07:24:37 RRSAgent has joined #rif 07:24:38 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/02/28-rif-irc 07:24:49 Zakim has joined #rif 07:24:55 Mar 8 will be the new deadline of the UCR document 07:25:32 then WG review and we will vote on 14 Mar 07:25:42 just the UC section 07:25:53 Francois has joined #rif 07:25:53 questions? 07:26:12 Now get to the use cases ... 07:27:16 2.7 07:27:28 Third Party Rule-Interchange Services 07:27:43 pfps has joined #rif 07:27:44 Marla's comment is the same 07:29:38 Any discussion of the use case? 07:30:48 csma: some concern similar to the 2.5 Human-oriented Business Rules 07:32:12 Darko has joined #rif 07:32:18 Meeting: RIF F2F2, day 2 07:32:46 Allen: it could be, but this is natural uase case for ... 07:32:49 ScribeNick: JeffP 07:33:16 GiorgosStamou has joined #rif 07:33:21 but I am not sure it is similar 07:34:30 msintek has joined #rif 07:34:53 any device can have mistake, ... I don't know whether we should label it as compliant 07:34:54 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F2 07:35:24 csma: then seems that they are different use cases 07:36:29 Allen: it is a very broad area and RIF will be very useful 07:36:54 Chris: any more comments? 07:37:08 2.7 is approved 07:37:38 Now 2.8 Rich Knowledge Representation 07:38:31 Chris: marla has the same comment? 07:39:09 OK 07:39:19 PaulaP has joined #rif 07:39:23 discussion ... 07:40:08 Sandro: I don't understand the section, I see only OWL ++ 07:41:03 csma: My understanding is it is not only extension of OWL ... 07:42:13 the point is the rules are needed to be part of the vocabulary 07:42:44 Paul: are there any existing rule extension of OWL? 07:42:53 Chris: there are 07:44:27 csma: I used OWL as a justification 07:45:07 François: My suggestion is to make the RIF language extremely expressive 07:46:21 csma: does it make sense to put the uncle example with the brain one 07:47:02 Christin: the brain one is a real example and the uncle one is not 07:47:39 Sandro: I think we need a real one 07:48:16 Gavin: we need some text to show the connection between OWL and RIF 07:48:49 Action: François to contact Ian about the change of the use case 07:49:43 Chris: Michael, can you explain your comments? 07:50:03 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 07:50:57 Michael: I think the big picture of the section is fine but we should make it simple for readers to read 07:51:26 Chris: do you have any specific comments on change? 07:52:01 Action: Michael to provide some specific comments of 2.8 07:52:51 Michael: maybe we should extend the use case and make it more general 07:53:17 Sandro: ... 07:54:46 Chris: [summarise what Sandro said] We should change the name, existence of OWL is a justification of the need of exchange ontologies 07:55:18 Proposed new name: Interchange extended ontologies 07:56:08 aharth has joined #rif 07:56:22 because there are no standard to cover that 07:56:48 s/Interchange extended ontologies/Interchanging extended ontologies 07:57:50 François: it seems too technical and I would like to see the applicataions 07:58:04 ... in the title 07:58:22 LeeF has joined #rif 07:59:03 A main title about the application field, and a technical sub-tile 07:59:21 s/sub-tile/sub-title 07:59:35 Sandro: sounds like a good idea 08:00:23 Christin: I think the application title is too narrow, what about "compatability between ontologies and rules" 08:01:04 this is required by many use cases in many different field 08:02:07 Sandro: OK I see the point 08:03:38 Sandro propose: Interchaning rule extensions to ontology languages 08:04:25 Chris: do we need to consider languages outside W3C standards? 08:05:27 any languages? 