RIF telecon 2005-10-01 -- 10 Jan 2006

<FrancoisBry> quit

this conference is SW_RIF

<irc> hi, anybody knows how to submit the conference code using skype?

<ChrisW> irc, who are you?

irc is andreas harth, I guess!

<scribe> Scribe: Axel Polleres

<scribe> ScribeNick: AxelPolleres

<ChrisW> you are p21

<bill> anyone have the conference code?

<josb> bill: conference code is: 74394

<bill> hmm... tried that

<aharth> it should be 74394# but it says it's invalid

ADMIN

<bill> same thing i get

<josb> try to dial *0

<josb> you should be connected to an operator

<mdean> i'm also having trouble getting in - will try the operator

<IanH> I tried talking, and it seems I am muted (as I requested)

<DanC> ChrisW, do you have what you need for this meeting? Is sandro around?

Christian: reminds all to start zakim interaction with /me

<ChrisW> sandro is on the call

<bill> ??P49 is me

accept minutes with minor modifications

<FrancoisBry> Who is speaking?

<ChrisW> +1

csma: replace standard bodies with organisations

<josb> +1

<igor> +1

<FrancoisBry> +1

<PaulaP> +1

csma: remove NIST from list.
... change systems to rule systems in Benajmins action item
... minutes accepted, no further agenda items.

<scribe> ACTION: ??? [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/10-rif-minutes.html#action01]

<JeremyCarroll> +1 to Sandro; WG is public, technical discussion is public

csma: For member-list is to use only for issues which are member confidential.

s/Wiki-usage Wiki-usage

<scribe> ACTION: sandro update main web page [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/10-rif-minutes.html#action02]

Liaison

<ChrisW> ACTION: sandro update main web page re: meetings [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/10-rif-minutes.html#action03]

<ChrisW> ACTION: sandro add link about wiki usage [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/10-rif-minutes.html#action04]

<scribe> ACTION: sandro update main web page [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/10-rif-minutes.html#action05]

<ChrisW> Enrico Franconi to be SPARQL liason

<FrancoisBry> Massimo Marchiori would be a good liaison for XQuery/XPath, I think.

<ChrisW> +1

<ChrisW> Paul Vincent to liason for PRR

Chris: Liaison only required for formal standards bodies activities

Elisa: ISO IEC Joint Task Force 1, SC 32, Working Group 2: Metadata Standards might be interesting
... for liaison. Contact Ed Barkmeyer.

<scribe> ACTION: csma to ask ISO whether liaison is worthwhile and why [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/10-rif-minutes.html#action06]

<ChrisW> he is not

<ChrisW> harry delugach is the formal ISO member for CL

csma: further liaisons to be proposed by mail

<ChrisW> Agendum: 3. Use Case & Requirements (35 min)

use cases and requirements

<Allen> +q

<Allen> q

<sandro> you mean q+

<scribe> ACTION: Use case editors publish first draft by Jan 17 [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/10-rif-minutes.html#action07]

<Allen> Oops dropped the call be right back

David: Allen sent out a classification this morning per mail.
... to be discussed.

<Allen> +zakim, unmute me

csma: to be discussed together with the editors' draft.

Allen: will add classification to the Wiki.

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/General_Use_Case_Categories

<Elisa> For Liaison potential: ISO IEC Joint Task Force 1, SC 32, Working Group 2: Metadata Standards

<Elisa> US national body is ANSI L8

<Elisa> Web site for this organization is http://metadata-standards.org/

Allen: contains sort of in spirit of OWL-use case doc a list of categories of requirements and a classification

<sandro> +1 great idea

<PaulaP> +1 good idea

<Elisa> Current work includes standards for metadata registration (including ontology and potentially rules related

<Elisa> metadata registration), model registration, metadata interoperability, and Common Logic

csma: main objective is of this document is to check whether all requirements are covered or whether we missed anything.

<FrancoisBry> Allen/David use case classification is focused on application fields. Is this enough?

Sandro: Agreement on grouping use cases in more abstract categories.

<DavidHirtle> thanks for the wiki fix, Markusk :)

David,Allen: summarize their classification.

<fgm> are we permited to suggest new use cases?

<GaryHallmark> Enterprise Information Integration is under Decision Support rather than Information Integration

<MarkusK> Yes, I wondered too, why this is the case.

Hassan: As for use cases classification, hassan sees two axes: language issues or certain application situations.
... discrimination should be done on these criteria.

<Allen> +q

<Allen> q

Francois: Classification by David and Allen is driven by applications, but classification by types of rules and data accessed should be considered.
... also relationships to query languages.

Allen: classification is more like functionality than applications.

<DavidHirtle> here's the OWL UC&R document we refer to: http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/

<DavidHirtle> (recommendation)

<FrancoisBry> The same functionality can be achieved either by active rules or deductive rule.

<FrancoisBry> Starting somewhere: +1

csma: We have to start somewhere, and Allen's/David's classification will help to progress. Any list of categories can be discussed.

