constraints

15:38:07 <sandro> kifer: Integrity Constraints require the Closed World Assumption.

Michael Kifer: Integrity Constraints require the Closed World Assumption. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:38:53 <sandro> kifer: equating two months is a problem....

Michael Kifer: equating two months is a problem.... [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:38:58 <sandro> s/months/mothers/

Sandro Hawke: s/months/mothers/

15:39:23 <AdrianP> Harold: integrity constrain semantics instead of open equality semantics could be introduced

Harold Boley: integrity constrain semantics instead of open equality semantics could be introduced

15:40:54 <AdrianP> Chrisw: needs a closed assumption

Christopher Welty: needs a closed assumption

15:41:23 <AdrianP> Harold: person who uses RIF makes a closed world assumption

Harold Boley: person who uses RIF makes a closed world assumption

15:42:02 <AdrianP> Gary: my original proposal was to have the syntax but its just like a comment

Gary Hallmark: my original proposal was to have the syntax but its just like a comment

15:42:15 <AdrianP> Gary: in BLD and PRD the semantics is then defined

Gary Hallmark: in BLD and PRD the semantics is then defined

15:42:37 <DaveReynolds> But different surely.

Dave Reynolds: But different surely.

15:42:49 <AdrianP> Chrisw: this is option 1

Christopher Welty: this is option 1

15:44:38 <AdrianP> Michael: interoperability?

Michael Kifer: interoperability?

15:44:45 <Harold> s/person who uses RIF makes/person who uses RIF's multiplicity="1" attribute makes/

Harold Boley: s/person who uses RIF makes/person who uses RIF's multiplicity="1" attribute makes/

15:44:55 <AdrianP> Michael: would need to define what interoperabiltiy then means?

Michael Kifer: would need to define what interoperabiltiy then means?

15:46:04 <AdrianP> Chrisw: option 1 uses meta data, so it is meaningless / might be ignored

Christopher Welty: option 1 uses meta data, so it is meaningless / might be ignored

15:46:41 <AdrianP> Michael: this ok, if we define interoperability accordingly

Michael Kifer: this ok, if we define interoperability accordingly

15:47:00 <AdrianP> Chrisw: PRD doesn't ignore meta data?

Christopher Welty: PRD doesn't ignore meta data?

15:48:16 <AdrianP> Chrisw: option 4 does not allow you to express cardinality constraints

Christopher Welty: option 4 does not allow you to express cardinality constraints

15:48:21 <AdrianP> Chrisw: Gary wants them

Christopher Welty: Gary wants them

15:48:33 <AdrianP> Sandro: Gary wants type checking

Sandro Hawke: Gary wants type checking

15:48:37 <DaveReynolds> But Gary you are giving it different semantics in BLD and PRD so that isn't an argument for them in Core.

Dave Reynolds: But Gary you are giving it different semantics in BLD and PRD so that isn't an argument for them in Core.

15:49:34 <AdrianP> Michael: semantics of cardinality in Core is different from the semantics in PRD

Michael Kifer: semantics of cardinality in Core is different from the semantics in PRD

15:50:21 <DaveReynolds> -1 for logical constraints in core, 0 for closed world integrity constraints (potentially useful, huge work, don't see how to get it done in remaining time)

Dave Reynolds: -1 for logical constraints in core, 0 for closed world integrity constraints (potentially useful, huge work, don't see how to get it done in remaining time)

15:50:37 <sandro> kifer: It's a good idea, but I'm worried it will be musused.

Michael Kifer: It's a good idea, but I'm worried it will be musused. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:51:34 <AxelPolleres> -1 (it seems that with a decent semantics for modify, there can still be a PRD (sub?)dialect based on Core without)

Axel Polleres: -1 (it seems that with a decent semantics for modify, there can still be a PRD (sub?)dialect based on Core without)

15:52:18 <AxelPolleres> (... i.e. modify meaning delete all existing values and assert new value)

Axel Polleres: (... i.e. modify meaning delete all existing values and assert new value)

15:52:50 <sandro> Chrisw: This would not be the first feature we abandoned.

Christopher Welty: This would not be the first feature we abandoned. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:52:58 <sandro> (first useful features)

Sandro Hawke: (first useful features)

15:53:48 <sandro> chrisw: It seems we're leaning toward option 4.

Christopher Welty: It seems we're leaning toward option 4. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

15:56:50 <Zakim> -DaveReynolds

Zakim IRC Bot: -DaveReynolds

15:57:13 <Zakim> -Meeting_Room

Zakim IRC Bot: -Meeting_Room

15:57:15 <Zakim> SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM has ended

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM has ended

15:57:17 <Zakim> Attendees were DaveReynolds, csma, josb, MichaelKifer, AxelPolleres, cke, johnHall, AdrianP, Harold, Gary, sandro, ChrisW, Meeting_Room

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were DaveReynolds, csma, josb, MichaelKifer, AxelPolleres, cke, johnHall, AdrianP, Harold, Gary, sandro, ChrisW, Meeting_Room

17:40:01 <AxelPolleres> dave, are you on the phone?

(No events recorded for 102 minutes)

Axel Polleres: dave, are you on the phone?

17:40:12 <ChrisW> zakim, who is here?

Christopher Welty: zakim, who is here?

17:40:29 <DaveReynolds> Yes but I can't hear anything

Dave Reynolds: Yes but I can't hear anything

17:40:33 <ChrisW> zakim, this is rif

Christopher Welty: zakim, this is rif

17:40:33 <Zakim> ok, ChrisW; that matches SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM

Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ChrisW; that matches SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM

17:40:40 <ChrisW> zakim, who is on the phone?

Christopher Welty: zakim, who is on the phone?

17:40:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see +44.145.441.aaaa

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see +44.145.441.aaaa

17:40:48 <ChrisW> rrsagent, make minutes

Christopher Welty: rrsagent, make minutes

17:40:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-minutes.html ChrisW

RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-minutes.html ChrisW

17:40:57 <AxelPolleres> we are dialing in

Axel Polleres: we are dialing in

17:41:27 <AxelPolleres> AxelPolleres has changed the topic to: RIF 13th F2F Meeting, Cambridge MA, Agenda http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F13

Axel Polleres: AxelPolleres has changed the topic to: RIF 13th F2F Meeting, Cambridge MA, Agenda http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F13

17:42:32 <AxelPolleres> scribe: Axel Polleres

(Scribe set to Axel Polleres)

17:42:40 <AxelPolleres> scribenick: AxelPolleres
17:42:46 <AxelPolleres> topic: Issue-81

4. ISSUE-81

17:42:58 <josb> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0140.html

Jos de Bruijn: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0140.html

17:43:12 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/81

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/81

17:43:30 <josb> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0140.html

Jos de Bruijn: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0140.html

17:43:38 <josb> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0140.html

Jos de Bruijn: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0140.html

17:43:57 <AxelPolleres> jos: let's talk about that email first (coreify OWL2RL combinations)

Jos de Bruijn: let's talk about that email first (coreify OWL2RL combinations)

17:44:00 <Zakim> +W3C

Zakim IRC Bot: +W3C

17:44:39 <AxelPolleres> we need equality for OWL RL, outside Core

we need equality for OWL RL, outside Core

17:44:47 <sandro>  1 == too bad, RL isn't in Core

Sandro Hawke: 1 == too bad, RL isn't in Core

17:44:56 <sandro> 2 == pick an equality-free embedding

Sandro Hawke: 2 == pick an equality-free embedding

17:44:56 <AxelPolleres> first option, not possible in Core

first option, not possible in Core

17:45:12 <sandro> 3 == general embedding into BLD, then pick a subset in Core  (== 1+2)

Sandro Hawke: 3 == general embedding into BLD, then pick a subset in Core (== 1+2)

17:45:18 <AxelPolleres> ... second option equality free subset

... second option equality free subset

17:45:32 <sandro> 4 == Add embedding of equality.  (Axiomatizing equality.)

Sandro Hawke: 4 == Add embedding of equality. (Axiomatizing equality.)

17:45:32 <AxelPolleres> ... third option, embedding in BLD

... third option, embedding in BLD

17:46:05 <AxelPolleres> ...fourth, add equality axioms in core

...fourth, add equality axioms in core

17:46:20 <AxelPolleres> ... i.e. axiomatize equality.

... i.e. axiomatize equality.

17:47:19 <AxelPolleres> sandro: I like 4, if there is a way to use rif:"=" i.e. BLD's equality here.

Sandro Hawke: I like 4, if there is a way to use rif:"=" i.e. BLD's equality here.

17:48:00 <AxelPolleres> csma: RIF can be expressed in BLD, but not in Core, what is the negative impact of that?

Christian de Sainte Marie: RIF can be expressed in BLD, but not in Core, what is the negative impact of that?

17:48:14 <AxelPolleres> chrisW: Core won't do OWL RL.

Christopher Welty: Core won't do OWL RL.

17:48:32 <DaveReynolds> Depends what you mean by "do OWL RL" - them embedding is different from the direct OWL 2 RL rule implementation which does fit in Core.

Dave Reynolds: Depends what you mean by "do OWL RL" - them embedding is different from the direct OWL 2 RL rule implementation which does fit in Core.

17:48:41 <DaveReynolds> s/them/the/

Dave Reynolds: s/them/the/

17:48:51 <AxelPolleres> sandro: whatever we pcik we should be able to explain the different choices.

Sandro Hawke: whatever we pcik we should be able to explain the different choices.

17:49:17 <AxelPolleres> ... I am for 4) because it gives us OWL RL in Core.

... I am for 4) because it gives us OWL RL in Core.

17:50:07 <AxelPolleres> jos: you can implement it more efficient.

Jos de Bruijn: you can implement it more efficient.

17:50:13 <sandro> sandro: This is a proof-of-concept, so performance is not an issue.

Sandro Hawke: This is a proof-of-concept, so performance is not an issue. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

17:51:06 <AxelPolleres> csma: does that open the possibility that a BLD doc uses rif equality that works together with the core axiomatization

Christian de Sainte Marie: does that open the possibility that a BLD doc uses rif equality that works together with the core axiomatization

17:51:32 <AxelPolleres> ... ? We have to make an informed decision in that respect.

... ? We have to make an informed decision in that respect.

17:52:21 <sandro> axel: maybe use owl:sameAs.

Axel Polleres: maybe use owl:sameAs. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

17:52:50 <AxelPolleres> Axel: Can owl:sameAs be used for the axiomaization?

Axel Polleres: Can owl:sameAs be used for the axiomaization?

17:53:24 <AxelPolleres> csma: What is the drawback of only providing an embedding in BLD?

Christian de Sainte Marie: What is the drawback of only providing an embedding in BLD?

17:53:55 <DaveReynolds> My preference would be 1 and add a comment to point out options 2 & 4 but not exhibit them.

