SV_MEETING_TITLE -- 24 Jan 2006

<DonaldC> Donald is DonaldC

<DonaldC> Zakim Donald is DonaldC

<saidtabet> Hello everyone

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

<BillAndersen> Good one, Chris

<FrancoisBry> Yesw I can scribe.

<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jan/att-0084/DRAFT_W3C_RIF_WG__Minutes_2006-01-17.txt

<josb> +1

<FrancoisBry> Scribe: Minute last meeting extended with 3 modifications

<FrancoisBry> 1. clarifies attendees list. Persons to be added should send email to Christian SM.

<FrancoisBry> 2. Action item to be added by ???.

<sandro> (Mala is a "she" btw.)

<csma> +1

<holger> 1+

<FrancoisBry> scribe: 3rd modification???

<FrancoisBry> scribe: only 2 modifications. Missing action last meeting is in the agenda.

<FrancoisBry> scribe: Chris W. no addition to today's agenda.

<FrancoisBry> scribe: Christian SM could not yet clarify who is the head of a group to contact. Will do up till next week.

<DonaldC> zakimk, unmute me

<FrancoisBry> scribe: Chris W. Reports on liaison activites?

<csma> François, correction: I _did_ clarify whom I had to contact re ISO SC32 WG2

<FrancoisBry> scribe: ??? Submissions to TRR ?, OMG

<DonaldC> zakikm, unmure me

<Francois_scribe> Donald: SBVR (OMG) rule system in development and in run up of publishing specifications.

<Francois_scribe> liaison report: no reports from SPARQL (W3C) - Enrico Franconi, XQuery, XPath (W3C) - Massimo Marchiori,PRR (OMG) - Paul Vincent, ODM (OMG) - Elisa Kendall

<Francois_scribe> Cris W. Use Cases: Additions?

<Francois_scribe> Who is speaking?

<csma> allen

<sandro> Scribe: FrancoisBry

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/RIF_Use_Cases_and_Requirements#Information_Integration

<DonaldC> For Scribe. OMG SBVR Liaison Item 1. SBVR current liaison work is with proposed "Interchange of Human-oriented Business Rules" general use case. 2. Final Adopted Specification of OMG "Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Busines Rules" will be published in a few weeks.

<Francois_scribe> ACTION: 1 to done. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-rif-minutes.html#action01]

<Francois_scribe> report on action 1: done.

<Francois_scribe> report on action 2: done.

Chris W suggest extends one wek deadline for action 3.

Christian SM: goal was to make people look at UC.

<saidtabet> I suggest deadline extension

<FrankMcCabe> Perhaps reviewing the use cases should be a standing action on all

<PaulaP> +1 for deadline extension

Chrisitan SM suggest extend deadline and send email all for informing of deadline extension.

<igor> +1

<LeoraMorgenstern> +1 for deadline extension

<JeffPan> +1

<GiorgosStamou> +1

<JeremyCarroll> +1 to sandro

<sandro> sandro: what happens to feedback that's not in by the deadline?

Chris W. suggests deadline extended by another week every one asked to look at general use cases.

<JeremyCarroll> W3C process requires all comments received before the LC deadline for comments to be addressed before CR

<sandro> csma: feedback not in by this deadline wont go into first working draft

Christian SM: feedback needed at latest next week if draft expected for next f2f.

Who is speaking?

<csma> cHRISw

<sandro> (JeremyCarroll, I think we're a long way from talking about Last Call process)

<Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask what happens about later feedback

<JeremyCarroll> (yes - but that seems to be the background to late comments can only be ignored after that LC deadline)

Chris W Decision: one more week to go over use cases and ensure we cover all use cases we want to mention in the first working draft.

next ACTION: Ian to write scenario for Richt KR.

AllenGinsberg: something has been done.

Chris W: if someone has finished an action, eg on the wiki, please send message to chairs.

Chris W: new scenario by Christian for publication usecase.

Christian SM: there might be more than one use case here. Is being further discussed on the mailing list.

Christian SM: As I look for the substance ("scientific moelle" - Rabelais) of this UC, this reminds me of a discussion that maybe UC could be looked at from other viewpoints, or dimensions. I'll care for starting a discussion on that on the mailing list.

Chris W. "Interoperabilitybetween rule engines" Not yet done.

Leora: Decision Support detailed scenario action under progress.

<csma> François, correction, it is "substantific moelle"

Chris W: Allen and David about UC?

Chris W: More UC issues to discuss?

Allen or David: It is time to look at requirements.

Allen or David: New UC on ???

<Zakim> PaulaP, you wanted to comment on my action

Paula: "my" action no fully done. Input from Benjamin missing.

Paula's ACTION: detailed scenario for trust establishment (?)

SAid offers to anser in lieu of Benjamin.

<Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to ask if human oriented rules are out of scope?

Jeremy: human oriented rules out of scope?