Ian: Use cases which aare asking for certain features to increase language expressivity should be considered.
... although general and maybe not specific to one concrete usage scenario.

<josb> csma: +1

csma: put more expressive KR into rule language/engine classification

<DavidHirtle> the email-to-wiki transfer is done: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/General_Use_Case_Categories

Allen: Can add a category "Rich Knowledge Representation features".

<Zakim> sandro, you wanted to say what FrancoisBry is saying sounds like Requirements

Sandro: what FrancoisBry is saying sounds more like Requirements
... Use cases should be more marketing, i.e. WHY RIF is to be used.

<csma> +1

<johnhall> I volunteer Said Tabet and me for regulation/constraint compliance

<FrancoisBry> +1

<IanH> yes

<scribe> ACTION: Ian writes up a new category in the use cases [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/10-rif-minutes.html#action08]

<scribe> ACTION: CSMA to take over Interoperability Across Rule Engines and Tools [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/10-rif-minutes.html#action09]

<DaveReynolds> I could do #6 (publication) - should be relatively short since there's only two entries at present :-)

<scribe> ACTION: allen to take over Third Party Rule-Interchange-Enabling Service Providers [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/10-rif-minutes.html#action10]

<csma> You can volunteer for a category on IRC...

<Allen> new page for general rule cases is http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/General_Use_Case_Categories

<Harold> Hi DaveReynolds, fine with me (having entered the other entry in #6)

<PaulaP> I volunteer for Policy-based transaction authorization and access control

Hassan: Classification should reflect the issues in the use case template. categorisation more explicit on interchange.

<scribe> ACTION: Paula to take over Policy-based transaction authorization and access control [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/10-rif-minutes.html#action11]

Allen: some use cases still unclassified/incomplete.

David: feel free to add more information to use cases.

Chris: could allen and david check use cases which are not template-compliant.

<FrancoisBry> Sorry, I must leave now. Bye!

<FrancoisBry> quit

<scribe> ACTION: Allen and David to check use cases for template-compliance and list them on the mailinglist. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/10-rif-minutes.html#action12]

csma: this will e.g. help to identify where proper systemsa are already available or not yet.

<scribe> ACTION: Frank to take over Information Integration [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/10-rif-minutes.html#action13]

<scribe> ACTION: Said to take over Regulation/Constraint Compliance Monitoring [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/10-rif-minutes.html#action14]

<DaveReynolds> I volunteered for #6 and Harold said he was happy with that

<johnhall> I already volunteered Said and me for reg compliance

<DaveReynolds> #6 = publication

<scribe> ACTION: Dave Reynolds to take over Publication [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/10-rif-minutes.html#action15]

<scribe> ACTION: chrisW to find somebody for Decision Support [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/10-rif-minutes.html#action16]

<Hassan> who's beeping?

Allen: Deadline for update 48h from now.

<PaulaP> +1

<sandro> +1

OWL & RDF Compatibility

<josb> There was hardly any change on the wiki

Sandro: not much change on the wiki recently.

<josb> it was started by Michael Sintek

ChrisW: let's talk about email-thread.
... Relationship to SPARQL.
... Do we commit to be compatible with SPARQL? Does this give us RDF compatibility?

csma: what than about OWL?

Jos: depends on what we mean by "compatibility".

<Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to answer

Jeremy: Compatibility with SPARQL, boils down to compatibility with RDF Semantics.
... not considered in SPARQL primarily.

<inserted> SPARQL

Ian: Propose query language and language for expressing conditions

<JeremyCarroll> Jeremy: said SPARQL is primarily about RDF graph not about RDF semantics

<josb> +1

<josb> +++++1

<JeremyCarroll> -1

<DaveReynolds> -1

<ChrisW> -1

csma: move the discussion to email.

chris,jeremy,daveReynolds: disagree with Ian and stress importance of RDF semantics.

Classification

<scribe> ACTION: benjamin to start a wiki page with initial list of systems [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/10-rif-minutes.html#action17]

<scribe> ACTION: Harold to add fine classification [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/10-rif-minutes.html#action18]

<scribe> ACTION: chris to clarify desiderata for list of classifications [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/10-rif-minutes.html#action19]

<scribe> ACTION: chris to provide classifications draft Jan 31 [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/10-rif-minutes.html#action20]

Harold: somehow resolved Banjamin's action already with respect to languages, but not systems.

jos: Is the classification about rule languages or implementations?

Chris: current classification by harold does not cover implemented systems.
... people should add their implemented systems.

<scribe> ACTION: csma to open a page for collecting systems. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/10-rif-minutes.html#action21]

hassan: dont't know where in the classification to add implemented languages which spread over harolds classification.

csma: please continue discussion on the mailinglist.
... nothing to add for classification

AOB

csma: no issues
... All check action items and discuss on the list!!!

<johnhall> quit

<Guizhen> quit

<CGI747> exit

<PieroB> quit

<PieroB> exit

<PieroB> -PieroB

- DRAFT -

RIF telecon 2005-10-01

10 Jan 2006

Attendees

Contents