IRC log of rif on 2006-03-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:27:05 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
15:27:05 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/03/14-rif-irc
15:35:33 [sandro]
zakim, this will be rif
15:35:33 [Zakim]
ok, sandro; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 25 minutes
15:44:13 [patranja]
patranja has joined #rif
15:47:20 [DavidHirtle]
DavidHirtle has joined #rif
15:48:03 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
15:50:39 [MarkusK]
MarkusK has joined #rif
15:52:27 [FrankMcCabe]
FrankMcCabe has joined #rif
15:53:27 [Hassan]
Hassan has joined #rif
15:54:29 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
15:54:31 [Zakim]
+??P6
15:55:09 [Zakim]
+Sandro
15:55:10 [Hassan]
Zakim, ??P6 is me
15:55:10 [Zakim]
-Sandro
15:55:11 [Zakim]
+Sandro
15:55:12 [Zakim]
+Hassan; got it
15:55:27 [csma]
csma has joined #rif
15:55:34 [Deborah_Nichols]
Deborah_Nichols has joined #rif
15:55:34 [Hassan]
Zakim, mute me
15:55:34 [Zakim]
Hassan should now be muted
15:55:57 [Zakim]
+[NRCC]
15:56:07 [Zakim]
+Deborah_Nichols
15:56:07 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
15:56:17 [Harold]
Zakim, [NRCC] is me
15:56:17 [Zakim]
+Harold; got it
15:56:40 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #rif
15:56:40 [MalaMehrotra]
MalaMehrotra has joined #rif
15:56:44 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
15:56:52 [FrankMcCabe]
zakim, IPCaller is me
15:56:52 [Zakim]
+FrankMcCabe; got it
15:57:30 [Zakim]
+JacekK
15:57:38 [Zakim]
+??P10
15:57:46 [Donald_Chapin]
Donald_Chapin has joined #rif
15:57:59 [csma]
zakim, ??P10 is me
15:58:00 [Zakim]
+csma; got it
15:58:05 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.564.aaaa
15:58:25 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
15:58:36 [sandro]
zakim, aaaa is Mala
15:58:36 [Zakim]
+Mala; got it
15:58:53 [Zakim]
+??P22
15:59:00 [Zakim]
+Donald_Chapin (was ??P22)
15:59:08 [pfps]
pfps has joined #rif
15:59:21 [Zakim]
+Allen_Ginsberg
15:59:29 [Zakim]
+Axel_Polleres
15:59:31 [Zakim]
+??P28
15:59:33 [Zakim]
+Dave_Reynolds (was ??P28)
15:59:34 [Donald_Chapin]
zakim, mute me
15:59:34 [Zakim]
Donald_Chapin should now be muted
15:59:35 [Zakim]
+??P24
15:59:50 [LeoraMorgenstern]
LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
15:59:52 [pfps]
zakim, ??p24 is pfps
15:59:53 [Zakim]
+pfps; got it
15:59:58 [igor]
igor has joined #rif
16:00:10 [GiorgosStoilos]
GiorgosStoilos has joined #rif
16:00:13 [Zakim]
+David_Hirtle
16:00:25 [Darko]
Darko has joined #rif
16:00:27 [Allen]
Allen has joined #rif
16:00:40 [Allen]
zakim, mute me
16:00:40 [Zakim]
Allen_Ginsberg should now be muted
16:00:52 [Allen]
zakim, mute me
16:00:55 [Zakim]
Allen_Ginsberg was already muted, Allen
16:00:56 [Zakim]
+??P37
16:01:13 [Zakim]
+Igor_Mozetic
16:01:22 [igor]
zakim, mute me
16:01:24 [Zakim]
Igor_Mozetic should now be muted
16:01:32 [LeoraMorgenstern]
??P37 is LeoraMorgenstern
16:01:36 [Zakim]
+Mike_Dean
16:01:49 [Zakim]
+GiorgosStoilos
16:02:10 [Zakim]
+PaulaP
16:03:09 [PaulaP]
I have a bad cold, I'm afraid of missing good points because of my cough
16:03:18 [PaulaP]
can I scribe next week?
16:03:18 [Zakim]
+Darko
16:03:20 [PaulaP]
sorry
16:04:46 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
16:05:08 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #rif
16:05:34 [Darko]
Zakim, mute me
16:05:34 [Zakim]
Darko should now be muted
16:05:38 [josb]
I'm here
16:06:07 [josb]
scribenick: josb
16:06:09 [Zakim]
+JeffP
16:06:29 [josb]
Christian: main topic is first release of UCR document
16:06:41 [josb]
... will be a short meeting; ChrisW is not there
16:06:51 [josb]
Topic: minutes of last meeting
16:06:58 [josb]
Christian: objections?