Dave Reynolds: My preference would be 1 and add a comment to point out options 2 & 4 but not exhibit them.

17:54:19 <AxelPolleres> jos... explains the different options again.

jos... explains the different options again.

17:54:39 <sandro> DaveReynolds, do you think the axiomatizing equality is a problem?

Sandro Hawke: DaveReynolds, do you think the axiomatizing equality is a problem?

17:55:19 <DaveReynolds> Sandro -It seems like it would like to a large unwieldy rule set, it would be more an academic exercise that something people would really use. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding.

Dave Reynolds: Sandro -It seems like it would like to a large unwieldy rule set, it would be more an academic exercise that something people would really use. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding.

17:55:33 <AxelPolleres> sandro: I like option 4 more for political and marketing than for technical reasons.

Sandro Hawke: I like option 4 more for political and marketing than for technical reasons.

17:55:51 <DaveReynolds> q+

Dave Reynolds: q+

17:56:00 <AxelPolleres> ... because we can say we support OWL RL with RIF for free.

... because we can say we support OWL RL with RIF for free.

17:56:02 <josb> indeed, the ruleset is going to be very unwieldy

Jos de Bruijn: indeed, the ruleset is going to be very unwieldy

17:56:14 <josb> esp if we go for b, c, or d

Jos de Bruijn: esp if we go for b, c, or d

17:56:27 <AxelPolleres> csma: problem I have with 4 is that I don't see PRD here.

Christian de Sainte Marie: problem I have with 4 is that I don't see PRD here.

17:56:45 <DaveReynolds> ack me

Dave Reynolds: ack me

17:56:52 <sandro> sandro: I want to be able to say "Anyone who has RIF, get OWL-RL for free".

Sandro Hawke: I want to be able to say "Anyone who has RIF, get OWL-RL for free". [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

17:57:28 <AxelPolleres> dave: in response to sandro: We have shown that we can implement OWL RL, but we can't say that we have OWL RL per se.

Dave Reynolds: in response to sandro: We have shown that we can implement OWL RL, but we can't say that we have OWL RL per se.

17:59:41 <AxelPolleres> jos: I'd prefer a)

Jos de Bruijn: I'd prefer a)

18:00:00 <AxelPolleres> ... there are now a bunch of unsafe rules in the ruleset.

... there are now a bunch of unsafe rules in the ruleset.

18:00:19 <AxelPolleres> ... I don't see the benefit of having OWL2RL in BLD.

... I don't see the benefit of having OWL2RL in BLD.

18:00:49 <AxelPolleres> ... we can make some explanation but shouldn't tweak the ruleset at this point.

... we can make some explanation but shouldn't tweak the ruleset at this point.

18:00:59 <AxelPolleres> csma: quick poll?

Christian de Sainte Marie: quick poll?

18:01:24 <AxelPolleres> chrisw: OWL2RL is in core, but combinations with Rules is in BLD.

Christopher Welty: OWL2RL is in core, but combinations with Rules is in BLD.

18:01:50 <sandro> chrisw: OWL 2 RL is in Core (reasoning over OWL alone), but OWL 2 RL in combination with Core Rules puts you into BLD.

Christopher Welty: OWL 2 RL is in Core (reasoning over OWL alone), but OWL 2 RL in combination with Core Rules puts you into BLD. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

18:02:03 <sandro> Sandro: ah.   :-)

Sandro Hawke: ah. :-) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

18:02:38 <DaveReynolds> prefer a

Dave Reynolds: prefer a

18:02:59 <AxelPolleres> csma: who prefers a)?

Christian de Sainte Marie: who prefers a)?

18:03:14 <AxelPolleres> ... jos and chris

... jos and chris

18:03:20 <AxelPolleres> who prefers d)?

who prefers d)?

18:03:25 <AxelPolleres> sandro, axel

sandro, axel

18:04:15 <AxelPolleres> Sandro: I'd prefer a) with an explanaiton how to get to d) and what the implications are.

Sandro Hawke: I'd prefer a) with an explanaiton how to get to d) and what the implications are.

18:04:37 <sandro> sandro: So go with (A), but provide some text spelling out how to do (D) ....

Sandro Hawke: So go with (A), but provide some text spelling out how to do (D) .... [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

18:04:55 <josb> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0140.html

Jos de Bruijn: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0140.html

18:05:55 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: We go for solution a) in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0140.html plus additionally pointing out the path to d) and what the implications were in a non-normative subsection.

PROPOSED: We go for solution a) in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0140.html plus additionally pointing out the path to d) and what the implications were in a non-normative subsection.

18:05:57 <sandro> "embedding in support of combination"

Sandro Hawke: "embedding in support of combination"

18:06:08 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

18:06:36 <ChrisW> PROPOSED: For OWL-2 RL embedding of combinations, provide a (informative) embedding in BLD, pointing out that one can axiomatize equality for specific predicates in Core

PROPOSED: For OWL-2 RL embedding of combinations, provide a (informative) embedding in BLD, pointing out that one can axiomatize equality for specific predicates in Core

18:07:34 <ChrisW> PROPOSED: For OWL-2 RL embedding of combinations, provide a (informative) embedding in BLD, pointing out that one can axiomatize equality for predicates in Core

PROPOSED: For OWL-2 RL embedding of combinations, provide a (informative) embedding in BLD, pointing out that one can axiomatize equality for predicates in Core

18:07:47 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

18:07:52 <josb> +1

Jos de Bruijn: +1

18:07:56 <ChrisW> +6

Christopher Welty: +6

18:07:59 <Harold> +1

Harold Boley: +1

18:07:59 <DaveReynolds> +1

Dave Reynolds: +1

18:08:01 <AxelPolleres> Axel: can we use owl:sameAs in that axiomatization?

Axel Polleres: can we use owl:sameAs in that axiomatization?

18:08:06 <MichaelKifer> 0

Michael Kifer: 0

18:08:20 <AxelPolleres> Axel: +1 given that owl:sameAs is used :-)

Axel Polleres: +1 given that owl:sameAs is used :-)

18:08:34 <GaryHallmark> +0

Gary Hallmark: +0

18:08:41 <AdrianP> 0

Adrian Paschke: 0

18:08:49 <johnhall> +1

John Hall: +1

18:09:07 <ChrisW> RESOLVED: For OWL-2 RL embedding of combinations, provide a (informative) embedding in BLD, pointing out that one can axiomatize equality for predicates in Core

RESOLVED: For OWL-2 RL embedding of combinations, provide a (informative) embedding in BLD, pointing out that one can axiomatize equality for predicates in Core

18:09:32 <ChrisW> action: implement resolution on embedding of OWL-2 RL embedding of combinations

ACTION: implement resolution on embedding of OWL-2 RL embedding of combinations

18:09:33 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - implement

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - implement

18:09:49 <ChrisW> action: axel to review owl-2 rl embedding of combinations

ACTION: axel to review owl-2 rl embedding of combinations

18:09:50 <trackbot> Created ACTION-733 - Review owl-2 rl embedding of combinations [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-22].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-733 - Review owl-2 rl embedding of combinations [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-22].

18:10:04 <sandro> subtopic: OWL datatypes, OWL RL datatypes

4.1. OWL datatypes, OWL RL datatypes

18:10:04 <ChrisW> action: josb implement resolution on embedding of OWL-2 RL embedding of combinations

ACTION: josb implement resolution on embedding of OWL-2 RL embedding of combinations

18:10:04 <trackbot> Created ACTION-734 - Implement resolution on embedding of OWL-2 RL embedding of combinations [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2009-04-22].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-734 - Implement resolution on embedding of OWL-2 RL embedding of combinations [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2009-04-22].

18:10:47 <AxelPolleres> csma: where are we w.r.t. issue-81?

Christian de Sainte Marie: where are we w.r.t. ISSUE-81?

18:10:54 <sandro> issue-81?

Sandro Hawke: ISSUE-81?

18:10:54 <trackbot> ISSUE-81 -- Support for additional OWL-RL datatype -- OPEN

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-81 -- Support for additional OWL-RL datatype -- OPEN

18:10:54 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/81

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/81

18:10:55 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/81

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/81

18:11:21 <sandro> OWL RL Datatypes: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profiles#Entities_3

Sandro Hawke: OWL RL Datatypes: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profiles#Entities_3

18:12:07 <DaveReynolds> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWLRL#Datatypes_supported is supposed to up to date wrt to current DTB

Dave Reynolds: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWLRL#Datatypes_supported is supposed to up to date wrt to current DTB

18:12:22 <DaveReynolds> OWL 2 RL types changed since the issues page was created

Dave Reynolds: OWL 2 RL types changed since the issues page was created

18:13:10 <csma> ACTION: to axel to add xsd:nonNegativeInteger, xsd:anyURI, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary in DTB

ACTION: to axel to add xsd:nonNegativeInteger, xsd:anyURI, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary in DTB

18:13:10 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - to

Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - to

18:13:44 <csma> ACTION: Axel to add xsd:nonNegativeInteger, xsd:anyURI, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary in DTB

ACTION: Axel to add xsd:nonNegativeInteger, xsd:anyURI, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary in DTB

18:13:44 <trackbot> Created ACTION-735 - Add xsd:nonNegativeInteger, xsd:anyURI, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary in DTB [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-22].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-735 - Add xsd:nonNegativeInteger, xsd:anyURI, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary in DTB [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-22].

18:14:52 <sandro>  owl:realPlus is gone now.

Sandro Hawke: owl:realPlus is gone now.

18:15:11 <DaveReynolds> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWLRL#Datatypes_supported is supposed to up to date wrt to current DTB and updated OWL 2

Dave Reynolds: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWLRL#Datatypes_supported is supposed to up to date wrt to current DTB and updated OWL 2

18:15:57 <DaveReynolds> s/2/2 RL/

Dave Reynolds: s/2/2 RL/

18:18:17 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to add owl:real in DTB

ACTION: Axel to add owl:real in DTB

18:18:17 <trackbot> Created ACTION-736 - Add owl:real in DTB [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-22].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-736 - Add owl:real in DTB [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-22].

18:18:26 <josb> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#Datatype_Maps

Jos de Bruijn: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#Datatype_Maps

18:19:56 <AxelPolleres> datatypes to be added... cf. http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DataTypes

datatypes to be added... cf. http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DataTypes

18:25:13 <AxelPolleres> chrisw: proposal to support subtypes of integer, subtypes of string, but no separate predicates such as guards for these.

(No events recorded for 5 minutes)

Christopher Welty: proposal to support subtypes of integer, subtypes of string, but no separate predicates such as guards for these.

18:26:06 <AxelPolleres> gary: by isliteraloftype we don't have to do anything.

Gary Hallmark: by isliteraloftype we don't have to do anything.

18:27:42 <AxelPolleres> csma: what about datetimestamp?

Christian de Sainte Marie: what about datetimestamp?