<GaryHallmark> +1 for out of scope

DonaldC: General Use Case on quality assurance.

<csma> ACTION: csma to ask ISO whether liaison is worthwhile for ISO IEC [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-rif-minutes.html#action02]

<csma> Joint Task Force 1, SC 32, Working Group 2: Metadata Standards US

<csma> national body is ANSI L8 might be interesting for liaison. See

<csma> [http://metadata-standards.org/] [CONTINUED]

Said: continue discussion by email. Applications needed for standard being used.

<sandro> csma, you need to join broken lines on the action item for RRSAgent to get them right.

Christian SM: looking at publication use case, target is human and machine, RIF needed for being formal.

Christian SM: formal, ie unambigous and therefore machine processable.

Christian SM: human oriented rules seem to me to mean "informal" or less formal.

<csma> ACTION: Allen to move the "importing rules to check data compliance" use [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-rif-minutes.html#action03]

<csma> case to the general interchange use case

DonaldC: Use Case is not about human communication, and should not be.

<csma> ACTION: Said to start the discussion about a general use case for rule [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-rif-minutes.html#action04]

<csma> systems that support business communication about rules & regulations on

<csma> the mailing list.

Ian: If people are using RIF that way, then it is fine. The same rule can be interpretated differently.

Allen: depending obn culture or legal situation, etc.

Thanks!

<hirtle> (I know it's tricky ;)

DonaldC: It is not about human processing of rules, nor human communicating using rules.
... It is aboput having organizations interchanging rules with semantics.
... It is about interchanging between organization or rule systmes without loosing semantics.

<csma> ACTION: Christian to send an email to announce the one week deadline for reviewing edited general use cases. [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-rif-minutes.html#action05]

Chris W: Interchange between rule systems with same or different meta-models?

<csma> ACTION: Ian Horrocks to write scenario for RichKR including ‘features’ [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-rif-minutes.html#action06]

<ChrisW> said's message starting this thread:

<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jan/0088.html

Who speaks?

<hirtle> Ed, I believe

<ChrisW> edbarkmeyer

<sandro> EdwardBarkmeyer

<csma> ACTION: Chris Welty will come up with another example narrative for a RichKR use case [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-rif-minutes.html#action07]

DonaldC: 2 Use Cases. First, ???

second: ???

<sandro> DonaldC, maybe you can clarify what you just said for the scribe, when you get the chance.

Chris W: We have to make sure that we can exchange rules that have a formal semantics. Use Case must make clear that RIF only supports applications.

<csma> ACTION: Christian will propose another scenario for the publication use case [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-rif-minutes.html#action08]

<GaryHallmark> want to exchange rules that can be machine edited but not machine executed?

DonaldC: L Distinction needed: what is supported, what not.

<csma> q

Chris W: It should be a use case, not a requirement.

<csma> ACTION: Paul Vincent will do the detailed scenario for "Interoperability between rule engines" [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-rif-minutes.html#action09]

Chris W: use of RIF for human oriented uses should not add requirements to RIF.

Chris W: Adding modality to rules for human communications.

<FrankMcCabe> deontic operators may well show up in compliance handling

DonaldC: modal operators needed.

Christian SM: If there is such a requirement, it should be on interchanging rules specific to communication between humans.

DonaldC: REquirement must not be on the RIF.

<csma> ACTION: Frank will do the scenarios for information integration with Ed Barkmeyer assisting [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-rif-minutes.html#action10]

Who is speaking?

<csma> allen

thanks.

<EvanWallace> I thought we were only talking about use cases at this point. Requirements analysis comes in next stage.

<csma> use cases are about requirements, aren't they

Allen: Natural language might make sense for human communication. Maybe it is only about human understanding.

Said: we are not adding more requirements.

<csma> ACTION: Leora will do the Decision Support detailed scenario [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-rif-minutes.html#action11]

<GiorgosStamou> maybe this usecase strenghts some requirements

Harold's speaking?

<GaryHallmark> maybe the use case is collaborative rule developement?

<hirtle> Ed Barkmeyer

Ed Barkmeyer: add something in front of FOL. There are rules that can bne used for ...

<FrankMcCabe> We may need support for indexicals

Ed Barkmeyer: ... rules for rule engines.

<csma> Collaborative rule devt is covered by the generalized use case nr 3

Ed Barkmeyer: one issue is model. Another non-machine interpretable (rule?).

Harold: we should focus on UC before coming to requirements. Human-orientedness good for advertising.
... We should wrk out this new use case.

<Zakim> JeremyCarroll, you wanted to note that we may *reject* this use case during review

<edbark> Francois: what I meant was "actual model of modals"

Jeremy: this use cazse might not go into working draft.
... there are dividing opinions on this use case.

Chris W: no decision yet. We should not reject Use Case before we see it.

Chris W: We should understand what requirement this new use case would imply.

johnhall: We should discuss this use case /matter on email.

