SV_MEETING_TITLE -- 14 Feb 2006

<ChrisW> hi harold

<PhilippeB> Zakim 43.512.507.9aacc is me

I am here

but not logged yet

yes

+Darko

<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Feb/att-0043/rif-minutes-2006-02-07.html

<csma> +1

<PaulaP> +1

<johnhall> zakim mute me

F2F meeting on 27th and 28th

<Harold> Tech Plenary DL: 2006-02-19 before Boston midnight

<Harold> But March 1st day seems to have a 350 participants limit (1st come, 1st served)

<sandro> pfps, you are registered, BTW.

<sandro> (you were the first person to register, after me. :-)

csma: no particular interest for liaison with ISO IEC Joint Task Force 1, SC 32, Working Group 2

<msintek> everyone can view the page with all registrations, BTW: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TP2006/results

Sandro could you set me as scribe

<pfps> yes, but of course that means that it was so long ago that I have forgotten whether I had a positive response.

<scribe> ACTION: csma to ask ISO whether liaison is worthwhile for ISO IEC Joint Task Force 1, SC 32, Working Group 2: Metadata Standards US national body is ANSI L8 might be interesting for liaison. See [http://metadata-standards.org/] [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-rif-minutes.html#action01]

<sandro> scribe: Darko

<JosDeRoo> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2006Feb/0014.html

<sandro> Title: RIFWG

Massimo: to send the URL

<Massimo> xquery update draft: http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/xsl-query-specs/xquery-updates/xquery-update.html

<Massimo> xquery update use cases: http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/xsl-query-specs/xquery-updates/updates-use-cases.html

<johnhall> Can't get on the phone - 'busy' on land line, 'forbidden number' on Skype

scribe Darko

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

who is talking?

<ChrisW> now its sandro

<DonaldC> +q

<DonaldC> q

<johnhall> I'm now dialed in, but haven't shown up on irc

<sandro> We should be talking about this location: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Interchange_of_Human-oriented_Business_Rules

<csma> +1

<sandro> +1

<PaulaP> +1

<csma> +1

Chris Welty will come up with another example narrative for a RichKR use case [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action07] [CONTINUED]

<scribe> ACTION: Christian will propose another scenario for the publication use case [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action08] [DONE]

<scribe> ACTION: Frank will do the scenarios for information integration with Ed Barkmeyer assisting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action10] [CONTINUED]

<csma> link to mail indicating my action is done http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Feb/0164.html

<scribe> ACTION: Leora, JeffP to review and report on human oriented rules section of UCR, sending e-mail by friday. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action05] [DONE]

<scribe> ACTION: leora and Jeff: to review the detailed scenario [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-rif-minutes.html#action05]

<scribe> ACTION: Paul Vincent will do the detailed scenario for "Interoperability between rule engines" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action11] [CONTINUED]

<scribe> ACTION: csma will incite data access discussion on mailing list. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action14] [CONTINUED]

sorry say it again

<csma> The action is about data accesss

<scribe> ACTION: Paula to copy all requirements from original use cases into a single place, removing duplicates and pointing back to originals [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action16] [DONE]

<scribe> ACTION: csma:The action is about data accesss [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-rif-minutes.html#action09]

<EvanWallace> Accidentally disconnected. Can't reconnect. Getting fast busy signal.

<scribe> ACTION: Donald, Said, John: provide scenario for human-oriented use case showing where RIF is used [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action13] [DONE]

volunteers for reviewing section 2 of UCR needed

<scribe> ACTION: for everyone to read the UCR document and to check whether something is missing [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-rif-minutes.html#action11]

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

<sandro> Partial draft of poll, how it might look: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/38457/ucrwd/

leora: the UCR document should be more uniform in writing style

<EvanWallace> +1 on not voting on sections

<csma> +1 on not voting on sections

AxelPolleres: will the voting be about the structure review

<dieter> sorry I was muted

<AxelPolleres> +1 got it csma!

<AxelPolleres> I think all these questions should be collected and go into the straw poll for comments, right?

<csma> good point, axel

sandro: I don't think we have time to figure out the Requirements section in time for the first WD. So the 1st WD should be just Use Cases. With a clear note that this is not all in Phase 1

<josb> +1

<josb> no objection here

<sandro> PROPOSED: Publish first public WD of UCR *without* a Requirements section

<csma> +1

UCR to be published without Requirements part, yes or not?

it will be published

<sandro> RESOLVED: Publish first public WD of UCR *without* a Requirements section

<csma> PROPOSED: Decision on phase 1/phase 2 to be made on tha basis of requirements

Chris: what is in Ph 1/2 based on requirements?

<csma> PROPOSED: First WD does not have decision about phase 1/phase 2

<sandro> PROPOSED: F1st public WD of UCR will not reflect decisions about what's in Phase 1 vs what's in Phase 2.

Chris: first w. draft will not take decision what is in the Ph1 and Ph2?

<csma> +1

<Harold> +1

<PaulaP> +1

<sandro> RESOLVED: 1st public WD of UCR will not reflect decisions about what's in Phase 1 vs what's in Phase 2.

who is talking?

<Mala> +1

<sandro> Darko, it's Allen

csma: the design goal should be descussed F2F
... questions on the design goals should be proposed on the mailing list

<AxelPolleres> Could we, in the straw poll, also suggest people to point to related mail discussions to particular sections/aspects?