16:07:09 [PaulaP]
+1
16:07:11 [josb]
... no objections
16:07:16 [AxelPolleres]
+1
16:07:30 [josb]
RESOLVED: Minutes of March 7th meeting are accepted
16:07:43 [josb]
Christian: minutes of F2F meeting are not there yet
16:08:02 [josb]
... they will be out shortly
16:08:15 [josb]
Topic: agenda amendments
16:08:41 [AxelPolleres]
+1
16:08:43 [PaulaP]
+1
16:08:46 [josb]
csma: liason to be done after discussion of UCR document [no objections]
16:09:03 [josb]
Topic: F2F meeting
16:09:06 [csma]
q?
16:09:12 [sandro]
ack ??P37
16:09:17 [LeoraMorgenstern]
??P37 is me
16:09:30 [sandro]
Zakim, ??P37 is Leora
16:09:30 [Zakim]
+Leora; got it
16:09:46 [Zakim]
+Gary_Hallmark
16:09:59 [josb]
csma: F2F3: result of straw poll: majority for 8-9 June
16:10:08 [sandro]
(Leora, you need to prefix "??P37 is me" with "Zakim, " for it to be recongized by the system.)
16:10:19 [josb]
... propose to have F2F3 in Budva on June 8-9
16:10:20 [sandro]
+1
16:10:20 [josb]
+1
16:10:22 [PaulaP]
+1
16:10:23 [igor]
+1
16:10:23 [MarkusK]
+1
16:10:29 [Donald_Chapin]
=1
16:10:30 [Darko]
+1
16:10:42 [josb]
RESOLVED: F2F3 will be in Budva, June 8-9
16:10:58 [ghallmar]
ghallmar has joined #rif
16:11:03 [josb]
csma: F2F4: action on pfps to find sponsor
16:11:04 [Zakim]
+Ed_Barkmeyer
16:11:15 [josb]
... he did not find anyone (see email)
16:11:23 [edbark]
edbark has joined #rif
16:11:37 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
16:11:53 [josb]
... suggestion from pfps for people going to iswc could sponsor meeting
16:12:23 [josb]
... action on Ed to propose solution related to business rules forum (is at same time as iswc in Washington)
16:12:49 [josb]
Ed: there is meeting space available on 10-11, following brf (business rules forum)
16:13:10 [josb]
... 10th is holiday in US (minor annoyance to US-based people)
16:13:50 [josb]
... seconds observation that co-location with iswc would probably be better in terms of getting rif to move forward
16:14:14 [josb]
csma: when does iswc end?
16:14:28 [josb]
pfps: ruleml is 9-10; owl workshop is 10-11
16:14:52 [josb]
csma: 10-11 is conflict with these events; thus these dates are not an option
16:15:12 [josb]
... if connected with brf, it should be scheduled before
16:15:27 [MarkusK]
For the protocoll: we are talking about November.
16:15:42 [edbark]
I will tell Terry Moriarty (BRF) that we will not use the space on 10-11
16:15:44 [josb]
csma encourages participants in the WG to sponsor F2F meetings, and especially the F2F4 in November
16:16:00 [josb]
Topic: UC&R document
16:16:13 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
16:16:13 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2006/03/14-rif-irc#T16-16-13
16:16:18 [Zakim]
+Jos_De_Roo
16:16:28 [josb]
csma: we want to have a vote on releasing first public working draft
16:16:29 [JosDeRoo]
JosDeRoo has joined #rif
16:16:44 [josb]
... working group decision on this publication needs to be recorded
16:17:28 [josb]
... a complete consensus for the first working draft is not necessary, but is desirable
16:17:44 [pfps]
+q
16:17:52 [pfps]
q+
16:17:54 [josb]
csma proposes to discuss the objections which people may have
16:19:05 [josb]
csma: we will vote on the results of this discussion, including amendments which might come up during the discussion
16:19:13 [sandro]
brief discussions to see if there is consensus on each item; if not, the UC gets postponed to WD2
16:19:25 [josb]
pfps: wants to discuss title and abstract
16:19:42 [josb]
csma: this can be discussed as well
16:19:52 [AxelPolleres]
didn't see it either
16:20:17 [PaulV]
PaulV has joined #rif
16:21:17 [josb]
csma: if we don't have a consensus on the title, we will skip it, like for the abstract and the use cases
16:21:36 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
16:21:44 [josb]
s/skip/keep/
16:22:15 [josb]
s/the use cases/not for the use cases; we will skip them if there is no consensus/
16:22:25 [LeoraMorgenstern]
+1 with pfps
16:22:37 [josb]
pfps: there are no requirements, although this is mentioned in the title and abstract
16:22:57 [PaulV]
PaulV apologizes for being late...
