Chatlog 2008-09-26

From RIF
Jump to: navigation, search

See original RRSAgent log and preview nicely formatted version.

Please justify/explain all edits to this page, in your "edit summary" text.

Day 1 of F2F11.


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