<scribe> ACTION: Allen: start email discussion about design goals (eg disjunctive heads in the rules and etc.) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-rif-minutes.html#action12]

<Allen> ACTION: compile a list of design goal questions for listing in a section of the UC&R draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-rif-minutes.html#action13]

<csma> Darko, the action on Allen is to compile a list of design goal issues, rather than start an email discussion

PaulaP: DG are related to Requirements, should be reviewed

<AxelPolleres> I could review the requirements draft.

<josb> I can review

<dieter> dieter volunteers

<scribe> ACTION: Allen: is to compile a list of design goal issues, rather than start an email discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-rif-minutes.html#action14]

<PaulaP> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/RIFUCR_-_List_of_Classified_Requirements_%28with_Duplicate_Elimination%29

<PaulaP> this is the list with duplicate elimination

<PaulaP> +1 on csma's comment

<David_Hirtle> (that link is also accessible from the UCR Reqs section: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Requirements)

<scribe> ACTION: Axel, Dieter, Jos Harold to review the Requirements and comment them [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-rif-minutes.html#action15]

<scribe> ACTION: Chris to start email discussion about what issues are "fuzzy" wrt phase 1 & 2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action18] [CONTINUED]

Classification

<Francois> +1 same sytax, semantics, etc. as metaÃ¶data

<Francois> this is pure syntax, Harold. Never mind in the 1st place!!!!

<josb> +1 agree with ChrisW and Francois

<Francois> +1 on having a email discussion on this. There are a few aspects to define.

<Harold> Metadata and Metalevel are different!

OWL+RDF Compatibility

<sandro> ChrisW: Should we view RDF and OWL as rule languages, which can be translated into RIF for interoperability with Rule Systems?

<sandro> Dieter: the risk is that you dilute your concept of "rule language" -- it's fine, just don't start calling RDF or OWL "Rule Languages".

<sandro> acl Harold

<sandro> Harold: We could call it KR for the Web, including RDF and OWL.

<sandro> Harold: We need to be compatible with other KR languages

<sandro> DonaldC: OWL and RDF provide a Fact Base, but there is also the additional logic, which is sometimes rule-like. But we don't need to call it a Rule Language, no.

<sandro> Harold: I agree.

<Allen> +q

<sandro> IanH: Think of RDF and OWL as not completely different from Rule Languages. Compatibility between RIF and OWL/RDF is important. Not in the Rich-KR Use Cases that OWL and RDF are being used in conjunction with Rules.

<csma> +1 to what Don said

<sandro> IanH: There doesn't seem to be a uniform view in the WG of what constitutes a Rule Language. This stuff is all swrling around near fragments of FOL.

<Harold> Oversimplifying: KRLang = OntologyLang + RuleLang --- OntologyLang = OWL, ... --- RuleLang = RIF, CL, RuleML, ...

Allen: RIF could be used to interchange rules and ontologies together

<dieter> Imagine somebody wants to express the ontology inside a rule language (e.g., frame logic)?

<sandro> Christian: What's been done in OWL should be interchanged in OWL, not in RIF. Don't translated OWL into RIF.

<dieter> you do not need to translate, you simply reuse OWL indetifiers

<sandro> +1 to Harold's view

<sandro> ChrisW: There are parts of what OWL does that might not be supported by some Rule Engine; do we want to help with that?

<scribe> ACTION: csma: to send an email about distinguishing roles between OWL and RIF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/14-rif-minutes.html#action17]

<Francois> +1 discussion on owl-rif connection

<GiorgosStoilos> +1 Michael

<sandro> MichaelKifer: If we view RIF as a rule language on its own, then it makes sense to interop with OWL. If RIF is just an interchange format, then it doesn't make sense to talk about interop with OWL, since the rule systems will do that.

<josb> In the interchanged rules, there might be references to OWL concepts

<AxelPolleres> If the rule head is an OWL fact again, you cannot separate concerns completely, at least we have to define what semantics for interop we adopt.

<sandro> Christian: What if one of the interoperating engines implements OWL and the other doesn't?

<Francois> What might well be a language without semantics?

<sandro> IanH: I agree with MichaelKifer. Unless we decide whether the language will have semantics, it's hard to have this discussions. If no semantics, it's hard to see what it would be good for.

<PaulaP> I think this goes beyond OWL...it is more general and depends on the capabiilities the parties interchanging 'something' have

<sandro> Axel: We talked in e-mail about how the RIF would carry information about "features" ... interop with OWL could be one of the features.

<sandro> Christian: The relates to Conformance, as well -- how to do you know if a system is conformant when it might or might not handle OWL.

<Allen> This discussion also appears to be related to Design Goals

<PaulaP> +1 on Allen's comment

<Francois> +1 on Allen remark

AOB

<sandro> ChrisW: Continue in e-mail. I'm not interested in what we call "Rule Languages", but about how people view SW Compatibility.

<sandro> +1

<Francois> +1 on CrisW

<Francois> Bye!

<Francois> quit

<PaulaP> bye

<msintek> bye

<Allen> bye

call for technical plenary

<PaulV> bye

yes

<Mala> bye

<igor> bye

<ChrisW> sandro?

- DRAFT -

SV_MEETING_TITLE

14 Feb 2006

Attendees

Contents

Classification

OWL+RDF Compatibility

AOB

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output