IRC log of rif on 2006-02-28

Timestamps are in UTC.

07:24:37 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
07:24:38 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/02/28-rif-irc
07:24:49 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #rif
07:24:55 [JeffP]
Mar 8 will be the new deadline of the UCR document
07:25:32 [JeffP]
then WG review and we will vote on 14 Mar
07:25:42 [JeffP]
just the UC section
07:25:53 [Francois]
Francois has joined #rif
07:25:53 [JeffP]
questions?
07:26:12 [JeffP]
Now get to the use cases ...
07:27:16 [JeffP]
2.7
07:27:28 [JeffP]
Third Party Rule-Interchange Services
07:27:43 [pfps]
pfps has joined #rif
07:27:44 [JeffP]
Marla's comment is the same
07:29:38 [JeffP]
Any discussion of the use case?
07:30:48 [JeffP]
csma: some concern similar to the 2.5 Human-oriented Business Rules
07:32:12 [Darko]
Darko has joined #rif
07:32:18 [josb]
Meeting: RIF F2F2, day 2
07:32:46 [JeffP]
Allen: it could be, but this is natural uase case for ...
07:32:49 [josb]
ScribeNick: JeffP
07:33:16 [GiorgosStamou]
GiorgosStamou has joined #rif
07:33:21 [JeffP]
but I am not sure it is similar
07:34:30 [msintek]
msintek has joined #rif
07:34:53 [JeffP]
any device can have mistake, ... I don't know whether we should label it as compliant
07:34:54 [josb]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F2
07:35:24 [JeffP]
csma: then seems that they are different use cases
07:36:29 [JeffP]
Allen: it is a very broad area and RIF will be very useful
07:36:54 [JeffP]
Chris: any more comments?
07:37:08 [JeffP]
2.7 is approved
07:37:38 [JeffP]
Now 2.8 Rich Knowledge Representation
07:38:31 [JeffP]
Chris: marla has the same comment?
07:39:09 [JeffP]
OK
07:39:19 [PaulaP]
PaulaP has joined #rif
07:39:23 [JeffP]
discussion ...
07:40:08 [JeffP]
Sandro: I don't understand the section, I see only OWL ++
07:41:03 [JeffP]
csma: My understanding is it is not only extension of OWL ...
07:42:13 [JeffP]
the point is the rules are needed to be part of the vocabulary
07:42:44 [JeffP]
Paul: are there any existing rule extension of OWL?
07:42:53 [JeffP]
Chris: there are
07:44:27 [JeffP]
csma: I used OWL as a justification
07:45:07 [JeffP]
François: My suggestion is to make the RIF language extremely expressive
07:46:21 [JeffP]
csma: does it make sense to put the uncle example with the brain one
07:47:02 [JeffP]
Christin: the brain one is a real example and the uncle one is not
07:47:39 [JeffP]
Sandro: I think we need a real one
07:48:16 [JeffP]
Gavin: we need some text to show the connection between OWL and RIF
07:48:49 [JeffP]
Action: François to contact Ian about the change of the use case
07:49:43 [JeffP]
Chris: Michael, can you explain your comments?
07:50:03 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
07:50:57 [JeffP]
Michael: I think the big picture of the section is fine but we should make it simple for readers to read
07:51:26 [JeffP]
Chris: do you have any specific comments on change?
07:52:01 [JeffP]
Action: Michael to provide some specific comments of 2.8
07:52:51 [JeffP]
Michael: maybe we should extend the use case and make it more general
07:53:17 [JeffP]
Sandro: ...
07:54:46 [JeffP]
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 [JeffP]
Proposed new name: Interchange extended ontologies
07:56:08 [aharth]
aharth has joined #rif
07:56:22 [JeffP]
because there are no standard to cover that
07:56:48 [JeffP]
s/Interchange extended ontologies/Interchanging extended ontologies
07:57:50 [JeffP]
François: it seems too technical and I would like to see the applicataions
07:58:04 [JeffP]
... in the title
07:58:22 [LeeF]
LeeF has joined #rif
07:59:03 [JeffP]
A main title about the application field, and a technical sub-tile
07:59:21 [JeffP]
s/sub-tile/sub-title
07:59:35 [JeffP]
Sandro: sounds like a good idea
08:00:23 [JeffP]
Christin: I think the application title is too narrow, what about "compatability between ontologies and rules"
08:01:04 [JeffP]
this is required by many use cases in many different field
08:02:07 [JeffP]
Sandro: OK I see the point
08:03:38 [JeffP]
Sandro propose: Interchaning rule extensions to ontology languages
08:04:25 [JeffP]
Chris: do we need to consider languages outside W3C standards?
