SV_MEETING_TITLE -- 3 Jan 2006

<FrancoisBry> please list conferences

<ChrisW> sandro, you there?

<bill> Chris, I seemed to have figured it all out. Thanks.

<bill> howdy

<bill> I need a better nickname....

<sandro> FrancoisBry, I wouldn't expect us to use Zakim's agenda management yet.....

<FrancoisBry> Sandro, please what is the command to answer to you only?

<sandro> FrancoisBry, to IRC someone privately, you usually do "/msg <name> <text>". I don't know if Zakim will answer privately, though.

<sandro> I think we have about two more minutes before people can start calling in.

<aharth> hi, i'm scribing today... anything I have to do to get the final notes from zakim?

<sandro> The notes are managed by rrsagent, not Zakim. There's a command for it, after the meeting, something like "rrsagent, create minutes" although that's not exactly it. It probably wont be good enough, but it's worth a try.

<aharth> ok i'll try later

<MarkusK> IPcaller is me

<Allen> zakin, mute me

<sandro> zakim ??P22 is Christian

<FrancoisBry> ??P28 is me

<JeremyCarroll> Zakim mute me

<Allen> zakim Allen_Ginsberg is me

<igor> zakim aabb is me

<Hassan> Hassan Ait-Kaci

<csma> zzakim, who is noisy?

<DaveReynolds> zakin, mute me

<ChrisW> agenda is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2005Dec/0179.html

<sandro> MarkusK, I think the second one is someone who called from the phone number you used in the last meeting.

<Benjamin> +Benjamin

<Donald> zalim,??P51 is me

<sandro> Donald, you misspelled Zakim

<JeremyCarroll> I suggest that PaulaP asks "Zakim, who is talking?" and then speaks for 10 secs to identify her line

<sandro> good plan, JeremyCarroll

<MinsuJang> a is me

chrisw: welcome to rif telecon

<johnhall> aahh is me

<saidtabet> Happy New Year everyone!

chrisw: tuesdays at this time there will be rif telecons, one next week
... comments on minutes from last telecon?

<sandro> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2005Dec/0164.html

<Benjamin> +Benjamin

<AxelPolleres> +1

<csma> +1

<josb> +1

chrisw: minutes accepted, no objections
... amendments to the agenda? none
... posted a message to use zakim for telecons, please read the zakim doc to organize the telecon if you haven't done yet
... people start to use the wiki and there's tracking of recent changes
...proposal: people should sign the sections in the wiki which they edit

sandro: why?

<JeremyCarroll> I want to know too

<AxelPolleres> Sandro: +1

chrisw: changes should be identifiable somehow

<josb> 1+

<mdean> is there a Wiki interface to cvs log that will label each line with the author and timestamp?

csma: another reason to put discussion points in an email message makes it possible to reference that message

<sandro> not sure, mdean

chrisw: objections to the idea of authorship?

sandro: marking changes might clutter the consensus documents on the wiki pages

<edbark> But when we question what was meant we need a person to ask

<josb> chrisw: +1

chrisw: some of the pages are more structured like a discussion, want to see who said what

csma: is it different to people adding the name and the date of change to the page last time?
... identification and date of change were discussed last time, info in the minutes

<ChrisW> ACTION: sandro add link about wiki usage [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/03-rif-minutes.html#action01]

<Harold> Re Wiki: The glossary, e.g., could acquire a more official status, with authorship etc.

<ChrisW> CONTINUED

<scribe> ACTION: sandro update main web page re: meetings [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/03-rif-minutes.html#action02]

josdebrujin: we need to reference parts of wiki pages in email messages

chrisw: possible to add section numbers?

<DavidHirtle> for example: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/FrontPage?action=recall&rev=19

sandro: wiki already does hex-hash anchor on each heading

<msintek> the wiki has anchors: [[Anchor(anchorname)]]

<DavidHirtle> each revision has an anchor

sandro: put an anchor on the text in the wiki and then reference it

csma: if you use a reference we should put it in an email message

josdebrujin: possible to refernce to older versions of a wiki?

<DavidHirtle> (that's the link I posted earlier)

sandro: the version reference in the wiki can be used to reference to older versions

harold: two sets of wiki pages, one class of pages for discussions, one class more official like the glossary and use cases

<JeremyCarroll> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/FrontPage?action=diff&rev2=21&rev1=20

<JeremyCarroll> e.g

chrisw: i think this is evolving, especially the set of pages that evolve towards notes
... move on to item 2 on the agenda: liason
... other standards efforts that overlap with the rif

<sandro> For example: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Use_Cases?action=recall&rev=4

chrisw: one is SPARQL, the RDF query language

<JeremyCarroll> (actually it is agenda item 3)

chrisw: PRR effort which is OMG effort
... common logic which is an ISO effort

<sandro> Diff-link example: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Use_Cases?action=diff&rev2=4&rev1=3
...proposal: people who represent the rif in these groups
... who is already active with other standards bodies?

donald: there's also lisason for an omg group

<josb> The OMG effort is SBVR

<sandro> cf http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison

chrisw: liason means to represent the working group in other efforts to avoid duplication of work

csma: the complete PRR wg is part of the rif, do we need liason there?

chrisw: a appointed liason person would help in coordination

edbark: there might be an OWL1.1 activity, we should keep an eye on that as well

<Elisa> w.r.t the OMG Ontology Definition Metamodel, which Chris and I are co-editing, I'll volunteer to be

<Elisa> liaison, with Evan as back-up

<Zakim> FrancoisBry, you wanted to Liaison/others

francoisbry: query languages and xquery might be relevant as well to the activity to this wg

chrisw: these are not ongoing efforts?