08:05:41 csma: topic map 08:06:12 pfps: cycle 08:06:51 csma: common logic too, although it is not an ontology language and more like a rule language 08:07:25 s/cycle/CYC-L/ 08:07:40 Sandro: what aout "Interchaning rule extensions to RDF and OWL" 08:25:24 DaveReynolds has joined #rif 08:30:31 josb has joined #rif 09:23:21 pfps has joined #rif 09:23:42 USE CASE 2.8: Rich KR 09:23:43 Don: What about mismatches between source and target systems? 09:23:45 Chris: That is a different use case. 09:23:46 Chris: Title: Interchanging Rule Extensions to OWL (for Brain Anatomy Research) 09:23:48 Rationale: That is the use case. 09:23:51 ?: Does this cover RDF? 09:23:51 Chris: No, should it be covered? 09:23:54 Jeremy: No, this use case is adequate (for HP). 09:23:54 ?: This loses the idea of rich ontology languages. 09:23:56 Chris: This would be a new use case. 09:23:59 Michael: Leave the qualifier off the title, to allow for other examples. 09:23:59 Francois: The qualifier is a good title - it says it all. 09:24:00 Titles need to be concrete. 09:24:01 Chris: Objections to the title. 09:24:03 Giorgos Stamou: The use is general, the example is just illustrative. 09:24:04 Chris: Title options 1/ no clause 2/ "for" clause 3/ subtitle 09:24:06 Chris: Title: Interchanging Rule Extensions to OWL - 09:24:07 A Brain Anatomy Research Example 09:24:09 Chris: Actions 1/ remove uncle example and replace with brain anatomy example 09:24:11 2/ make title be Interchanging rule extensions to OWL 09:24:13 ACTION on PFPS - ask Ian to make changes to use case 09:24:15 Chris and Michael: modify Michael's action to think about new, related use case 09:24:29 USE CASE 2.1: Information Integration 09:24:31 Sandro: Right thing is to have Frank revise to address concerns 09:24:32 ?: Perhaps the right thing is to have 2 use cases 09:24:34 Christian: New topic is "process and supply chain" 09:24:35 ?: Perhaps might integrate remaining part of 2.6 09:24:37 Sandro: New title is "access to business rules of supply chain partners" 09:24:38 Frank: 2.6 example is FOAF-style rules about telephone contact rules 09:24:40 Christian: Proposal 1: remaining part of 2.6 fits into 2.1, so 2.6 is deleted 09:24:41 Proposal 2: remove data integration from 2.1, retitle, and revise, 09:24:43 ensuring that there are rules there 09:24:44 Proposal 3: add new use case about data integration 09:24:46 Sandro: moving 2.6 to 2.1 doesn't make sense 09:24:47 Christian: ok 09:24:49 Chris: objections to Proposal 2? 09:24:50 ACTION on Frank - effect Proposal 2 above 09:24:52 Chris: discussion on Proposal 3 09:24:53 Sandro: I can take the stuff from the charter and make it into use case 2.9 09:24:55 Title: Vocabulary mapping for data integration 09:24:56 Christian: consult with Dave Reynolds 09:24:58 Sergio: there should be something about incomplete information in the use case 09:25:00 Jeremy: data integration use case is interesting to HP because it is simple 09:25:02 Hassan: why is the use case related to incomplete information? 09:25:04 Sergio: there is often some sort of incomplete information in data integration 09:25:06 Sandro: This is a synthetic use case - does anyone have a real use case? 09:25:08 Frank: yes, there should be lots - Fujitsu has done this 09:25:10 Jeremy: let's do something that can be done fast, let's not try to perfect the use case now 09:25:12 ?: production systems actually don't work on vocabulary mapping 09:25:14 they work, as well, on data mapping 09:25:16 Chris: Sandro will do the use case, Sergio to provide input 09:25:18 ACTION on Sandro - effect Proposal 3 as modified 09:25:20 Chris: discussion on Proposal 1 09:25:22 ?: there is still something left in the area - something like distributed rule bases 09:25:24 Harold: the use cases in 2.6 need homes 09:25:26 Christian: FOAF use case ends up in 2.1 09:25:28 Sandro: don't see anything valuable left in 2.6 09:25:30 Chris: objections 09:25:32 ACTION on Allan as editor of UCR - remove 2.6 09:25:34 Hassan: status of Use Case titles in ToC 09:25:36 Chris: proposal is to do this somehow 09:25:38 Hassan: as long as it works out 09:25:40 USE CASE 2.2: Ruleset integration for Medical Decision Support 09:25:42 Chris: Status? 