08:05:27 [JeffP]
any languages?
08:05:41 [JeffP]
csma: topic map
08:06:12 [JeffP]
pfps: cycle
08:06:51 [JeffP]
csma: common logic too, although it is not an ontology language and more like a rule language
08:07:25 [pfps]
s/cycle/CYC-L/
08:07:40 [JeffP]
Sandro: what aout "Interchaning rule extensions to RDF and OWL"
08:25:24 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
08:30:31 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
09:23:21 [pfps]
pfps has joined #rif
09:23:42 [pfps]
USE CASE 2.8: Rich KR
09:23:43 [pfps]
Don: What about mismatches between source and target systems?
09:23:45 [pfps]
Chris: That is a different use case.
09:23:46 [pfps]
Chris: Title: Interchanging Rule Extensions to OWL (for Brain Anatomy Research)
09:23:48 [pfps]
Rationale: That is the use case.
09:23:51 [pfps]
?: Does this cover RDF?
09:23:51 [pfps]
Chris: No, should it be covered?
09:23:54 [pfps]
Jeremy: No, this use case is adequate (for HP).
09:23:54 [pfps]
?: This loses the idea of rich ontology languages.
09:23:56 [pfps]
Chris: This would be a new use case.
09:23:59 [pfps]
Michael: Leave the qualifier off the title, to allow for other examples.
09:23:59 [pfps]
Francois: The qualifier is a good title - it says it all.
09:24:00 [pfps]
Titles need to be concrete.
09:24:01 [pfps]
Chris: Objections to the title.
09:24:03 [pfps]
Giorgos Stamou: The use is general, the example is just illustrative.
09:24:04 [pfps]
Chris: Title options 1/ no clause 2/ "for" clause 3/ subtitle
09:24:06 [pfps]
Chris: Title: Interchanging Rule Extensions to OWL -
09:24:07 [pfps]
A Brain Anatomy Research Example
09:24:09 [pfps]
Chris: Actions 1/ remove uncle example and replace with brain anatomy example
09:24:11 [pfps]
2/ make title be Interchanging rule extensions to OWL
09:24:13 [pfps]
ACTION on PFPS - ask Ian to make changes to use case
09:24:15 [pfps]
Chris and Michael: modify Michael's action to think about new, related use case
09:24:29 [pfps]
USE CASE 2.1: Information Integration
09:24:31 [pfps]
Sandro: Right thing is to have Frank revise to address concerns
09:24:32 [pfps]
?: Perhaps the right thing is to have 2 use cases
09:24:34 [pfps]
Christian: New topic is "process and supply chain"
09:24:35 [pfps]
?: Perhaps might integrate remaining part of 2.6
09:24:37 [pfps]
Sandro: New title is "access to business rules of supply chain partners"
09:24:38 [pfps]
Frank: 2.6 example is FOAF-style rules about telephone contact rules
09:24:40 [pfps]
Christian: Proposal 1: remaining part of 2.6 fits into 2.1, so 2.6 is deleted
09:24:41 [pfps]
Proposal 2: remove data integration from 2.1, retitle, and revise,
09:24:43 [pfps]
ensuring that there are rules there
09:24:44 [pfps]
Proposal 3: add new use case about data integration
09:24:46 [pfps]
Sandro: moving 2.6 to 2.1 doesn't make sense
09:24:47 [pfps]
Christian: ok
09:24:49 [pfps]
Chris: objections to Proposal 2?
09:24:50 [pfps]
ACTION on Frank - effect Proposal 2 above
09:24:52 [pfps]
Chris: discussion on Proposal 3
09:24:53 [pfps]
Sandro: I can take the stuff from the charter and make it into use case 2.9
09:24:55 [pfps]
Title: Vocabulary mapping for data integration
09:24:56 [pfps]
Christian: consult with Dave Reynolds
09:24:58 [pfps]
Sergio: there should be something about incomplete information in the use case
09:25:00 [pfps]
Jeremy: data integration use case is interesting to HP because it is simple
09:25:02 [pfps]
Hassan: why is the use case related to incomplete information?