18:28:13 <AxelPolleres> chrisw: anyone argues for any other support or has objections against those?

Christopher Welty: anyone argues for any other support or has objections against those?

18:28:37 <AxelPolleres> csma: what about owl:rational?

Christian de Sainte Marie: what about owl:rational?

18:28:45 <AxelPolleres> jos: at risk in the current owl spec.

Jos de Bruijn: at risk in the current owl spec.

18:29:14 <DaveReynolds> q+ re: owl:rational

Dave Reynolds: q+ re: owl:rational

18:31:09 <AxelPolleres> axel: what about p(x) :- x*x=2.

Axel Polleres: what about p(x) :- x*x=2.

18:31:24 <AxelPolleres> jos: no problem since multiplicaiton not defined for real.

Jos de Bruijn: no problem since multiplicaiton not defined for real.

18:31:43 <AxelPolleres> dave: problem with arithmetics

Dave Reynolds: problem with arithmetics

18:32:10 <AxelPolleres> chrisw: numeric built-ins on owl:reals would create problems.

Christopher Welty: numeric built-ins on owl:reals would create problems.

18:32:35 <DaveReynolds> dave - owl:rational arithmetic and promotion to decimal/double *could* be support, my point was that this would be real work to define

Dave Reynolds: dave - owl:rational arithmetic and promotion to decimal/double *could* be support, my point was that this would be real work to define

18:32:47 <DaveReynolds> s/support/supported/

Dave Reynolds: s/support/supported/

18:33:19 <AxelPolleres> ... real and rational have no built-in support other than guards.

... real and rational have no built-in support other than guards.

18:34:19 <AxelPolleres> jos: real is trivial.

Jos de Bruijn: real is trivial.

18:34:31 <AxelPolleres> ... rational is a superset of decimal

... rational is a superset of decimal

18:34:40 <sandro> The value space of owl:rational is the set of all rational numbers. It is a subset of the value space of owl:real, and it contains the value space of xsd:decimal (and thus of all xsd: numeric datatypes listed above as well).

Sandro Hawke: The value space of owl:rational is the set of all rational numbers. It is a subset of the value space of owl:real, and it contains the value space of xsd:decimal (and thus of all xsd: numeric datatypes listed above as well).

18:35:03 <Zakim> -DaveReynolds

Zakim IRC Bot: -DaveReynolds

18:35:10 <sandro> The owl:rational datatype supports lexical forms defined by the following grammar  ... numerator '/' denominator

Sandro Hawke: The owl:rational datatype supports lexical forms defined by the following grammar ... numerator '/' denominator

18:35:23 <AdrianP> which concrete rule engines support rationals - is there any need for that datatype?

Adrian Paschke: which concrete rule engines support rationals - is there any need for that datatype?

18:35:23 <csma> PROPOSED: Add the following primitive data types, without guard predicates or other builtins for subtypes of xs:string and xs:integer:  owl:rational, xsd:nonPositiveInteger, xsd:positiveInteger, xsd:negativeInteger, xsd:long, xsd:int, xsd:short, xsd:byte, xsd:unsignedLong, xsd:unsignedInt, xsd:unsignedShort, xsd:unsignedByte, xsd:float, xsd:normalizedString, xsd:token, xsd:language,...

PROPOSED: Add the following primitive data types, without guard predicates or other builtins for subtypes of xs:string and xs:integer: owl:rational, xsd:nonPositiveInteger, xsd:positiveInteger, xsd:negativeInteger, xsd:long, xsd:int, xsd:short, xsd:byte, xsd:unsignedLong, xsd:unsignedInt, xsd:unsignedShort, xsd:unsignedByte, xsd:float, xsd:normalizedString, xsd:token, xsd:language,...

18:35:25 <csma> ...xsd:Name, xsd:NCName, xsd:NMTOKEN, xsd:boolean, xsd:datetimestamp

Christian de Sainte Marie: ...xsd:Name, xsd:NCName, xsd:NMTOKEN, xsd:boolean, xsd:datetimestamp

18:35:28 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#Real_Numbers.2C_Decimal_Numbers.2C_and_Integers

Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#Real_Numbers.2C_Decimal_Numbers.2C_and_Integers

18:35:38 <AxelPolleres> ... so some rational values of are in the scope of the builtins (those which happen to be decimals), others no

... so some rational values of are in the scope of the builtins (those which happen to be decimals), others no

18:36:04 <Zakim> +DaveReynolds

Zakim IRC Bot: +DaveReynolds

18:36:53 <csma> PROPOSED: Add the following primitive data types, without builtins (other than guard predicates) for subtypes of xs:string and xs:integer: owl:rational, xsd:nonPositiveInteger, xsd:positiveInteger, xsd:negativeInteger, xsd:long, xsd:int, xsd:short, xsd:byte, xsd:unsignedLong, xsd:unsignedInt, xsd:unsignedShort, xsd:unsignedByte, xsd:float, xsd:normalizedString, xsd:token, xsd:language,...

PROPOSED: Add the following primitive data types, without builtins (other than guard predicates) for subtypes of xs:string and xs:integer: owl:rational, xsd:nonPositiveInteger, xsd:positiveInteger, xsd:negativeInteger, xsd:long, xsd:int, xsd:short, xsd:byte, xsd:unsignedLong, xsd:unsignedInt, xsd:unsignedShort, xsd:unsignedByte, xsd:float, xsd:normalizedString, xsd:token, xsd:language,...

18:36:55 <csma> ...xsd:Name, xsd:NCName, xsd:NMTOKEN, xsd:boolean, xsd:datetimestamp

Christian de Sainte Marie: ...xsd:Name, xsd:NCName, xsd:NMTOKEN, xsd:boolean, xsd:datetimestamp

18:37:53 <csma> PROPOSED: Add the following primitive data types, without builtins (other than guard predicates) for subtypes of xs:string and xs:integer: xsd:nonPositiveInteger, xsd:positiveInteger, xsd:negativeInteger, xsd:long, xsd:int, xsd:short, xsd:byte, xsd:unsignedLong, xsd:unsignedInt, xsd:unsignedShort, xsd:unsignedByte, xsd:float, xsd:normalizedString, xsd:token, xsd:language, xsd:Name, xsd:NCName, xsd

PROPOSED: Add the following primitive data types, without builtins (other than guard predicates) for subtypes of xs:string and xs:integer: xsd:nonPositiveInteger, xsd:positiveInteger, xsd:negativeInteger, xsd:long, xsd:int, xsd:short, xsd:byte, xsd:unsignedLong, xsd:unsignedInt, xsd:unsignedShort, xsd:unsignedByte, xsd:float, xsd:normalizedString, xsd:token, xsd:language, xsd:Name, xsd:NCName, xsd

18:37:55 <csma> :NMTOKEN, xsd:boolean, xsd:datetimestamp

Christian de Sainte Marie: :NMTOKEN, xsd:boolean, xsd:datetimestamp

18:38:11 <sandro> We understand these to be ALL OWL datatypes except owl:rational.

Sandro Hawke: We understand these to be ALL OWL datatypes except owl:rational.

18:38:49 <sandro> We understand this will make RIF support all the same datatypes as OWL,  except owl:rational.

Sandro Hawke: We understand this will make RIF support all the same datatypes as OWL, except owl:rational.

18:39:11 <csma> PROPOSED: Add the following primitive data types, without builtins (other than guard predicates) for subtypes of xs:string and xs:integer: xsd:nonPositiveInteger, xsd:positiveInteger, xsd:negativeInteger, xsd:long, xsd:int, xsd:short, xsd:byte, xsd:unsignedLong, xsd:unsignedInt, xsd:unsignedShort, xsd:unsignedByte, xsd:float, xsd:normalizedString, xsd:token, xsd:language, xsd:Name, xsd:NCName, xsd

PROPOSED: Add the following primitive data types, without builtins (other than guard predicates) for subtypes of xs:string and xs:integer: xsd:nonPositiveInteger, xsd:positiveInteger, xsd:negativeInteger, xsd:long, xsd:int, xsd:short, xsd:byte, xsd:unsignedLong, xsd:unsignedInt, xsd:unsignedShort, xsd:unsignedByte, xsd:float, xsd:normalizedString, xsd:token, xsd:language, xsd:Name, xsd:NCName, xsd

18:39:13 <csma> :NMTOKEN, xsd:boolean, xsd:datetimestamp; with thiese additions, RIF has all OWL datatypes except owl:rational

Christian de Sainte Marie: :NMTOKEN, xsd:boolean, xsd:datetimestamp; with thiese additions, RIF has all OWL datatypes except owl:rational

18:39:19 <AxelPolleres> jos: realizing the problems with built-ins, I am hesitant about owl:rational

Jos de Bruijn: realizing the problems with built-ins, I am hesitant about owl:rational

18:39:37 <AxelPolleres> chrisw: shall we approach owl with commenting on why we don't like owl:rational?

Christopher Welty: shall we approach owl with commenting on why we don't like owl:rational?

18:41:45 <ChrisW> PROPOSED: support all OWL datatypes in RIF except owl:rational (to be discussed further)

PROPOSED: support all OWL datatypes in RIF except owl:rational (to be discussed further)

18:42:16 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

18:42:27 <DaveReynolds> This this proposal include adding the builtins for boolean, datetimestamp?

Dave Reynolds: This this proposal include adding the builtins for boolean, datetimestamp?

18:42:29 <josb> +1

Jos de Bruijn: +1

18:42:31 <DaveReynolds> s/This/Does/

Dave Reynolds: s/This/Does/

18:42:35 <ChrisW> yes, DaveReynolds

Christopher Welty: yes, DaveReynolds

18:42:37 <Harold> +1

Harold Boley: +1

18:42:40 <AxelPolleres> Axel: 0 still don't fancy owl:real

Axel Polleres: 0 still don't fancy owl:real

18:42:41 <DaveReynolds> 0

Dave Reynolds: 0

18:42:42 <sandro> we're not deciding about builtins yet, DaveReynolds

Sandro Hawke: we're not deciding about builtins yet, DaveReynolds

18:42:44 <AdrianP> +1

Adrian Paschke: +1

18:42:52 <MichaelKifer> +1

Michael Kifer: +1

18:42:59 <johnhall> =1

John Hall: =1

18:43:04 <ChrisW> +1

Christopher Welty: +1

18:43:19 <AxelPolleres> s/0 still don't fancy owl:real/+1/

s/0 still don't fancy owl:real/+1/

18:44:14 <ChrisW> RESOLVED: support all OWL datatypes in RIF except owl:rational (to be discussed further)

RESOLVED: support all OWL datatypes in RIF except owl:rational (to be discussed further)

18:44:42 <sandro> PROPOSED: Remove owl:realPlus since OWL removed it.

PROPOSED: Remove owl:realPlus since OWL removed it.