09:25:44 Christian: change title to above, drop e-learning, 09:25:46 concentrate on prescription part (and extend slightly) 09:25:48 Chris: Objections 09:25:50 ACTION on Chris: tell Leora to make changes 09:27:58 josb has joined #rif 09:39:00 DonaldC has joined #RIF 09:39:17 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 09:39:26 msintek has joined #rif 09:40:26 JosDeRoo has joined #rif 09:40:46 ACTION: JeffPan propose extension to prescription example 09:42:51 PaulaP has joined #rif 09:43:37 MarkusK has joined #rif 09:44:55 discusssing UCR/Interchange of Human-oriented Business Rules 09:45:04 merging with 2.6 is not an option 09:45:16 ChrisW: use case is not close as it stands, needs catching better the intention 09:45:36 .. propose to move it for next WD round? 09:47:13 FrancoisB: have something about BR in first draft is crucial 09:48:47 CSMA: propose to keeep title in first WD 09:50:16 jpan3 has joined #rif 09:50:45 CSMA: alternatively Donald to come up with new text by monday? 09:51:44 .. text can be removed 09:51:55 RESOLVED no objection 09:53:42 Zakim has left #rif 09:53:46 ACTION: JohnHall come up with new text by Monday 09:54:52 LeeF has joined #rif 09:55:20 proposed title: tools for managing policies and practices in organizations 09:56:10 msintek has joined #rif 09:56:12 (discussing a proposed title..) 09:57:39 msintek has joined #rif 10:00:33 RESOLVED: new title "Managing inter-organizational business policies and practices" 10:01:16 ACTION: JohnH to reflect that title in the new proposed text 10:01:42 DONE with UCR discussion!!! fireworks 10:02:07 next topic: next F2F 10:03:53 AxelP: proposal to colocate with next ESWC Montenegro June 11-14 10:04:55 .. either 8-9 or 9-10 is proposed 10:06:06 Igor: afterconference is not an option 10:08:27 Igor: 8-9 was originally planned for RIF 10:11:37 no objection to have next F2F Montenegro either June 8-9 or June 9-10 10:19:32 RESOLVED: to have next F2F Montenegro either June 8-9 or June 9-10 10:19:58 RESOLVED: to have WBS vote per organization 10:20:13 ACTION: Sandro to organize such WBS vote 10:21:43 by next tcon have resolution on the date 10:25:24 msintek has left #rif 10:26:09 msintek has joined #rif 10:26:57 ACTION: AxelP to set up logistics F2F page 10:27:25 next topic: F2F4 10:27:40 proposed to have host in NA 10:27:53 .. around October 10:28:53 CSMA: propose to submit proposals and resolve next F2F 10:30:11 next topic: Roadmap 10:30:29 presentation by HaroldB 10:30:41 mdean has joined #rif 10:44:50 msintek has left #rif 10:45:49 the presention is on the mailing list http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg 10:52:35 Frank: if you do assert then you have to be able to undo it as well 10:53:55 (discussion about semantics of production rules) 10:54:25 ACTION: Frank to make his point on the mailing list 10:54:37 MarkusK has joined #rif 10:54:39 josb has joined #rif 10:55:48 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 10:55:52 Francois: need for complex 'actions' in production rules (besides complex events and complex conditions) 10:56:49 Harold: can already do the syntactic extensions in Phase1 10:57:37 .. to make clear what might be done semantically in Phase2 10:57:38 +1 on including production rules earlier 10:57:46 pfps has joined #rif 10:59:39 ACTION: Harold to explain technically the basis for interoperation between PR and Horn rules 11:04:18 MichaelK: Phase1 is one semantics i.e. FOL entailment (is in response to Uli's question) 11:08:08 CSMA: will set up new page for requirements 11:08:13 LUNCH 11:43:35 JosDeRoo_ has joined #rif 11:43:49 pfps has joined #rif 12:53:14 MarkusK has joined #rif 12:55:12 msintek has joined #rif 13:00:52 pfps has joined #rif 13:07:28 JosDeRoo has joined #rif 13:09:10 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Requirements 