09:25:04 [pfps]
Sergio: there is often some sort of incomplete information in data integration
09:25:06 [pfps]
Sandro: This is a synthetic use case - does anyone have a real use case?
09:25:08 [pfps]
Frank: yes, there should be lots - Fujitsu has done this
09:25:10 [pfps]
Jeremy: let's do something that can be done fast, let's not try to perfect the use case now
09:25:12 [pfps]
?: production systems actually don't work on vocabulary mapping
09:25:14 [pfps]
they work, as well, on data mapping
09:25:16 [pfps]
Chris: Sandro will do the use case, Sergio to provide input
09:25:18 [pfps]
ACTION on Sandro - effect Proposal 3 as modified
09:25:20 [pfps]
Chris: discussion on Proposal 1
09:25:22 [pfps]
?: there is still something left in the area - something like distributed rule bases
09:25:24 [pfps]
Harold: the use cases in 2.6 need homes
09:25:26 [pfps]
Christian: FOAF use case ends up in 2.1
09:25:28 [pfps]
Sandro: don't see anything valuable left in 2.6
09:25:30 [pfps]
Chris: objections
09:25:32 [pfps]
ACTION on Allan as editor of UCR - remove 2.6
09:25:34 [pfps]
Hassan: status of Use Case titles in ToC
09:25:36 [pfps]
Chris: proposal is to do this somehow
09:25:38 [pfps]
Hassan: as long as it works out
09:25:40 [pfps]
USE CASE 2.2: Ruleset integration for Medical Decision Support
09:25:42 [pfps]
Chris: Status?
09:25:44 [pfps]
Christian: change title to above, drop e-learning,
09:25:46 [pfps]
concentrate on prescription part (and extend slightly)
09:25:48 [pfps]
Chris: Objections
09:25:50 [pfps]
ACTION on Chris: tell Leora to make changes
09:27:58 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
09:39:00 [DonaldC]
DonaldC has joined #RIF
09:39:17 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
09:39:26 [msintek]
msintek has joined #rif
09:40:26 [JosDeRoo]
JosDeRoo has joined #rif
09:40:46 [JosDeRoo]
ACTION: JeffPan propose extension to prescription example
09:42:51 [PaulaP]
PaulaP has joined #rif
09:43:37 [MarkusK]
MarkusK has joined #rif
09:44:55 [JosDeRoo]
discusssing UCR/Interchange of Human-oriented Business Rules
09:45:04 [JosDeRoo]
merging with 2.6 is not an option
09:45:16 [JosDeRoo]
ChrisW: use case is not close as it stands, needs catching better the intention
09:45:36 [JosDeRoo]
.. propose to move it for next WD round?
09:47:13 [JosDeRoo]
FrancoisB: have something about BR in first draft is crucial
09:48:47 [JosDeRoo]
CSMA: propose to keeep title in first WD
09:50:16 [jpan3]
jpan3 has joined #rif
09:50:45 [JosDeRoo]
CSMA: alternatively Donald to come up with new text by monday?
09:51:44 [JosDeRoo]
.. text can be removed
09:51:55 [JosDeRoo]
RESOLVED no objection
09:53:42 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rif
09:53:46 [JosDeRoo]
ACTION: JohnHall come up with new text by Monday
09:54:52 [LeeF]
LeeF has joined #rif
09:55:20 [JosDeRoo]
proposed title: tools for managing policies and practices in organizations
09:56:10 [msintek]
msintek has joined #rif
09:56:12 [JosDeRoo]
(discussing a proposed title..)