Chris W: agreed.

Christian SM: we do not want reject intersting use case.

Chris W: dcsion: authors write down this use case so as we understand it.

Chris W: Issue OWL & RDF Compatibility.

Chris W: Email thread about semantics of RDF bnodes and relation to SPARQL.

Christian SM: SPARQL and in general query languages on the query/body side seem to be genrally accepted. What about Query on the consequence side?

<sandro> csma: I wonder if SPARQL doesn't give us a good Condition part of a rule

Christian SM: SPARQL query as body would be a good compatibility with RDF. Why not the same approach on the conclusion side?

Christian SM: If we use query languages as a mean to ensure compatibilty on the query side, why not a;so on the conclusion side?

josb: This would an rule extension of a query language. Like eg Datalog.

Christian SM: I am not proposing to extend SPARQL.

josb: Conclusion is something else than an query.

<josb> +1 do not extend query language

<sandro> [Who said they were +1.979.575.aacc ? ]

<ChrisW> menzel

<csma> +1 do not extend QL, my point was to start the discussion on the conclusion side, knowing that queries can be used on the condition side

<GaryHallmark> Oracle found that a subset of SQL is useful in ECA rules

Harold: in rule bodies queries from different languages thru procedural arttachement desirable.

<josb> SWRL allows queries in rules????

Harold: this can be donme using templates.
... eg SPARQL templates.

<josb> no

edbark: my concern is that interpreting RDF like SPARQL does.

<josb> SPARQL does not adhere to RDF semantics

edbark: conclusions in rule headsmight not be compatible with RDF model.

<AxelPolleres> hmmm, if we allow SPARQL (or any other query language) in the body and the query is recursively dependent on the rule consequent... we are gonna run into some issues

edbark: merginmg RDF facts with rule engine facts will yield interesting quertions on what the interpretation migft be.

<kifer> +q

<sandro> kifer, you mean "q+"

Jos: being member of SPARQL WG: SPARQL query is noly filter. Therefore can be used in rule bodies. We do not see any issue at all if looking at SPARQL as filter rule.

Chris W: How to handle, meaning of query language in consequences unclear.

<JeffPan> he is offline?

<josb> Michael just disconnected

<AxelPolleres> seems we lost him

Chris W: Further comments on that point?

Chris W: Bnode semantics?

<josb> we cannot resolve it yet

Chris W: Email exhange look like it has come to a resolution. Anyone to write down on that?

<Harold> Besides the antecedent and an ordinary consequent, there may also be an equality consequent, where the equation right-hand side could be the template of SPARQL.

Michael_Kifer: We cannot make any clear decision wrt semantics. We can write down in rthe wik what the issues/problems are.

JosDeBrujin: Otherwise we would copmmit the RIF.

<JeremyCarroll> Can we have e-mail to notify us after wiki update

Michale will write in wiki issues related to bnode semantics.

josb will update wiki page on bnode semantics.

josb: Comment on SPARQL: seems to also disregard bnodes.

Chris W: Volunteer to write about bnode/SPARQL?

josb: will report on what is going on in SPARQL concerning bnodes.

<josb> Francois, that was JosDeRoo, not me

Chrisitan SM: Enrico is also in SPARQL WG and copuld/should also report on node issue.

<kifer> kifer is MichaelKifer

Two Joses: They type themselves what thir actions arfe! RThanks!!!

<josb> ACTION: JosB create a wiki page explaining the issue with bNode semantics and summarize the possible solutions which have come up during the discussions on the mailing list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-rif-minutes.html#action12]

<josb> (was action for josb)

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Rulesystem_Arrangement_Framework

<sandro> (not sure if that'll work)

Chris W: AOB.

<JosDeRoo> ACTION: JosDeRoo to update RIF wrt SPARQL rdfSemantics issue and its pending resolution [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-rif-minutes.html#action13]

<sandro> ACTION: JosDeBruijn create a wiki page explaining the issue with bNode semantics and summarize the possible solutions which have come up during the discussions on the mailing list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-rif-minutes.html#action14]

DonaldC: action Christian was going to do about OWL/RDF compatibility discussions. What to do with rules based on two meta-models?

<saidtabet> +1

<edbark> +1

<saidtabet> thank you all! Bye

DonaldC: If meta-models are different, you cannot exchange the rules. We need use case stating what to do with different meta-models.

<Darko> -Darko

<Darko> -Darko?

<DonaldC> ACTION: Donald will submit an email about the use case for interchanging rules specified in different metamodels [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-rif-minutes.html#action15]

QUESTION to Chris W and Christian SM: What should I do more as sctibe?

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=38457

<sandro> editors: David Hirtle , Allen Ginsberg

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F1

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg_f2f_1_participants.html

- DRAFT -

SV_MEETING_TITLE

24 Jan 2006

Attendees

Contents

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output