18:44:46 <ChrisW> +1

Christopher Welty: +1

18:44:49 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

18:44:52 <DaveReynolds> +1

Dave Reynolds: +1

18:44:52 <AdrianP> +1

Adrian Paschke: +1

18:44:54 <josb> +q1

Jos de Bruijn: +q1

18:44:56 <josb> +1

Jos de Bruijn: +1

18:45:01 <Harold> +1

Harold Boley: +1

18:45:04 <DaveReynolds> -q

Dave Reynolds: -q

18:45:04 <johnhall> +1

John Hall: +1

18:45:09 <csma> ack dave

Christian de Sainte Marie: ack dave

18:45:10 <sandro> queue=

Sandro Hawke: queue=

18:45:12 <csma> ack 1

Christian de Sainte Marie: ack 1

18:45:21 <sandro> RESOLVED: Remove owl:realPlus since OWL removed it.

RESOLVED: Remove owl:realPlus since OWL removed it.

18:45:49 <josb> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#dateTimeStamp

Jos de Bruijn: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#dateTimeStamp

18:46:25 <AxelPolleres> axel: datetimestamp is a subtype of datetime, so all builtins apply.

Axel Polleres: datetimestamp is a subtype of datetime, so all builtins apply.

18:47:06 <sandro> jos: We already have all the builtins for dateTimeStamp, since it's a subtype of dateTime.

Jos de Bruijn: We already have all the builtins for dateTimeStamp, since it's a subtype of dateTime. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

18:47:44 <AxelPolleres> jos: boolean has less-than, equal, ...

Jos de Bruijn: boolean has less-than, equal, ...

18:48:51 <AxelPolleres> sandro: overlap of fn:true, fn:false with rif:true rif:false is awkward.

Sandro Hawke: overlap of fn:true, fn:false with rif:true rif:false is awkward.

18:49:40 <AxelPolleres> q+ to ask: What about casting?

q+ to ask: What about casting?

18:49:42 <sandro> (where rif:true is really an empty-OR)

Sandro Hawke: (where rif:true is really an empty-OR)

18:52:17 <AxelPolleres> axel: we can cast boolean to integer.

Axel Polleres: we can cast boolean to integer.

18:54:15 <AxelPolleres> ... I'd prefer all or none of the built-ins for boolean.

... I'd prefer all or none of the built-ins for boolean.

18:54:18 <sandro> Sandro: the reason to have builtins to boolean is to support data out there using xs:boolean

Sandro Hawke: the reason to have builtins to boolean is to support data out there using xs:boolean [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

18:54:35 <AxelPolleres> adrian: prefer to have less than more.

Adrian Paschke: prefer to have less than more.

18:54:36 <sandro> Chrisw: the reason to not have xs:boolean is confusing vs RIF predications

Christopher Welty: the reason to not have xs:boolean is confusing vs RIF predications [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

18:54:47 <AxelPolleres> sandro: I'd prefer all.

Sandro Hawke: I'd prefer all.

18:55:35 <sandro> Gary: People are going to complain about rif predicates not just being functions that return true.

Gary Hallmark: People are going to complain about rif predicates not just being functions that return true. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

18:55:39 <sandro> sandro: yeah...

Sandro Hawke: yeah... [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

18:55:46 <csma> PROPOSED: include all the builtins for xs:boolean per F&O

PROPOSED: include all the builtins for xs:boolean per F&O

18:55:47 <ChrisW> +true

Christopher Welty: +true

18:55:56 <sandro> +0.5

Sandro Hawke: +0.5

18:56:04 <csma>  fn:not(fn:false) (maybe?)

Christian de Sainte Marie: fn:not(fn:false) (maybe?)

18:56:18 <GaryHallmark> +1

Gary Hallmark: +1

18:56:20 <sandro> where does truth lie

Sandro Hawke: where does truth lie

18:56:21 <DaveReynolds> +1

Dave Reynolds: +1

18:56:22 <AxelPolleres> Axel: +xs:integer("true"^^xs:boolean)

Axel Polleres: +xs:integer("true"^^xs:boolean)

18:56:24 <MichaelKifer> -0.2

Michael Kifer: -0.2

18:56:28 <josb> +And()

Jos de Bruijn: +And()

18:56:33 <AdrianP> 0

Adrian Paschke: 0

18:56:43 <GaryHallmark> +money

Gary Hallmark: +money

18:56:49 <josb> -Or()

Jos de Bruijn: -Or()

18:57:02 <Harold> +1

Harold Boley: +1

18:57:07 <csma> RESOLVED:include all the builtins for xs:boolean per F&O

RESOLVED: include all the builtins for xs:boolean per F&O

18:57:27 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: axel to include all the builtins for xs:boolean per F&O

ACTION: axel to include all the builtins for xs:boolean per F&O

18:57:27 <trackbot> Created ACTION-737 - Include all the builtins for xs:boolean per F&O [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-22].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-737 - Include all the builtins for xs:boolean per F&O [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-22].

18:57:27 <ChrisW> action: axel to add all boolean builtins

ACTION: axel to add all boolean builtins

18:57:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-738 - Add all boolean builtins [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-22].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-738 - Add all boolean builtins [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-22].

18:59:09 <ChrisW> action: axel to add xs:float to numeric builtins

ACTION: axel to add xs:float to numeric builtins

18:59:09 <trackbot> Created ACTION-739 - Add xs:float to numeric builtins [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-22].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-739 - Add xs:float to numeric builtins [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-22].

19:03:10 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-xpath-functions-20070123/#casting-from-primitive-to-primitive

http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-xpath-functions-20070123/#casting-from-primitive-to-primitive

19:07:35 <ChrisW> action: axel to accomodate casting functions in a well defined manner

ACTION: axel to accomodate casting functions in a well defined manner

19:07:35 <trackbot> Created ACTION-740 - Accomodate casting functions in a well defined manner [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-22].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-740 - Accomodate casting functions in a well defined manner [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-22].

19:07:57 <sandro> subtopic: owl:rational

4.2. owl:rational

19:08:02 <sandro> sandro: anyone want to argue for it.

Sandro Hawke: anyone want to argue for it. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

19:08:24 <AxelPolleres> csma: who wants owl:rational?

Christian de Sainte Marie: who wants owl:rational?

19:09:13 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: we do not include owl:rational closing issue-81

PROPOSED: we do not include owl:rational closing ISSUE-81

19:10:22 <sandro> why not have it?

Sandro Hawke: why not have it?

19:10:29 <sandro> Gary: Because implementing it is a pain

Gary Hallmark: Because implementing it is a pain [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

19:10:56 <AdrianP> +1

Adrian Paschke: +1

19:10:59 <AxelPolleres> +1

+1

19:11:03 <DaveReynolds> +1

Dave Reynolds: +1

19:11:06 <sandro> sandro: but you could specify small enough precision requirements (so you can just use double)....?

Sandro Hawke: but you could specify small enough precision requirements (so you can just use double)....? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

19:11:06 <johnhall> +1

John Hall: +1

19:11:22 <AxelPolleres> kifer: this wouldn't be the most difficult thing to do.

Michael Kifer: this wouldn't be the most difficult thing to do.

19:11:51 <sandro> gary: That's not what users will be expecting.   [[ They'll assume 1/3 + 1/3 == 2/3 not 0.6666666666666667 ]]

Gary Hallmark: That's not what users will be expecting. [[ They'll assume 1/3 + 1/3 == 2/3 not 0.6666666666666667 ]] [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

19:12:26 <sandro> +0

Sandro Hawke: +0

19:12:41 <AxelPolleres> jos: arithmetics only defined for a subset, that seems to be problematic and unintuitive.

Jos de Bruijn: arithmetics only defined for a subset, that seems to be problematic and unintuitive.

19:12:51 <csma> RESOLVED: : we do not include owl:rational (closing issue-81)

RESOLVED: : we do not include owl:rational (closing ISSUE-81)

19:13:04 <ChrisW> action: Chris to close issue-81

ACTION: Chris to close ISSUE-81

19:13:04 <trackbot> Created ACTION-741 - Close issue-81 [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-04-22].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-741 - Close ISSUE-81 [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-04-22].

19:13:08 <ChrisW> rrsagent, pointer?

Christopher Welty: rrsagent, pointer?

19:13:08 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc#T19-13-08

RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc#T19-13-08

19:13:36 <ChrisW> action: chris to respond to OWL WG public comment response

ACTION: chris to respond to OWL WG public comment response

19:13:36 <trackbot> Created ACTION-742 - Respond to OWL WG public comment response [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-04-22].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-742 - Respond to OWL WG public comment response [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-04-22].

19:15:33 <sandro> axel:  x times x ....

Axel Polleres: x times x .... [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

19:16:07 <sandro> chrisw: But the type signature of times is what it is, eg decimal x decimal -> decimal

Christopher Welty: But the type signature of times is what it is, eg decimal x decimal -> decimal [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

19:17:11 <AxelPolleres> p(X) :- X*X = 2.

p(X) :- X*X = 2.

19:17:11 <AxelPolleres> q(Y) :- X*X = Y, p(X).

q(Y) :- X*X = Y, p(X).

19:17:12 <AxelPolleres> would NOT entail q(2).

would NOT entail q(2).

19:17:19 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profiles#Entities_3

Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profiles#Entities_3

19:18:37 <AxelPolleres> jos:it looks like there is an error in the owl2 spec.

Jos de Bruijn: it looks like there is an error in the owl2 spec.

19:18:56 <AxelPolleres> ... rdfs:Literal is not a datatype according to the spec.

... rdfs:Literal is not a datatype according to the spec.

19:18:57 <sandro> "The built-in datatype rdfs:Literal denotes any set that contains the union of the value spaces of all datatypes in the datatype map. "

Sandro Hawke: "The built-in datatype rdfs:Literal denotes any set that contains the union of the value spaces of all datatypes in the datatype map. "

19:20:20 <sandro> jos: There is no way to access the irrationals.

Jos de Bruijn: There is no way to access the irrationals. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

19:21:02 <sandro> chrisw: Axel, your strange lack-of-entailment exists, regardless of owl:real.

Christopher Welty: Axel, your strange lack-of-entailment exists, regardless of owl:real. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

19:21:09 <AxelPolleres> axel: having a datatype real "suggests: that the example would work

Axel Polleres: having a datatype real "suggests: that the example would work

19:21:29 <AxelPolleres> s/suggests:/suggests"/

s/suggests:/suggests"/

19:21:39 <sandro> sandro: but the presence of owl:real makes folks more likely to be bothered by it.

Sandro Hawke: but the presence of owl:real makes folks more likely to be bothered by it. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

19:22:23 <AxelPolleres> chrisw: break now and move to extensibility or ISSUES-95 ISSUES-95 then.

Christopher Welty: break now and move to extensibility or ISSUES-95 ISSUES-95 then.