09:57:39 [msintek]
msintek has joined #rif
10:00:33 [JosDeRoo]
RESOLVED: new title "Managing inter-organizational business policies and practices"
10:01:16 [JosDeRoo]
ACTION: JohnH to reflect that title in the new proposed text
10:01:42 [JosDeRoo]
DONE with UCR discussion!!! fireworks
10:02:07 [JosDeRoo]
next topic: next F2F
10:03:53 [JosDeRoo]
AxelP: proposal to colocate with next ESWC Montenegro June 11-14
10:04:55 [JosDeRoo]
.. either 8-9 or 9-10 is proposed
10:06:06 [JosDeRoo]
Igor: afterconference is not an option
10:08:27 [JosDeRoo]
Igor: 8-9 was originally planned for RIF
10:11:37 [JosDeRoo]
no objection to have next F2F Montenegro either June 8-9 or June 9-10
10:19:32 [JosDeRoo]
RESOLVED: to have next F2F Montenegro either June 8-9 or June 9-10
10:19:58 [JosDeRoo]
RESOLVED: to have WBS vote per organization
10:20:13 [JosDeRoo]
ACTION: Sandro to organize such WBS vote
10:21:43 [JosDeRoo]
by next tcon have resolution on the date
10:25:24 [msintek]
msintek has left #rif
10:26:09 [msintek]
msintek has joined #rif
10:26:57 [JosDeRoo]
ACTION: AxelP to set up logistics F2F page
10:27:25 [JosDeRoo]
next topic: F2F4
10:27:40 [JosDeRoo]
proposed to have host in NA
10:27:53 [JosDeRoo]
.. around October
10:28:53 [JosDeRoo]
CSMA: propose to submit proposals and resolve next F2F
10:30:11 [JosDeRoo]
next topic: Roadmap
10:30:29 [JosDeRoo]
presentation by HaroldB
10:30:41 [mdean]
mdean has joined #rif
10:44:50 [msintek]
msintek has left #rif
10:45:49 [JosDeRoo]
the presention is on the mailing list http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg
10:52:35 [JosDeRoo]
Frank: if you do assert then you have to be able to undo it as well
10:53:55 [JosDeRoo]
(discussion about semantics of production rules)
10:54:25 [JosDeRoo]
ACTION: Frank to make his point on the mailing list
10:54:37 [MarkusK]
MarkusK has joined #rif
10:54:39 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
10:55:48 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
10:55:52 [JosDeRoo]
Francois: need for complex 'actions' in production rules (besides complex events and complex conditions)
10:56:49 [JosDeRoo]
Harold: can already do the syntactic extensions in Phase1
10:57:37 [JosDeRoo]
.. to make clear what might be done semantically in Phase2
10:57:38 [GaryHallmark]
+1 on including production rules earlier
10:57:46 [pfps]
pfps has joined #rif
10:59:39 [JosDeRoo]
ACTION: Harold to explain technically the basis for interoperation between PR and Horn rules
11:04:18 [JosDeRoo]
MichaelK: Phase1 is one semantics i.e. FOL entailment (is in response to Uli's question)
11:08:08 [JosDeRoo]
CSMA: will set up new page for requirements
11:08:13 [JosDeRoo]
LUNCH
11:43:35 [JosDeRoo_]
JosDeRoo_ has joined #rif
11:43:49 [pfps]
pfps has joined #rif
12:53:14 [MarkusK]
MarkusK has joined #rif
12:55:12 [msintek]
msintek has joined #rif
13:00:52 [pfps]
pfps has joined #rif
13:07:28 [JosDeRoo]
JosDeRoo has joined #rif
13:09:10 [MarkusK]
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Requirements
13:09:22 [csma]
csma has joined #rif
13:09:30 [JosDeRoo]
discussing http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Draft_-_Requirements_on_RIF
13:11:14 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
13:13:37 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
13:18:28 [patranja]
patranja has joined #rif
13:28:16 [deepalik]
deepalik has joined #rif
13:43:06 [Darko]
Darko has joined #rif
14:32:00 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #rif
14:32:17 [ChrisW]
mike dean, are you here?
14:36:54 [mdean]
yes
15:04:11 [EvanWa]
EvanWa has joined #rif
15:07:31 [MarkusK]
Scribe: Markus (4pm -- 5pm)
15:07:38 [aharth]
aharth has joined #rif
15:09:13 [MarkusK]
Sandro: Previous session of collecting requirements is not satisfying.
15:09:50 [MarkusK]
... there are many rule systems, but we need to identify common features
15:10:06 [MarkusK]
... there should be some sharing among similar systems
15:10:21 [MarkusK]
... e.g. sharing between several different production rulse systems
15:10:31 [MarkusK]
... Try to establish a framework
15:11:11 [MarkusK]
csma: agrees. Identify features that can be reused by other systems.
15:11:33 [MarkusK]
... provide guidance of how to work with unsupported features.