13:09:22 csma has joined #rif 13:09:30 discussing http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Draft_-_Requirements_on_RIF 13:11:14 josb has joined #rif 13:13:37 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 13:18:28 patranja has joined #rif 13:28:16 deepalik has joined #rif 13:43:06 Darko has joined #rif 14:32:00 ChrisW has joined #rif 14:32:17 mike dean, are you here? 14:36:54 yes 15:04:11 EvanWa has joined #rif 15:07:31 Scribe: Markus (4pm -- 5pm) 15:07:38 aharth has joined #rif 15:09:13 Sandro: Previous session of collecting requirements is not satisfying. 15:09:50 ... there are many rule systems, but we need to identify common features 15:10:06 ... there should be some sharing among similar systems 15:10:21 ... e.g. sharing between several different production rulse systems 15:10:31 ... Try to establish a framework 15:11:11 csma: agrees. Identify features that can be reused by other systems. 15:11:33 ... provide guidance of how to work with unsupported features. 15:12:18 Topic: Semantic Web compatibility 15:13:13 Cris: Highly important to be compatible with existing Semweb standards 15:13:24 s/Cris/Chris/ 15:14:05 ... different possible views: 15:14:21 ... (1) OWL as a part of (the syntax of) RIF 15:14:38 ... OWL does not get translated 15:14:54 ... but is just loaded in RIF without change 15:16:22 ... (2) OWL as a target (?) language 15:16:55 s/OWL as a target (?) language/OWL is a covered/source/target language 15:17:19 Mala: What about other langues such as Common Logic? 15:17:34 Chris: OWL ist a W3C standard, so compatibility is part of the charter. 15:18:01 Harold: I would like to add a third point: (3) interchange 15:18:19 s/interchange/interoperation/ 15:18:50 ... meaning that one refers to another (OWL) document which remains external 15:19:51 As I understood Harold, you include queries to OWL ontologies in the body of the rule 15:20:05 Yes, I think so 15:20:27 Sandro: There might be another aspect of (1): Transforming parts of OWL (e.g. DLP) into a rule syntax. 15:21:31 Elaboration of point (2): 15:22:30 * syntax/semantics of OWL in RIF 15:22:43 * mapping of OWL "Rules" 15:23:03 [literal transcription of board] 15:24:43 Francois: +1 Harold (i.e. point (3) above) 15:27:34 Hassan: It is not the concern of RIF to specify how to reason with encoded logical specifications. RIF provides the semantics and those who employ RIF must provide their operationalisation. 15:27:54 ... It suffices to encode OWL semantics in rules. 15:29:09 Francois: Syntax of course must be compatible or translatable -- but this is secondary. 15:29:18 ... Reasoning is more important. 15:29:34 ... Reasoning for rule languages is typically constructive. 15:29:59 ... Which is simpler than reasoning in other formalisms (no excluded middle, refutation, ...) 15:30:22 ... Implementing an OWL reasoner in RIF would not be good. 15:30:29 Chris: We do not want to do this. 15:31:00 Fraincois: Translating OWL into RIF does not make sense. (?) 15:31:20 Harold: The expressiveness needed to translate OWL into RIF is not available in Phase 1. 15:31:58 Chris: Any other ideas on Semantic Web compatibility as well? 15:32:13 csma: Can this be applied to RDF as well? 15:32:42 Harold: We probably mean OWL DL and this refers to a subset of RDF as well. 15:32:52 Chris: I was talking about OWL in general. 15:33:27 Chris: What are the options for RDF and RDFS? 15:34:30 Allen 15:34:45 Frank 15:34:45 \me franck 15:34:49 Frank McCabe 15:36:29 FrankMcCabe: The case of combining OWL with another rule language is important. 15:36:39 .. e.g. one could combine OWL with Prolog 15:36:59 ... and this combined language might have a different mapping to RIF 15:37:18 Chris: Mapping OWL into Prolog is lossy already. 15:37:38 FrankMcCabe: It might be possible to have non-lossy combinations. 15:38:00 Chris: It seems that it would then be possible to use a uniform mapping. 