19:23:03 <AxelPolleres> s/extensibility/ISSUE-57/

s/extensibility/ISSUE-57/

19:23:05 <AxelPolleres> ... I like to close on the issues after the break.

... I like to close on the issues after the break.

19:23:31 <AxelPolleres> ... let's do 5 more minutes on extensibility.

... let's do 5 more minutes on extensibility.

19:24:02 <AxelPolleres> sandro: cool mechanism for extensibility would be great but not manageable in time. so let's do something simple.

Sandro Hawke: cool mechanism for extensibility would be great but not manageable in time. so let's do something simple.

19:25:14 <AxelPolleres> ... e.g. PRD rewriteable to Core should be interchangeable.

... e.g. PRD rewriteable to Core should be interchangeable.

19:25:50 <AxelPolleres> csma: I am sad about the non-interoperability.

Christian de Sainte Marie: I am sad about the non-interoperability.

19:26:54 <sandro> csma: this means: drop bounded quantifiers in PRD

Christian de Sainte Marie: this means: drop bounded quantifiers in PRD [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

19:27:24 <AxelPolleres> ... consequence for PRD: We shall remove bounded quantifiers in this version of PRD.

... consequence for PRD: We shall remove bounded quantifiers in this version of PRD.

19:27:37 <sandro> csma: Everything that CAN be written in Core, MUST be expressed in Core.

Christian de Sainte Marie: Everything that CAN be written in Core, MUST be expressed in Core. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

19:27:47 <sandro> gary: then revisit no-nested-function-symbols.

Gary Hallmark: then revisit no-nested-function-symbols. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

19:28:04 <AxelPolleres> gary: nested function symbols also need to be revisited.

Gary Hallmark: nested function symbols also need to be revisited.

19:28:16 <AxelPolleres> jos: does that also mean you remove assert?

Jos de Bruijn: does that also mean you remove assert?

19:28:48 <sandro> csma: Assert will not be used if the ONLY action is Assert, but if there are RETRACT, NEW, MODIFY, then.

Christian de Sainte Marie: Assert will not be used if the ONLY action is Assert, but if there are RETRACT, NEW, MODIFY, then. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

19:28:55 <sandro> gary: conjuncts in the head in Core>

Gary Hallmark: conjuncts in the head in Core> [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

19:28:58 <DaveReynolds> Core currently does have nested function symbols in the body

Dave Reynolds: Core currently does have nested function symbols in the body

19:29:03 <sandro> harold: yes, it was removed.

Harold Boley: yes, it was removed. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

19:29:17 <sandro> Gary: Put nested functions and conjuncts in head back into Core.

Gary Hallmark: Put nested functions and conjuncts in head back into Core. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

19:29:23 <DaveReynolds> s/function symbols/external functions/

Dave Reynolds: s/function symbols/external functions/

19:30:27 <sandro> kifer: I think it was a mistake to remove conjunction in the head.

Michael Kifer: I think it was a mistake to remove conjunction in the head. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

19:30:43 <sandro> kifer: (that is -- we didn't mean to remove it.    it's just a typo.)

Michael Kifer: (that is -- we didn't mean to remove it. it's just a typo.) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

19:30:48 <DaveReynolds> We did get rid of disjunction at one point but the wg voted to put it back in :-(

Dave Reynolds: We did get rid of disjunction at one point but the wg voted to put it back in :-(

19:31:13 <AxelPolleres> BREAK

BREAK

19:32:29 <AxelPolleres> no BREAK...

no BREAK...

19:32:50 <AxelPolleres> chrisw: what was the rationale for not having conjunction in heads in Core?

Christopher Welty: what was the rationale for not having conjunction in heads in Core?

19:33:09 <AxelPolleres> dave: it wasn't in the minimum set we started with and it wasn't claimed in by anybody.

Dave Reynolds: it wasn't in the minimum set we started with and it wasn't claimed in by anybody.

19:33:45 <Zakim> -DaveReynolds

Zakim IRC Bot: -DaveReynolds

19:34:09 <Zakim> -W3C

Zakim IRC Bot: -W3C

19:34:11 <Zakim> SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM has ended

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM has ended

19:34:12 <Zakim> Attendees were +44.145.441.aaaa, DaveReynolds, W3C

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were +44.145.441.aaaa, DaveReynolds, W3C

20:07:43 <sandro> DaveReynolds, do you want us to get back on the phone?

(No events recorded for 33 minutes)

Sandro Hawke: DaveReynolds, do you want us to get back on the phone?

20:07:53 <DaveReynolds> Yes please

Dave Reynolds: Yes please

20:07:58 <DaveReynolds> Just about to dial in

Dave Reynolds: Just about to dial in

<sandro> scribe: johnhall

(Scribe set to John Hall)

20:08:07 <johnhall> CW: Discussed in break - ground lists, safe lists (variable only if bound oustdie list), built-ins

Christopher Welty: Discussed in break - ground lists, safe lists (variable only if bound oustdie list), built-ins

20:08:30 <johnhall> CW: preferences?

Christopher Welty: preferences?

20:08:33 <sandro> chrisw: 2 is a little more expressive than 1

Christopher Welty: 2 is a little more expressive than 1 [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

20:08:34 <johnhall> Jos: 1

Jos de Bruijn: 1

20:08:50 <johnhall> Jos: no lists in Core

Jos de Bruijn: no lists in Core

20:09:05 <johnhall> csma: 4th option is no list at all

Christian de Sainte Marie: 4th option is no list at all

20:09:15 <Zakim> SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM has now started

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM has now started

20:09:22 <Zakim> +DaveReynolds

Zakim IRC Bot: +DaveReynolds

20:09:41 <johnhall> Michael: ground lists strightforward

Michael Kifer: ground lists strightforward

20:09:57 <johnhall> Michael: safe lists more difficult

Michael Kifer: safe lists more difficult

20:10:03 <sandro> jos: for 2, you have to support constructive terms in your engine ... it's basically the same as function terms.

Jos de Bruijn: for 2, you have to support constructive terms in your engine ... it's basically the same as function terms. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

20:10:57 <johnhall> csma: argument - inorder to define built-ins on core, you need the ground lists

Christian de Sainte Marie: argument - inorder to define built-ins on core, you need the ground lists

20:11:09 <sandro> DaveReynolds?

Sandro Hawke: DaveReynolds?

20:11:18 <csma> (and that's builtins that are useful, not ground lists)

Christian de Sainte Marie: (and that's builtins that are useful, not ground lists)

20:11:33 <johnhall> Michael: how hard to add safe lists for Datalog engines?

Michael Kifer: how hard to add safe lists for Datalog engines?

20:11:44 <johnhall> CW: preferences?

Christopher Welty: preferences?

20:11:45 <Zakim> +W3C

Zakim IRC Bot: +W3C

20:12:07 <ChrisW> zakim, who is on the phone?

Christopher Welty: zakim, who is on the phone?

20:12:07 <Zakim> On the phone I see DaveReynolds, W3C

Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see DaveReynolds, W3C

20:12:20 <johnhall> kifer: how hard to implement lists with variables?

Michael Kifer: how hard to implement lists with variables?

20:12:41 <johnhall> DR: variable? Prolog unbound term?

Dave Reynolds: variable? Prolog unbound term?

20:12:48 <johnhall> DR: would be hard

Dave Reynolds: would be hard

20:13:00 <johnhall> GH: if bound?

Gary Hallmark: if bound?

20:13:54 <johnhall> cke: differenes between 1 and 2 is for 1 can do staic analysis, 2 dynamic in execution

Changhai Ke: differenes between 1 and 2 is for 1 can do staic analysis, 2 dynamic in execution

20:14:38 <DaveReynolds> Unification is not that hard so long as the asserted data is variable-free, just pattern matching.

Dave Reynolds: Unification is not that hard so long as the asserted data is variable-free, just pattern matching.

20:14:55 <johnhall> Gary:go back to charter - we should have lists

Gary Hallmark: go back to charter - we should have lists

20:15:08 <johnhall> Gary: should be in core

Gary Hallmark: should be in core

20:15:38 <johnhall> Michael: Core could do 1, PRD could do 2 as an extension

Michael Kifer: Core could do 1, PRD could do 2 as an extension

20:15:53 <DaveReynolds> Could you post what 1, 2 refer to?

Dave Reynolds: Could you post what 1, 2 refer to?

20:15:56 <csma> (1 is: "ground lists + builtins in Core; 2: is Core has safe lists = variables allowed in lists only if they are bound outside  + builtins)

Christian de Sainte Marie: (1 is: "ground lists + builtins in Core; 2: is Core has safe lists = variables allowed in lists only if they are bound outside + builtins)

20:16:32 <johnhall> 1 is ground lists, 2 is safe lists

1 is ground lists, 2 is safe lists

20:16:32 <csma> (that's written on the wall)

Christian de Sainte Marie: (that's written on the wall)

20:16:52 <johnhall> But Dave can't see the wall

But Dave can't see the wall

20:16:58 <csma> 5there is also 3: no lits in CoreĀ°

Christian de Sainte Marie: 5there is also 3: no lits in CoreĀ°

20:17:05 <DaveReynolds> Lists without constructing them sound pretty useless.

Dave Reynolds: Lists without constructing them sound pretty useless.

20:17:43 <DaveReynolds> Stable position would be to forgo E-S safe, stick to simple safety, allow non-termination, have list constructor builtins

Dave Reynolds: Stable position would be to forgo E-S safe, stick to simple safety, allow non-termination, have list constructor builtins

20:17:56 <johnhall> Michael: can define built ins to construct

Michael Kifer: can define built ins to construct

20:18:03 <DaveReynolds> Second stable position would be no-non-termination and so no useful list constructors.

Dave Reynolds: Second stable position would be no-non-termination and so no useful list constructors.

20:18:22 <johnhall> Axel: safeness?

Axel Polleres: safeness?

20:18:33 <johnhall> Michael: out of the window

Michael Kifer: out of the window

20:19:32 <johnhall> Michael: need const, then can construct infinitely long list

Michael Kifer: need const, then can construct infinitely long list

20:19:50 <johnhall> Gary: not saying Core has to be finite

Gary Hallmark: not saying Core has to be finite

20:20:14 <sandro> gary:  safeness is about bottom-up evaluation, not finite operation (termination)

Gary Hallmark: safeness is about bottom-up evaluation, not finite operation (termination) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

20:21:35 <johnhall> Dave: is purpose of safety in core to support bottom-up evaluation, or termination for Datalog engines?

Dave Reynolds: is purpose of safety in core to support bottom-up evaluation, or termination for Datalog engines?

20:22:20 <AxelPolleres> dave: you meant top-down, not bottom, up... yes?

Dave Reynolds: you meant top-down, not bottom, up... yes? [ Scribe Assist by Axel Polleres ]

20:22:30 <sandro> dave:    either have recursive structures or have finite-operation.    pick one camp or the other.