15:12:18 [MarkusK]
Topic: Semantic Web compatibility
15:13:13 [MarkusK]
Cris: Highly important to be compatible with existing Semweb standards
15:13:24 [MarkusK]
s/Cris/Chris/
15:14:05 [MarkusK]
... different possible views:
15:14:21 [MarkusK]
... (1) OWL as a part of (the syntax of) RIF
15:14:38 [MarkusK]
... OWL does not get translated
15:14:54 [MarkusK]
... but is just loaded in RIF without change
15:16:22 [MarkusK]
... (2) OWL as a target (?) language
15:16:55 [josb]
s/OWL as a target (?) language/OWL is a covered/source/target language
15:17:19 [MarkusK]
Mala: What about other langues such as Common Logic?
15:17:34 [MarkusK]
Chris: OWL ist a W3C standard, so compatibility is part of the charter.
15:18:01 [MarkusK]
Harold: I would like to add a third point: (3) interchange
15:18:19 [josb]
s/interchange/interoperation/
15:18:50 [MarkusK]
... meaning that one refers to another (OWL) document which remains external
15:19:51 [josb]
As I understood Harold, you include queries to OWL ontologies in the body of the rule
15:20:05 [MarkusK]
Yes, I think so
15:20:27 [MarkusK]
Sandro: There might be another aspect of (1): Transforming parts of OWL (e.g. DLP) into a rule syntax.
15:21:31 [MarkusK]
Elaboration of point (2):
15:22:30 [MarkusK]
* syntax/semantics of OWL in RIF
15:22:43 [MarkusK]
* mapping of OWL "Rules"
15:23:03 [MarkusK]
[literal transcription of board]
15:24:43 [MarkusK]
Francois: +1 Harold (i.e. point (3) above)
15:27:34 [MarkusK]
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 [MarkusK]
... It suffices to encode OWL semantics in rules.
15:29:09 [MarkusK]
Francois: Syntax of course must be compatible or translatable -- but this is secondary.
15:29:18 [MarkusK]
... Reasoning is more important.
15:29:34 [MarkusK]
... Reasoning for rule languages is typically constructive.
15:29:59 [MarkusK]
... Which is simpler than reasoning in other formalisms (no excluded middle, refutation, ...)
15:30:22 [MarkusK]
... Implementing an OWL reasoner in RIF would not be good.
15:30:29 [MarkusK]
Chris: We do not want to do this.
15:31:00 [MarkusK]
Fraincois: Translating OWL into RIF does not make sense. (?)
15:31:20 [MarkusK]
Harold: The expressiveness needed to translate OWL into RIF is not available in Phase 1.
15:31:58 [MarkusK]
Chris: Any other ideas on Semantic Web compatibility as well?
15:32:13 [MarkusK]
csma: Can this be applied to RDF as well?
15:32:42 [MarkusK]
Harold: We probably mean OWL DL and this refers to a subset of RDF as well.
15:32:52 [MarkusK]
Chris: I was talking about OWL in general.
15:33:27 [MarkusK]
Chris: What are the options for RDF and RDFS?
15:34:30 [josb]
Allen
15:34:45 [Darko]
Frank
15:34:45 [csma]
\me franck
15:34:49 [josb]
Frank McCabe
15:36:29 [MarkusK]
FrankMcCabe: The case of combining OWL with another rule language is important.
15:36:39 [MarkusK]
.. e.g. one could combine OWL with Prolog
15:36:59 [MarkusK]
... and this combined language might have a different mapping to RIF
15:37:18 [MarkusK]
Chris: Mapping OWL into Prolog is lossy already.
15:37:38 [MarkusK]
FrankMcCabe: It might be possible to have non-lossy combinations.
15:38:00 [MarkusK]
Chris: It seems that it would then be possible to use a uniform mapping.
15:38:40 [Darko]
Hasan
15:39:53 [MarkusK]
Francois: Rule languages often have no disjunctive reasoning.
15:40:15 [MarkusK]
... and translating C \sqsubseteq A\sqsup B might be problematic
15:40:40 [MarkusK]
... since a lossy translation "A <- C" is not useful
15:41:07 [MarkusK]
Chris: Why should a rule language not have disjunctions in the head?
15:41:39 [MarkusK]
Francois: Such rule languages do not seem useful, since they might be incompatible to existing languages.
15:41:56 [MarkusK]
Sandro: Full FOL is in scope for Phase 2.
15:42:47 [MarkusK]
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 [MarkusK]
Discussion on whether OWL syntax should be part of RIF.