<josb> The workshop mentioned by edbark is the OWL experiences and directions workshop

<josb> http://www.mindswap.org/2005/OWLWorkshop/

chrisw: do we need a liason for xquery?

sandro: is it useful for us and then to do that?

<JeremyCarroll> Xquery is at CR http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/CR-xquery-20051103/

<mdean> Peter Patel-Scheider and Bijan Parsia are very involved with OWL 1.1 - either of them would be a good liaison

<Benjamin> Z

francoisbry: at one point you would have procedural attachements and rules and integrity constraints might be issues that touch the work of rif

<Benjamin> +1

chrisw: we look at that and what's the relationship should be

benjamin: another category of liasoning: standards bodies such as NIST, maybe RuleML, possibly SWSL, others that do related things

chrisw: those are informal efforts, liason could be also informal

<edbark> chrisw: +1 no formal liaison to NIST

<bill> yup

harold: web services within W3 might be another candidate, especially SWS have industry involved

ianh: owl 1.1 activity, there was a meeting at ISWC with people who use OWL and develop infrastructure
... currently not an W3C activity, reason for the meeting was to gather ideas

<csma> re liaison with NIST: NIST is represented in the WG, so no liaison needed

chrisw: we've identified activities for liason, think about if you should be the liason person for a group?

paulv: could we have wiki pages set up for the relevant liason pages?

sandro: plan was to include the liason person information in the glossary

<edbark> paulv: +1 also relevance to RIF

chrisw: next item on agenda, 3: use case and requirements

bill: volunteers will be decided later?

chrisw: yes

francoisbry: should we reconsider the classification effort?
... maybe classfiy along four or five dimensions, proposed some ideas about that in an email message already

<PaulaP> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Multi-Dimensional_Use_Case_Classification

francoisbry: reactivity vs. integrity constraints...

chrisw: any comments on the classification scheme?

csma: maybe francois could try to apply the scheme on the use cases?

francoisbry: how much time do i get for doing this?

allen: no problems with that
... the use case requirements document should to relate use cases to requirements
... the proposed classification was more complex

<FrancoisBry> allen, relatingv use cases to requirements is THE reason why I proposed the multi-dimensional classification scheme.

allen: want to have three categories: specific language features (e.g. fuzzy logic), middle-level feature (e.g. enable to express semantics), examples of useful interchange applications
... then say why specific requirements are requested

<Allen> that should be "meta-level" features

???: some of the classification is overlapping, we try to have something by the 17th this month

<sandro> Maybe FrancoisBry and David and Allen can talk on the phone, later today?

<DavidHirtle> s /???/DavidHirtle

chrisw: rather view that as iteration on the document that allen and david produce

said: having a multidimensional classification is important but should be feasible

chrisw: editors will use the information about classifciation to produce the draft due in two weeks

<csma> +1

<AxelPolleres> +1

chrisw: then we can do an iteration on the scheme they propose

<josb> +1

<MinsuJang> +1

francoisbry: suggest that a small group of people interested in the classification issue might work more closely with the editors

<PaulaP> I can help Francois in classifying the use cases so as to speed up the work

chrisw: the editors to propose the document and then the group is discussion and refining based on recommendations of the group

<Benjamin> ChrisW, how long are we going to run this telecon call? 12:30 EST?

allen: we put up the new template and send out email messages about the changes

<DavidHirtle> yes, it's done for some but certainly not all

<Harold> Re Use Cases: Another (simple, but quite WG-relevant) dimension is "Phase 1 vs. Phase 2".

<ChrisW> yes - we will end on time

allen: would be helpful if people change the use case pages

chrisw: everyone should keep an eye on what requirements are missing
... next agenda item: OWL and RDF compatibility (4.)
... anyone want to discuss the rdf and owl compatibility?

josdebrujin: some pages on the pages, pfps added some challenges to the compatibility issue, jos posted some suggestion, need to provoke more discussion

chrisw: mailing list would be the right way to discuss the matter

<josb> +1

sandro: do we want to use email tags as the SWBP wg does

<scribe> ACTION: chris to propose a set of tags for different subgroups [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/03-rif-minutes.html#action03]

<Hassan> yes

chrisw: any more? no, let's move on to next item
... hassan added an alternative bottom-up approach
... this type of discussion should be done via mailing list
... we do need a list of rule systems we want to consider
... volunteeer to compile that list of rule systems?

<scribe> ACTION: benjamin to start a wiki page with initial list of systems [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/03-rif-minutes.html#action04]

benjamin: should be related to Harold's ruleml classification

<scribe> ACTION: harold to a fine classification of rule systems [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/03-rif-minutes.html#action05]

chrisw: any other comments on classification effort?

<scribe> ACTION: chris clarify desiderata forlist of classifications [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/03-rif-minutes.html#action06]

<scribe> CONTINUED

chrisw: propose to adjourn

<josb> +1

<csma> +1

<bill> Second

<JeffPan> +1

<holger> +1

<saidtabet> +1

<igor> +1

<PaulaP> +1

<Benjamin> +1

<AxelPolleres> +1

<MinsuJang> +1

<AxelPolleres> +1

<Hassan> +1

<josb> +1

<sandro> google finds me lots of irc clients.... http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/Chat/IRC-Clients/

<msintek> +1

<Guizhen> +1

<GiorgosStamou> +1

<saidtabet> Have a good week everyone!

<igor> bye

<FrancoisBry> quit

meeting adjourned, happy new year

<PaulaP> happy new year!!

<MinsuJang> bye

<Guizhen> quit

<igor> quit

<GerdWagner> quit

rssagent, list the minutes please

<GerdWagner> -GerdWagner

- DRAFT -

SV_MEETING_TITLE

3 Jan 2006

Attendees

Contents

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output