Dave Reynolds: either have recursive structures or have finite-operation. pick one camp or the other. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

20:22:44 <DaveReynolds> Axel - I mean forward chaining

Dave Reynolds: Axel - I mean forward chaining

20:22:44 <AxelPolleres> datalog = bottom-up

Axel Polleres: datalog = bottom-up

20:22:46 <sandro> I translate that to "forward-chaining".

Sandro Hawke: I translate that to "forward-chaining".

20:22:59 <johnhall> Michael: proposal was to have first, tail, const

Michael Kifer: proposal was to have first, tail, const

20:23:08 <sandro> s/const/cons/

Sandro Hawke: s/const/cons/

20:23:14 <johnhall> cke: append?

Changhai Ke: append?

20:23:17 <josb> yes, standard safeness we have now is for bottom-up evaluation

Jos de Bruijn: yes, standard safeness we have now is for bottom-up evaluation

20:23:28 <DaveReynolds> If we have cons then we should drop E-S safe

Dave Reynolds: If we have cons then we should drop E-S safe

20:23:31 <johnhall> Michael: for PRD need more

Michael Kifer: for PRD need more

20:24:46 <johnhall> ChrisW: ground list plus first, rest, cons?

Christopher Welty: ground list plus first, rest, cons?

20:24:50 <AxelPolleres> Dave, I don't like that... we would have the effect that strongly safe rulesets which use lists are probably useless in practical.

Axel Polleres: Dave, I don't like that... we would have the effect that strongly safe rulesets which use lists are probably useless in practical.

20:24:53 <johnhall> cke: why cons?

Changhai Ke: why cons?

20:25:07 <johnhall> Michael: is the basic one for others

Michael Kifer: is the basic one for others

20:25:17 <AxelPolleres> I could just view cons as yet another built-in, that's it.

Axel Polleres: I could just view cons as yet another built-in, that's it.

20:25:26 <DaveReynolds> Axel - exactly, strongly safe means that rulesets with lists are useless. You can have lists. or strongly safe but not both.

Dave Reynolds: Axel - exactly, strongly safe means that rulesets with lists are useless. You can have lists. or strongly safe but not both.

20:25:42 <AxelPolleres> S-E- safe still has its merits.

Axel Polleres: S-E- safe still has its merits.

20:26:06 <johnhall> Gary: look at Ch 15 Xpath

Gary Hallmark: look at Ch 15 Xpath

20:26:12 <AxelPolleres> it appears that, together with some built-ins, it moght still make sense.

Axel Polleres: it appears that, together with some built-ins, it moght still make sense.

20:26:27 <csma> http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/#sequence-functions

Christian de Sainte Marie: http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/#sequence-functions

20:26:29 <sandro> Chrisw:  Ground lists, plut first/rest/constructors ?

Christopher Welty: Ground lists, plut first/rest/constructors ? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

20:26:36 <johnhall> ChrisW: doe we have consensus on ground + first, rest, cons?

Christopher Welty: doe we have consensus on ground + first, rest, cons?

20:27:28 <johnhall> Axel: if you require safe rules, others cannot be built from cons

Axel Polleres: if you require safe rules, others cannot be built from cons

20:28:20 <sandro> chrisw: These are immutable lists.

Christopher Welty: These are immutable lists. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

20:28:45 <johnhall> Harold: in ground list can replace elements

Harold Boley: in ground list can replace elements

20:29:52 <AxelPolleres> emulating other list built-ins with cons needs cons in rule heads, or at least S-E-unsafe use of cons().

Axel Polleres: emulating other list built-ins with cons needs cons in rule heads, or at least S-E-unsafe use of cons().

20:29:55 <sandro> cons == prepend

Sandro Hawke: cons == prepend

20:30:07 <sandro> cons == make new list with added element.

Sandro Hawke: cons == make new list with added element.

20:30:24 <johnhall> ChrisW: close soon. What do we agree on?

Christopher Welty: close soon. What do we agree on?

20:30:29 <Harold> ?x = List(a b c d) AND ?y = func:replace(2 beta ?x) will bind ?y to List(a beta c d)

Harold Boley: ?x = List(a b c d) AND ?y = func:replace(2 beta ?x) will bind ?y to List(a beta c d)

20:30:38 <johnhall> Gary: ground lists with Xpath operators

Gary Hallmark: ground lists with Xpath operators

20:30:56 <johnhall> csma: what perdicates?

Christian de Sainte Marie: what perdicates?

20:30:56 <sandro> PROPOSED: Core will have Ground Lists with basic XPath "Sequence" operators.

PROPOSED: Core will have Ground Lists with basic XPath "Sequence" operators.

20:31:05 <johnhall> Gary: empty and exists

Gary Hallmark: empty and exists

20:31:18 <DaveReynolds> -1 Xpath sequences are not nested, they are flat

Dave Reynolds: -1 Xpath sequences are not nested, they are flat

20:31:46 <sandro> PROPOSED: Core will have immutable Ground Lists (no variables stored inside the list) with basic XPath "Sequence" operators.

PROPOSED: Core will have immutable Ground Lists (no variables stored inside the list) with basic XPath "Sequence" operators.

20:31:47 <AxelPolleres> member

Axel Polleres: member

20:31:47 <AxelPolleres> first

Axel Polleres: first

20:31:47 <AxelPolleres> last

Axel Polleres: last

20:31:47 <AxelPolleres> length

Axel Polleres: length

20:32:35 <sandro> PROPOSED: Core will have immutable Ground Lists (no variables stored inside the list) with builtins paralleling the XPath "Sequence" functions (but this isn't a real XPath sequence, since it can be nested, etc)

PROPOSED: Core will have immutable Ground Lists (no variables stored inside the list) with builtins paralleling the XPath "Sequence" functions (but this isn't a real XPath sequence, since it can be nested, etc)

20:34:26 <johnhall> csma: see Changhai's wish list (slides)

Christian de Sainte Marie: see Changhai's wish list (slides)

20:35:04 <johnhall> csma: some Xpath are not relevant

Christian de Sainte Marie: some Xpath are not relevant

20:35:10 <sandro> PROPOSED: Core will have immutable Ground Lists (no variables stored inside the list) with builtins generally paralleling the XPath "Sequence" functions (but this isn't a real XPath sequence, since it can be nested, etc)

PROPOSED: Core will have immutable Ground Lists (no variables stored inside the list) with builtins generally paralleling the XPath "Sequence" functions (but this isn't a real XPath sequence, since it can be nested, etc)

20:35:16 <DaveReynolds> Is the proposal to remove strong safety at the same time?

Dave Reynolds: Is the proposal to remove strong safety at the same time?

20:35:31 <sandro> PROPOSED: Core will have immutable Ground Lists (no variables stored inside the list) with builtins generally paralleling the XPath "Sequence" functions (but this isn't a real XPath sequence, since it can be nested, etc).  (Actual builtins to be settled in the future, soon)

PROPOSED: Core will have immutable Ground Lists (no variables stored inside the list) with builtins generally paralleling the XPath "Sequence" functions (but this isn't a real XPath sequence, since it can be nested, etc). (Actual builtins to be settled in the future, soon)

20:36:46 <sandro> axel: Sure, if you're E-S-Safe, you can't do much with lists.   That's okay.

Axel Polleres: Sure, if you're E-S-Safe, you can't do much with lists. That's okay. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

20:36:47 <johnhall> ChrisW: safety is not a requirement in Core

Christopher Welty: safety is not a requirement in Core

20:38:18 <sandro> Gary: Lots of arithmetic violates strong safeness again.

Gary Hallmark: Lots of arithmetic violates strong safeness again. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

20:38:49 <sandro> Axel: but if we get rid of strong safeness, then many answer set programming systems wont be able to support Core.

Axel Polleres: but if we get rid of strong safeness, then many answer set programming systems wont be able to support Core. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

20:38:52 <johnhall> Axel: Datalog engines are not fully covered

Axel Polleres: Datalog engines are not fully covered

20:39:06 <sandro> axel: s-models, clasp,

Axel Polleres: s-models, clasp, [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

20:39:38 <johnhall> ChrisW: we have still not resolved safeness

Christopher Welty: we have still not resolved safeness

20:40:00 <sandro> PROPOSED: Core will have immutable Ground Lists (no variables stored inside the list) with builtins generally paralleling the XPath "Sequence" functions (but this isn't a real XPath sequence, since it can be nested, etc).  (Actual builtins to be settled in the future, soon)      (If we have strong safeness in Core, then this stuff will be mostly useless in Core.)

PROPOSED: Core will have immutable Ground Lists (no variables stored inside the list) with builtins generally paralleling the XPath "Sequence" functions (but this isn't a real XPath sequence, since it can be nested, etc). (Actual builtins to be settled in the future, soon) (If we have strong safeness in Core, then this stuff will be mostly useless in Core.)

20:40:15 <johnhall> ChrisW: BLD does not require safeness

Christopher Welty: BLD does not require safeness

20:40:38 <DaveReynolds> OK

Dave Reynolds: OK

20:40:57 <johnhall> ChrisW: can we save safeness until tomorrow, and decide on lists now?

Christopher Welty: can we save safeness until tomorrow, and decide on lists now?

20:40:59 <AdrianP> +1

Adrian Paschke: +1

20:41:02 <GaryHallmark> +1

Gary Hallmark: +1

20:41:07 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

20:41:21 <DaveReynolds> +1

Dave Reynolds: +1

20:41:23 <josb> 0

Jos de Bruijn: 0

20:41:26 <AxelPolleres> 0

Axel Polleres: 0

20:41:30 <cke> +1

Changhai Ke: +1

20:41:39 <Harold> +1

Harold Boley: +1

20:41:43 <johnhall> +1

+1

20:41:45 <ChrisW> 0

Christopher Welty: 0

20:41:48 <MichaelKifer> +1

Michael Kifer: +1

20:41:53 <sandro> RESOLVED: Core will have immutable Ground Lists (no variables stored inside the list) with builtins generally paralleling the XPath "Sequence" functions (but this isn't a real XPath sequence, since it can be nested, etc).  (Actual builtins to be settled in the future, soon)      (If we have strong safeness in Core, then this stuff will be mostly useless in Core.)

RESOLVED: Core will have immutable Ground Lists (no variables stored inside the list) with builtins generally paralleling the XPath "Sequence" functions (but this isn't a real XPath sequence, since it can be nested, etc). (Actual builtins to be settled in the future, soon) (If we have strong safeness in Core, then this stuff will be mostly useless in Core.)

20:42:03 <sandro> issue-94?

Sandro Hawke: ISSUE-94?