15:45:01 [MarkusK]
Chris: This may conflict with the requirement of having a nice syntax.
15:45:27 [MarkusK]
Deepa: If OWL/XML is part of RIF, does every RIF-conformant processor have to support OWL?
15:45:53 [MarkusK]
Chris: No. This is not required, since hardly any system can be expected to support all languages captured by RIF.
15:47:01 [MarkusK]
Sandro: The label "sublanguage" [used by Chris earlier] was replaced early on by the idea of "modules" in the charter.
15:47:21 [MarkusK]
... So one can have systems conforming to some RIF module.
15:47:36 [DavidHirtle]
DavidHirtle has joined #rif
15:49:28 [csma]
\me jos de roo
15:50:29 [MarkusK]
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 [MarkusK]
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 [MarkusK]
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 [MarkusK]
Francois: Theory Reasoning/Theory Resolution might also be a general option.
15:54:09 [MarkusK]
Hassan: This formalism was made obsolete by Constraint Programming.
15:54:44 [pfps]
Christine
15:55:12 [MarkusK]
Christine: What does "greater-than-Horn expressivity" mean in point (2)(b)?
15:55:31 [MarkusK]
... will we end up with a super-set approach when supporting many languages in this way?
15:56:05 [MarkusK]
Chris: OWL has a special status that other languages *may* not have.
15:56:38 [MarkusK]
Francois: We are at the crossing point of this WG!
15:56:44 [MarkusK]
... Two choices:
15:57:37 [MarkusK]
... (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 [MarkusK]
Sandro: There might be more reasoners in the future.
15:58:04 [MarkusK]
... It must not be our concern at the moment.
15:58:48 [MarkusK]
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 [MarkusK]
... this is rather a reasearch topic.
15:59:29 [MarkusK]
Chris: We do not require that there are reasoners for RIF.
15:59:39 [MarkusK]
Francois: Second approach:
15:59:54 [MarkusK]
... (ii) We can look around at best practices in Computer Science.
16:00:06 [MarkusK]
.. there are currently three kinds of rules.
16:00:47 [MarkusK]
... Database-like rules, Integrity constrainst, and
16:01:05 [aharth]
reactive rules
16:01:33 [MarkusK]
... So one should look at existing tools to find what is useful in practice.
16:02:06 [MarkusK]
Chris: Let us turn our findings into something concrete.
16:02:39 [MarkusK]
ACTION: Francois writes down the details of his proposal.
16:03:09 [MarkusK]
Chris: Other approaches to Semweb compatibility?
16:04:09 [MarkusK]
pfps: You could relax the requirement of having "OWL/XML" as a syntactical embedding of OWL into RIF.
16:04:28 [MarkusK]
... so why not admit another syntax, such as OWL abstract syntax.
16:04:50 [MarkusK]
Chris: This is not an option since OWL/XML is the only syntax for OWL Full.
16:05:33 [MarkusK]
== Vote ==
16:05:44 [MarkusK]
Who thinks (1) is the way to support OWL?
16:05:50 [MarkusK]
-> 1 person
16:07:40 [MarkusK]
Francois: In FOL you often have a placeholder for terms, whereas in OWL you leave terms implicit.
16:08:00 [MarkusK]
... I like both. So maybe we can keep both options?
16:08:33 [MarkusK]
... you can choose either way, or try to combine both.
16:08:55 [MarkusK]
... Description Logic has another cultural style than FOL.
16:09:05 [MarkusK]
... There might be problems of combining the two.
16:09:50 [MarkusK]
Michael: Clarification: (1) was embedding without translation, and (2) (a) includes a new syntax for OWL?
16:10:11 [MarkusK]
cmsa: Yes.
16:11:05 [MarkusK]
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 [MarkusK]
... but the modal syntax can be mapped to FOL.
16:11:48 [MarkusK]
... So it probably not that hard to map one style to the other.
16:14:19 [MarkusK]
Chris provides more clarification concerning the different between (2) (a) and (b).
16:14:31 [MarkusK]
Who thinks that (2) (a) is the way for RIF to be compatible with OWL?
16:14:34 [MarkusK]
-> 7 people
16:14:39 [MarkusK]
Who thinks that (2) (b) is the way for RIF to be compatible with OWL?
16:14:43 [MarkusK]
-> 15 people
16:15:23 [MarkusK]
Who thinks that (3) is the way for RIF to be compatible with OWL?