15:38:40 Hasan 15:39:53 Francois: Rule languages often have no disjunctive reasoning. 15:40:15 ... and translating C \sqsubseteq A\sqsup B might be problematic 15:40:40 ... since a lossy translation "A <- C" is not useful 15:41:07 Chris: Why should a rule language not have disjunctions in the head? 15:41:39 Francois: Such rule languages do not seem useful, since they might be incompatible to existing languages. 15:41:56 Sandro: Full FOL is in scope for Phase 2. 15:42:47 csma: If there is an implemented rule language that allows disjunction in the head, then we can decide on whether we want to cover these or not. We do not question the language. 15:44:29 Discussion on whether OWL syntax should be part of RIF. 15:45:01 Chris: This may conflict with the requirement of having a nice syntax. 15:45:27 Deepa: If OWL/XML is part of RIF, does every RIF-conformant processor have to support OWL? 15:45:53 Chris: No. This is not required, since hardly any system can be expected to support all languages captured by RIF. 15:47:01 Sandro: The label "sublanguage" [used by Chris earlier] was replaced early on by the idea of "modules" in the charter. 15:47:21 ... So one can have systems conforming to some RIF module. 15:47:36 DavidHirtle has joined #rif 15:49:28 \me jos de roo 15:50:29 Sergio: Not every OWL-DL document is an RDF document. The syntactic way in which OWL-DL is defined is not very simple. Including it directly in RIF might cause unpleasant definitions of syntax. 15:51:27 Chris: The basic question is: should there be a "special treatment" for OWL, or is it just treated as any other language we support? 15:52:39 Sandro: The options (2) (a) [OWL semantics in RIF, new syntax] and (b) [OWL translated into rules, that are more expressive than Horn] are available for any language. 15:53:51 Francois: Theory Reasoning/Theory Resolution might also be a general option. 15:54:09 Hassan: This formalism was made obsolete by Constraint Programming. 15:54:44 Christine 15:55:12 Christine: What does "greater-than-Horn expressivity" mean in point (2)(b)? 15:55:31 ... will we end up with a super-set approach when supporting many languages in this way? 15:56:05 Chris: OWL has a special status that other languages *may* not have. 15:56:38 Francois: We are at the crossing point of this WG! 15:56:44 ... Two choices: 15:57:37 ... (i) RIF is a language which has disjunctive rules (disjunction in heads). This has advantages (great expressiveness), but also disadvantages: you may not find efficient reasoners. 15:57:49 Sandro: There might be more reasoners in the future. 15:58:04 ... It must not be our concern at the moment. 15:58:48 Francois: It is still dangerous. we might come up with things that are not supported by any usable reasoner. It might not be realizable in practical systems. 15:58:59 ... this is rather a reasearch topic. 15:59:29 Chris: We do not require that there are reasoners for RIF. 15:59:39 Francois: Second approach: 15:59:54 ... (ii) We can look around at best practices in Computer Science. 16:00:06 .. there are currently three kinds of rules. 16:00:47 ... Database-like rules, Integrity constrainst, and 16:01:05 reactive rules 16:01:33 ... So one should look at existing tools to find what is useful in practice. 16:02:06 Chris: Let us turn our findings into something concrete. 16:02:39 ACTION: Francois writes down the details of his proposal. 16:03:09 Chris: Other approaches to Semweb compatibility? 16:04:09 pfps: You could relax the requirement of having "OWL/XML" as a syntactical embedding of OWL into RIF. 16:04:28 ... so why not admit another syntax, such as OWL abstract syntax. 16:04:50 Chris: This is not an option since OWL/XML is the only syntax for OWL Full. 16:05:33 == Vote == 16:05:44 Who thinks (1) is the way to support OWL? 16:05:50 -> 1 person 16:07:40 Francois: In FOL you often have a placeholder for terms, whereas in OWL you leave terms implicit. 