20:42:03 <trackbot> ISSUE-94 -- How to represent object fields and methods in RIF; esp. interoperability with Java OO model? -- OPEN

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-94 -- How to represent object fields and methods in RIF; esp. interoperability with Java OO model? -- OPEN

20:42:03 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/94

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/94

20:42:04 <johnhall> Closes Issue 94

Closes ISSUE-94

20:42:19 <sandro> issue-95?

Sandro Hawke: ISSUE-95?

20:42:19 <trackbot> ISSUE-95 -- Does RIF need a primitive data type (and associated builtins) for lists? -- OPEN

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-95 -- Does RIF need a primitive data type (and associated builtins) for lists? -- OPEN

20:42:19 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/95

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/95

20:42:28 <AxelPolleres> michael, the function symbols in dlv are not yet part of the standard distribution, AFAIK.

Axel Polleres: michael, the function symbols in dlv are not yet part of the standard distribution, AFAIK.

20:42:32 <johnhall> Issue 95, not 94

ISSUE-95, not 94

20:43:26 <ChrisW> action: gary to propose builtins for lists based on xpath sequence

ACTION: gary to propose builtins for lists based on xpath sequence

20:43:26 <trackbot> Created ACTION-743 - Propose builtins for lists based on xpath sequence [on Gary Hallmark - due 2009-04-22].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-743 - Propose builtins for lists based on xpath sequence [on Gary Hallmark - due 2009-04-22].

20:43:44 <sandro> Topic: Extensibility

5. Extensibility

20:44:23 <ChrisW> q?

Christopher Welty: q?

20:44:35 <johnhall> ChrisW: csma proposed - when you have something expressible in Core, you have to use Core syntax

Christopher Welty: csma proposed - when you have something expressible in Core, you have to use Core syntax

20:44:45 <csma> PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism at this stage; anything that can be expressed in Core MUST be (in the XML syntax)

PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism at this stage; anything that can be expressed in Core MUST be (in the XML syntax)

20:45:40 <sandro> Jos: this would require BLD producers to axiomatize equality.

Jos de Bruijn: this would require BLD producers to axiomatize equality. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

20:46:56 <johnhall> sandro: why would this be bad?

Sandro Hawke: why would this be bad?

20:47:52 <sandro> (is this really completely unacceptable...?)

Sandro Hawke: (is this really completely unacceptable...?)

20:48:19 <johnhall> ChrisW: identify the cases where the difference seems arbitrary?

Christopher Welty: identify the cases where the difference seems arbitrary?

20:48:41 <johnhall> csma: not arbitrary - sometimes just has the same effect

Christian de Sainte Marie: not arbitrary - sometimes just has the same effect

20:51:11 <johnhall> csma: purpose of common core is interoperability

Christian de Sainte Marie: purpose of common core is interoperability

20:51:44 <johnhall> ... if some things do not have to be expressed in core, thos things are not interoperable

... if some things do not have to be expressed in core, thos things are not interoperable

20:52:26 <johnhall> Sandro: equality is a sticking point

Sandro Hawke: equality is a sticking point

20:53:02 <johnhall> csma: if you can statically decide, then must be expressed in Core syntax

Christian de Sainte Marie: if you can statically decide, then must be expressed in Core syntax

20:53:30 <sandro> PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism at this stage; any syntactic form that can in all cases be expressed in Core, without super-linear blow-up MUST be (in the XML syntax)

PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism at this stage; any syntactic form that can in all cases be expressed in Core, without super-linear blow-up MUST be (in the XML syntax)

20:53:42 <johnhall> ... interoperatbility is not relevant for BLD?

... interoperatbility is not relevant for BLD?

20:54:35 <johnhall> Michael: why does anyone have to translate to Core - unless they want interoperability?

Michael Kifer: why does anyone have to translate to Core - unless they want interoperability?

20:54:53 <csma> PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism.

PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism.

20:55:08 <johnhall> Gary: cannot legislate - too many tricky cases

Gary Hallmark: cannot legislate - too many tricky cases

20:55:45 <sandro> PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism at this stage; we tell PRD and BLD producers they SHOULD translate to Core any rulesets which can be translated to Core with identical semantics.

PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism at this stage; we tell PRD and BLD producers they SHOULD translate to Core any rulesets which can be translated to Core with identical semantics.

20:55:54 <johnhall> ... say 'should' rather than 'must'

... say 'should' rather than 'must'

20:56:30 <AxelPolleres> I don't understand "identical" semantics

Axel Polleres: I don't understand "identical" semantics

20:56:37 <sandro> PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism at this stage; we tell PRD and BLD producers they SHOULD translate to Core any rulesets which can be translated to Core.

PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism at this stage; we tell PRD and BLD producers they SHOULD translate to Core any rulesets which can be translated to Core.

20:56:41 <johnhall> josb: should have a mechanism to detect if rules are redundant

Jos de Bruijn: should have a mechanism to detect if rules are redundant

20:57:13 <AxelPolleres> I don't understand "can be translated"... what kind of equivalence do we talk about here?!?

Axel Polleres: I don't understand "can be translated"... what kind of equivalence do we talk about here?!?

20:57:25 <sandro> PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism at this stage; our specs for PRD and BLD say producers they SHOULD translate to Core any rulesets which can be translated to Core, and we'll give some specific examples they should use (eg for removing Do/Assert).

PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism at this stage; our specs for PRD and BLD say producers they SHOULD translate to Core any rulesets which can be translated to Core, and we'll give some specific examples they should use (eg for removing Do/Assert).

20:57:31 <johnhall> Michael: tell people to write in Core, provide algorithm for translation to dialects

Michael Kifer: tell people to write in Core, provide algorithm for translation to dialects

20:57:38 <AxelPolleres> q+

Axel Polleres: q+

20:57:54 <johnhall> csma: the algorithm was the extensibility mechanism

Christian de Sainte Marie: the algorithm was the extensibility mechanism

20:58:09 <DaveReynolds> q+

Dave Reynolds: q+

20:59:13 <johnhall> Axel: what does 'can be translated' mean?

Axel Polleres: what does 'can be translated' mean?

20:59:26 <sandro> PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism at this stage.  We'll provide some translations to Core (such as removing Do/Assert in some case) and tell producers they SHOULD do them.

PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism at this stage. We'll provide some translations to Core (such as removing Do/Assert in some case) and tell producers they SHOULD do them.

20:59:47 <josb> I can support this one

Jos de Bruijn: I can support this one

21:00:07 <johnhall> DAve: by 'producers' rule set authors or translators?

Dave Reynolds: by 'producers' rule set authors or translators?

21:00:21 <johnhall> Sandro: translators

Sandro Hawke: translators

21:01:26 <johnhall> Harold: this is about whole set of dialects - best practice guidance about using the lowest

Harold Boley: this is about whole set of dialects - best practice guidance about using the lowest

21:01:42 <johnhall> ... where to place the guidance

... where to place the guidance

21:02:17 <johnhall> ChrisW: rules authors - use lowest common case; translators - translate where you can

Christopher Welty: rules authors - use lowest common case; translators - translate where you can

21:03:04 <DaveReynolds> q-

Dave Reynolds: q-

21:03:27 <johnhall> Michael: there will be different plug-ins, with options to save in Core - which may not be possible for some

Michael Kifer: there will be different plug-ins, with options to save in Core - which may not be possible for some

21:04:07 <sandro> PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism at this stage.  We'll provide some translations to Core (such as removing Do/Assert in some case) and tell producers they SHOULD do them.

PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism at this stage. We'll provide some translations to Core (such as removing Do/Assert in some case) and tell producers they SHOULD do them.

21:04:58 <sandro> PROPOSED: We will not define a fallback mechanism at this stage.  We'll provide some translations to Core (such as removing Do/Assert in some case) and tell producers they SHOULD do them.

PROPOSED: We will not define a fallback mechanism at this stage. We'll provide some translations to Core (such as removing Do/Assert in some case) and tell producers they SHOULD do them.

21:05:21 <johnhall> ChrisW: this is about an explicit mechansm for fall-backs

Christopher Welty: this is about an explicit mechansm for fall-backs

21:05:34 <Harold> +1

Harold Boley: +1

21:05:36 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

21:05:48 <josb> +1

Jos de Bruijn: +1

21:05:50 <AdrianP> +1

Adrian Paschke: +1

21:05:52 <MichaelKifer> +1

Michael Kifer: +1

21:05:53 <cke> +1

Changhai Ke: +1

21:06:02 <sandro> PROPOSED: We will not define a fallback mechanism at this stage.  We'll provide some translations to Core (such as removing Do/Assert in some case) and tell producers they SHOULD do them.  (Closing issue-57)

PROPOSED: We will not define a fallback mechanism at this stage. We'll provide some translations to Core (such as removing Do/Assert in some case) and tell producers they SHOULD do them. (Closing ISSUE-57)

21:06:06 <sandro> issue-57?

Sandro Hawke: ISSUE-57?

21:06:06 <trackbot> ISSUE-57 -- Does RIF specify an extensibility mechanism? -- OPEN

Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-57 -- Does RIF specify an extensibility mechanism? -- OPEN

21:06:06 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/57

Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/57

21:06:08 <DaveReynolds> +1

Dave Reynolds: +1

21:06:20 <johnhall> 0

0

21:06:28 <sandro> RESOLVED: We will not define a fallback mechanism at this stage.  We'll provide some translations to Core (such as removing Do/Assert in some case) and tell producers they SHOULD do them.  (Closing issue-57)

RESOLVED: We will not define a fallback mechanism at this stage. We'll provide some translations to Core (such as removing Do/Assert in some case) and tell producers they SHOULD do them. (Closing ISSUE-57)

21:07:48 <sandro> sandro: I think BLD should drop NAU's and include some text about axiomatizing equality.

Sandro Hawke: I think BLD should drop NAU's and include some text about axiomatizing equality. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ]

21:08:17 <sandro> action: gary add text to PRD about how folks should get rid of do/assert when they can.

ACTION: gary add text to PRD about how folks should get rid of do/assert when they can.

21:08:17 <trackbot> Created ACTION-744 - Add text to PRD about how folks should get rid of do/assert when they can. [on Gary Hallmark - due 2009-04-22].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-744 - Add text to PRD about how folks should get rid of do/assert when they can. [on Gary Hallmark - due 2009-04-22].

21:09:31 <johnhall> Topic: Object Representation (ISSUE-94, Cardinality in Core)

6. Object Representation (ISSUE-94, Cardinality in Core)

21:09:39 <sandro> action: harold draft some text for BLD about consumers doing translations-to-Core when they can.

ACTION: harold draft some text for BLD about consumers doing translations-to-Core when they can.

21:09:39 <trackbot> Created ACTION-745 - Draft some text for BLD about consumers doing translations-to-Core when they can. [on Harold Boley - due 2009-04-22].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-745 - Draft some text for BLD about consumers doing translations-to-Core when they can. [on Harold Boley - due 2009-04-22].