16:15:27 [MarkusK]
-> 18 people
16:16:13 [MarkusK]
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 [MarkusK]
Michael: Nobody has to do the work.
16:18:02 [MarkusK]
Sergio: The works by Eiter and Rosati are examples for (3).
16:18:14 [MarkusK]
... both are possible.
16:18:28 [MarkusK]
Igor: I had a different undertanding of (3).
16:18:38 [MarkusK]
... Wasn't (3) more like SPARQL?
16:18:46 [MarkusK]
Chris: No, rather not.
16:19:36 [MarkusK]
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 [MarkusK]
Chris: Any other comments? [none]
16:20:41 [MarkusK]
... Another aspect of the compatibility discussion are URIs.
16:20:50 [MarkusK]
csma: We should use IRIs
16:20:58 [MarkusK]
s/csma/pfps/
16:21:13 [MarkusK]
Sandro: I think we can still say "URIs"
16:21:30 [MarkusK]
Chris: So to what part are URIs part of RIF?
16:22:17 [MarkusK]
s/Michael/MichaelKifer/
16:22:39 [MarkusK]
Chris: Should all our symbols be URIs?
16:23:10 [tlr]
tlr has joined #rif
16:23:34 [MarkusK]
Francois: The URI issue seems to be important for reasoning on the web.
16:24:13 [MarkusK]
... Another aspect is privacy of data. So can we restrict RIF rules to some part of the Web?
16:24:52 [MarkusK]
... Something similar is possible in RDF. There one can include statements.
16:25:11 [MarkusK]
[General disagreement: there is no import/include in RDF]
16:26:09 [MarkusK]
Sandro: URIs are used both as names and as locations.
16:26:25 [MarkusK]
... RDF never uses them as addresses. We have to be careful to distinguish this.
16:28:53 [MarkusK]
Chris: To the commercial rule vendors:
16:29:13 [MarkusK]
... would it be a limitation to have to use URIs for every symbol in RIF?
16:30:14 [MarkusK]
?: This is just a mapping issue. No major problem.
16:30:58 [MarkusK]
Francois: The possibility of hiding is very important. It might be useful for us.
16:31:10 [MarkusK]
... (hiding as in Software Engineering)
16:31:35 [MarkusK]
Sandro: We would need a serious reason for supporting this.
16:31:41 [MarkusK]
... It seems to be complicated.
16:31:48 [josb]
+1
16:33:24 [MarkusK]
?: The descision that some identifiers are the same can be complicated in some logical systems.
16:33:51 [MarkusK]
... So requiring that every URI is a different thing affects reasoning.
16:34:05 [josb]
s/?/Frank/
16:34:07 [MarkusK]
Chris: E.g. in OWL this is not assumed.
16:35:28 [MarkusK]
s/?:/FrankMcCabe/
16:36:45 [MarkusK]
Scribe job passed on to MichaelSintek
16:37:06 [msintek]
Harold: talk more about RDF
16:37:25 [MarkusK]
The above "This is just a mapping issue. No major problem." was said by Paul Vincent.
16:37:26 [msintek]
Harold: bnodes, see wiki
16:37:35 [josb]
ScribeNick msintek
16:37:44 [tlr]
ScribeNick: msintek
16:37:58 [msintek]
Harold: binary/ternary relations, ...
16:39:10 [msintek]
... mappings; correspondence of RDFS and RIF
16:39:31 [msintek]
Chris: any burning issues?
16:40:22 [msintek]
csma: major achievements: use cases ...
16:40:27 [msintek]
... design goals ...
16:40:39 [msintek]
... moving toward technical spec
16:40:47 [msintek]
... thanks the scribes :-)
16:41:14 [msintek]
... minutes as fast as possible
16:41:31 [msintek]
... reminds us of schedule
16:41:47 [msintek]
... telecon in two weeks: uc
16:42:08 [msintek]
... lots of actions
16:42:27 [msintek]
... closing statement: thanks everybody
16:42:32 [msintek]
... see you next time
16:45:05 [csma]
RRSagent, pointer?
16:45:05 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2006/02/28-rif-irc#T16-45-05
16:45:27 [csma]
RRSagent, make minutes
16:45:27 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/02/28-rif-minutes.html csma
16:48:10 [msintek]
msintek has left #rif