16:08:00 ... I like both. So maybe we can keep both options? 16:08:33 ... you can choose either way, or try to combine both. 16:08:55 ... Description Logic has another cultural style than FOL. 16:09:05 ... There might be problems of combining the two. 16:09:50 Michael: Clarification: (1) was embedding without translation, and (2) (a) includes a new syntax for OWL? 16:10:11 cmsa: Yes. 16:11:05 Chris: So there a two styles, one based on modal logic that shows not terms, the other in FOL with explicit terms. 16:11:17 ... but the modal syntax can be mapped to FOL. 16:11:48 ... So it probably not that hard to map one style to the other. 16:14:19 Chris provides more clarification concerning the different between (2) (a) and (b). 16:14:31 Who thinks that (2) (a) is the way for RIF to be compatible with OWL? 16:14:34 -> 7 people 16:14:39 Who thinks that (2) (b) is the way for RIF to be compatible with OWL? 16:14:43 -> 15 people 16:15:23 Who thinks that (3) is the way for RIF to be compatible with OWL? 16:15:27 -> 18 people 16:16:13 csma: In (2) (b) OWL implementers seem to have to do the work, while in (a) we seem to have to do it. That is why I prefer (b). 16:16:30 Michael: Nobody has to do the work. 16:18:02 Sergio: The works by Eiter and Rosati are examples for (3). 16:18:14 ... both are possible. 16:18:28 Igor: I had a different undertanding of (3). 16:18:38 ... Wasn't (3) more like SPARQL? 16:18:46 Chris: No, rather not. 16:19:36 JosB: If you have a FOL sublanguage of RIF, then (2) is possible. But in a Logic Programming setting, you have to restrict to (3). 16:20:15 Chris: Any other comments? [none] 16:20:41 ... Another aspect of the compatibility discussion are URIs. 16:20:50 csma: We should use IRIs 16:20:58 s/csma/pfps/ 16:21:13 Sandro: I think we can still say "URIs" 16:21:30 Chris: So to what part are URIs part of RIF? 16:22:17 s/Michael/MichaelKifer/ 16:22:39 Chris: Should all our symbols be URIs? 16:23:10 tlr has joined #rif 16:23:34 Francois: The URI issue seems to be important for reasoning on the web. 16:24:13 ... Another aspect is privacy of data. So can we restrict RIF rules to some part of the Web? 16:24:52 ... Something similar is possible in RDF. There one can include statements. 16:25:11 [General disagreement: there is no import/include in RDF] 16:26:09 Sandro: URIs are used both as names and as locations. 16:26:25 ... RDF never uses them as addresses. We have to be careful to distinguish this. 16:28:53 Chris: To the commercial rule vendors: 16:29:13 ... would it be a limitation to have to use URIs for every symbol in RIF? 16:30:14 ?: This is just a mapping issue. No major problem. 16:30:58 Francois: The possibility of hiding is very important. It might be useful for us. 16:31:10 ... (hiding as in Software Engineering) 16:31:35 Sandro: We would need a serious reason for supporting this. 16:31:41 ... It seems to be complicated. 16:31:48 +1 16:33:24 ?: The descision that some identifiers are the same can be complicated in some logical systems. 16:33:51 ... So requiring that every URI is a different thing affects reasoning. 16:34:05 s/?/Frank/ 16:34:07 Chris: E.g. in OWL this is not assumed. 16:35:28 s/?:/FrankMcCabe/ 16:36:45 Scribe job passed on to MichaelSintek 16:37:06 Harold: talk more about RDF 16:37:25 The above "This is just a mapping issue. No major problem." was said by Paul Vincent. 16:37:26 Harold: bnodes, see wiki 16:37:35 ScribeNick msintek 16:37:44 ScribeNick: msintek 16:37:58 Harold: binary/ternary relations, ... 16:39:10 ... mappings; correspondence of RDFS and RIF 16:39:31 Chris: any burning issues? 16:40:22 csma: major achievements: use cases ... 16:40:27 ... design goals ... 16:40:39 ... moving toward technical spec 16:40:47 ... thanks the scribes :-) 16:41:14 ... minutes as fast as possible 16:41:31 ... reminds us of schedule 16:41:47