21:09:49 <csma> PROPOSED: Do not change anything (taking into account that PRD has an action with replacement semantics: Modify) (closing issue-94)

PROPOSED: Do not change anything (taking into account that PRD has an action with replacement semantics: Modify) (closing ISSUE-94)

21:10:36 <johnhall> ChrisW: Cardinality in Core?

Christopher Welty: Cardinality in Core?

21:10:51 <johnhall> Michael: too complicated

Michael Kifer: too complicated

21:11:26 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

21:11:33 <josb> +1

Jos de Bruijn: +1

21:11:35 <johnhall> csma: no time to add new things that will raise new issues with no time to resolve

Christian de Sainte Marie: no time to add new things that will raise new issues with no time to resolve

21:11:39 <DaveReynolds> +1

Dave Reynolds: +1

21:11:45 <Harold> +1

Harold Boley: +1

21:11:48 <cke> +1

Changhai Ke: +1

21:11:50 <AdrianP> +1

Adrian Paschke: +1

21:12:48 <johnhall> Michael: will not be the same in dialects as in Core

Michael Kifer: will not be the same in dialects as in Core

21:12:56 <johnhall> ChrisW: has to be

Christopher Welty: has to be

21:13:21 <johnhall> Michael: same semantics, different repesentation

Michael Kifer: same semantics, different repesentation

21:14:07 <AxelPolleres> +1

Axel Polleres: +1

21:14:07 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-94, without adding cardinality constraints, and with PRD having an action with replacement semantics (modify).

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-94, without adding cardinality constraints, and with PRD having an action with replacement semantics (modify).

21:14:36 <cke> +1

Changhai Ke: +1

21:14:38 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-94, without adding cardinality constraints, or other object-representation beyond frames, and with PRD having an action with replacement semantics (modify).

PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-94, without adding cardinality constraints, or other object-representation beyond frames, and with PRD having an action with replacement semantics (modify).

21:14:50 <AdrianP> +1

Adrian Paschke: +1

21:14:51 <MichaelKifer> +1

Michael Kifer: +1

21:14:54 <sandro> +1

Sandro Hawke: +1

21:14:55 <johnhall> +1

+1

21:14:56 <DaveReynolds> +1

Dave Reynolds: +1

21:14:57 <Harold> +1

Harold Boley: +1

21:15:11 <AxelPolleres> +1

Axel Polleres: +1

21:15:12 <ChrisW> +1

Christopher Welty: +1

21:15:14 <GaryHallmark> 0

Gary Hallmark: 0

21:15:18 <sandro> RESOLVED: Close issue-94, without adding cardinality constraints, or other object-representation beyond frames, and with PRD having an action with replacement semantics (modify).

RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-94, without adding cardinality constraints, or other object-representation beyond frames, and with PRD having an action with replacement semantics (modify).

21:15:36 <ChrisW> Gary: would have prefered to have cardinality constraints

Gary Hallmark: would have prefered to have cardinality constraints [ Scribe Assist by Christopher Welty ]

21:15:46 <ChrisW> action: chris to close issue-94

ACTION: chris to close ISSUE-94

21:15:46 <trackbot> Created ACTION-746 - Close issue-94 [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-04-22].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-746 - Close ISSUE-94 [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-04-22].

21:15:49 <ChrisW> rrsagent, pointer?

Christopher Welty: rrsagent, pointer?

21:15:49 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc#T21-15-49

RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc#T21-15-49

21:16:08 <ChrisW> action: chris to close issue-57

ACTION: chris to close ISSUE-57

21:16:09 <trackbot> Created ACTION-747 - Close issue-57 [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-04-22].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-747 - Close ISSUE-57 [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-04-22].

21:16:57 <sandro> thanks, DaveReynolds !

Sandro Hawke: thanks, DaveReynolds !

21:16:58 <ChrisW> bye dave, and thanks

Christopher Welty: bye dave, and thanks

21:16:58 <Zakim> -DaveReynolds

Zakim IRC Bot: -DaveReynolds

21:17:07 <Zakim> -W3C

Zakim IRC Bot: -W3C

21:17:08 <Zakim> SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM has ended

Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM has ended

21:17:08 <Zakim> Attendees were DaveReynolds, W3C

Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were DaveReynolds, W3C

21:18:24 <johnhall> Topic: XML Schemata

7. XML Schemata

21:18:58 <johnhall> cke: Core

Changhai Ke: Core

21:20:21 <johnhall> csma: What has been added?

Christian de Sainte Marie: What has been added?

21:20:53 <Harold> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core#Appendix:_XML_Schema_for_RIF-Core

Harold Boley: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core#Appendix:_XML_Schema_for_RIF-Core

21:20:57 <johnhall> cke: 'Atomic' was 'atom' and 'frame'

Changhai Ke: 'Atomic' was 'atom' and 'frame'

21:21:52 <johnhall> csma: requires that PRD changes as well

Christian de Sainte Marie: requires that PRD changes as well

21:22:30 <johnhall> Harold: because 'atomic' should not be in head

Harold Boley: because 'atomic' should not be in head

21:24:11 <johnhall> csma: though that 'subclass' had been removed

Christian de Sainte Marie: though that 'subclass' had been removed

21:24:31 <johnhall> cke: to check 'subclass' for PRD

Changhai Ke: to check 'subclass' for PRD

21:25:43 <johnhall> csma: 'subclass' should be in 'FORMULA', but not in 'ATOMIC'

Christian de Sainte Marie: 'subclass' should be in 'FORMULA', but not in 'ATOMIC'

21:28:00 <johnhall> ChrisW: add comment about why 'Atoms' are not 'ATOMIC@

Christopher Welty: add comment about why 'Atoms' are not 'ATOMIC@

21:28:18 <johnhall> 'ATOMIC' not 'ATOMIC@

'ATOMIC' not 'ATOMIC@

21:33:24 <Harold> Equal          ::= TERM '=' ( TERM | IRIMETA? 'External' '(' Expr ')' )

(No events recorded for 5 minutes)

Harold Boley: Equal ::= TERM '=' ( TERM | IRIMETA? 'External' '(' Expr ')' )

21:33:28 <ChrisW> issue: drop restriction in core that there are no nested externals

ISSUE: drop restriction in core that there are no nested externals

21:33:28 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-99 - Drop restriction in core that there are no nested externals ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/99/edit .

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-99 - Drop restriction in core that there are no nested externals ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/99/edit .

21:33:37 <johnhall> Michael: drop the restriction that externals cannot be nested

Michael Kifer: drop the restriction that externals cannot be nested

21:35:20 <Harold> "Thus, while function applications are not allowed as arguments to predicates, built-in and externally defined functions are permitted inside equalities. "

Harold Boley: "Thus, while function applications are not allowed as arguments to predicates, built-in and externally defined functions are permitted inside equalities. "

21:35:41 <Harold> (http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core#Terms_of_RIF-Core)

Harold Boley: (http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core#Terms_of_RIF-Core)

21:37:45 <Harold> NmNot ---> InflaNot

Harold Boley: NmNot ---> InflaNot

21:38:33 <johnhall> cke: CoreRule

Changhai Ke: CoreRule

21:40:18 <johnhall> csma: removed sections because we have decided not to have extension mechanism

Christian de Sainte Marie: removed sections because we have decided not to have extension mechanism

21:40:29 <johnhall> cke, not csma

cke, not csma

21:41:39 <johnhall> Gary: 'AndAction' should be 'And' in Core

Gary Hallmark: 'AndAction' should be 'And' in Core

21:42:36 <johnhall> axel is here, but not in the room at the moment

axel is here, but not in the room at the moment

21:43:45 <ChrisW> issue: add and back into Core conclusion

ISSUE: add and back into Core conclusion

21:43:45 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-100 - Add and back into Core conclusion ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/100/edit .

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-100 - Add and back into Core conclusion ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/100/edit .

21:44:44 <johnhall> csma: BLD should have conjunction in head

Christian de Sainte Marie: BLD should have conjunction in head

21:45:52 <csma> s/BLD should/we have a resolution that BLD/

Christian de Sainte Marie: s/BLD should/we have a resolution that BLD/

21:51:10 <ChrisW> action: csma to add modify to PRD spec as we defined it

(No events recorded for 5 minutes)

ACTION: csma to add modify to PRD spec as we defined it

21:51:11 <trackbot> Created ACTION-748 - Add modify to PRD spec as we defined it [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-04-22].

Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-748 - Add modify to PRD spec as we defined it [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-04-22].

21:57:29 <Harold> <xs:attribute name="ordered" type="xs:string" fixed="yes"/>

(No events recorded for 6 minutes)

Harold Boley: <xs:attribute name="ordered" type="xs:string" fixed="yes"/>

21:59:38 <johnhall> csma: 'And' is already defined in the condition block

Christian de Sainte Marie: 'And' is already defined in the condition block

22:00:01 <johnhall> Gary; in BLD is a different production

Gary; in BLD is a different production

22:00:29 <johnhall> Harold: have to define context

Harold Boley: have to define context

22:00:45 <johnhall> csma: should be the same

Christian de Sainte Marie: should be the same

22:01:38 <johnhall> Gary: without context, will get a syntax error in BLD

Gary Hallmark: without context, will get a syntax error in BLD

22:02:21 <johnhall> csma: who will do similar exercise for BLD

Christian de Sainte Marie: who will do similar exercise for BLD

22:02:45 <johnhall> Harold: may be so artificial that we won't want to do it

Harold Boley: may be so artificial that we won't want to do it

22:03:25 <johnhall> csma: one way to test is to rewrite BLD on top of Core schema

Christian de Sainte Marie: one way to test is to rewrite BLD on top of Core schema

22:04:23 <johnhall> ChrisW: any idea how much work to rewrite Core import?

Christopher Welty: any idea how much work to rewrite Core import?

22:04:54 <johnhall> ChrisW: postpone consideration until tomorrow

Christopher Welty: postpone consideration until tomorrow

22:05:33 <ChrisW> adjourned

Christopher Welty: adjourned

22:07:05 <GaryHallmark> I added proposed List builtins at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Lists#List_Builtins

Gary Hallmark: I added proposed List builtins at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Lists#List_Builtins

22:08:46 <ChrisW> http://maps.yahoo.com/#mvt=m&lat=42.364408&lon=-71.089943&zoom=17&q1=1%2520Kendall%2520Sq%252C%2520Cambridge%252C%2520MA%252C%252002139

Christopher Welty: http://maps.yahoo.com/#mvt=m&lat=42.364408&lon=-71.089943&zoom=17&q1=1%2520Kendall%2520Sq%252C%2520Cambridge%252C%2520MA%252C%252002139



Formatted by CommonScribe


This revision (#2) generated 2009-04-20 00:26:16 UTC by 'cwelty', comments: 'Annotated some scribe votes'