16:23:00 [AxelPolleres]
+1 with solution 1 from pfps
16:23:05 [josb]
... either we put a stub (TODO) or we change the title and abstract to reflect the fact that there are no requirements
16:23:25 [edbark]
+1 to stub
16:23:29 [josb]
Sandro: title can be changed in the middle of the process, but it would probably be better to have a stub
16:23:35 [josb]
+1 to stub
16:23:41 [DavidHirtle]
+1 to stub
16:23:49 [igor]
+1 to stub
16:23:57 [GiorgosStoilos]
+1 to stub
16:23:58 [josb]
csma: +1 to stub
16:24:18 [Allen]
+1 to stub
16:24:24 [PaulaP]
+1
16:25:04 [josb]
[RESOLVED] there will be a stub which marks that requirements will follow in a later version
16:25:26 [josb]
ACTION: editors of the UCR document to write a stub which marks that requirements will follow in a later version
16:25:40 [edbark]
not just "later draft", "next draft"
16:25:45 [MichaelKifer]
MichaelKifer has joined #rif
16:25:48 [Allen]
zakim, unmute me
16:25:48 [Zakim]
Allen_Ginsberg should no longer be muted
16:25:50 [josb]
csma: let's more to use cases
16:26:08 [josb]
... should we have an introductory paragraph to the use cases?
16:26:17 [AxelPolleres]
q+
16:26:28 [josb]
Allen: I sent this to the email list
16:27:04 [Zakim]
+Michael_Kifer
16:27:05 [josb]
csma: would like this to include a comment about the nearly 50 use cases which are now summarized into the 8 more abstract use cases
16:27:34 [sandro]
q?
16:27:36 [csma]
q?
16:27:38 [sandro]
ack pfps
16:27:41 [sandro]
ack AxelPolleres
16:27:51 [josb]
Axel: why are there no references to the original use cases?
16:27:57 [sandro]
+1 add reference to use cases on WIki
16:28:07 [PaulaP]
+1
16:28:22 [josb]
csma: would we have this in the final document (the recommendation)?
16:28:37 [josb]
... what would be the purpose of this?
16:28:49 [Harold]
q+
16:29:12 [igor]
+1 for Wiki refs
16:29:23 [edbark]
q+
16:29:23 [josb]
Axel: thinks it might be interesting for some people
16:29:33 [josb]
csma: to move discussion to later draft
16:29:41 [csma]
ack harold
16:30:00 [sandro]
link to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Use_Cases ? or where on WIki?
16:30:00 [josb]
Harold: thinks that the final document could contain a link to the wiki page on UCR
16:30:08 [Allen]
q+
16:30:13 [MarkusK]
Linking to wiki pages yields a versioning problem
16:30:19 [MarkusK]
Wikis are not stable.
16:30:23 [josb]
sandro: link to wiki will not stay in public draft
16:30:39 [AxelPolleres]
you can link to specific versions in the wiki
16:30:53 [josb]
csma: links seem too complex and confusing to the reader
16:30:53 [edbark]
q-
16:31:09 [DavidHirtle]
it could be as simple as making "fifty use cases" link back to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Use%20Cases I'd think
16:31:30 [josb]
ACTION: chair to include the discussion on this issue (links to wiki in public drafts) in the agenda for the next telecon
16:31:57 [josb]
Allen: what does it mean to reference original use cases, because they are not discussed or agreed upon in the group
16:31:59 [MarkusK]
[wiki version] This requires you to have 50 complicated urls, right?
16:32:06 [josb]
csma: Use case 1.1
16:32:13 [josb]
... no registered objections
16:32:21 [DavidHirtle]
@MarkusK, no - just the link above
16:32:26 [josb]
... to discuss Axel, Dave and Paula's comments
16:32:54 [AxelPolleres]
I would rewrite
16:32:54 [AxelPolleres]
"widget" to "ordered good" or "purchase order item"
16:32:55 [FrankMcCabe]
talking about widget is traditional
16:32:56 [MichaelKifer1]
MichaelKifer1 has joined #rif
16:33:14 [josb]
... Axel's comment: 'widget' seems sloppy
16:33:32 [josb]
Allen: what do you want to have instead?
16:33:52 [josb]
csma: seems easy to have something more serious
16:34:16 [AxelPolleres]
ok
16:34:18 [josb]
Allen: change 'widget' to 'item'
16:34:34 [LeoraMorgenstern]
grammar issues: you'll need to have "some items," "the items," e.g,
16:34:39 [josb]
[RESOLVED] in use case 1.1, 'widget' will be replaced with 'item'
16:34:45 [AxelPolleres]
q+
16:34:51 [LeoraMorgenstern]
rather than just a string substitution of "item" for "widget"
16:34:51 [DavidHirtle]
DavidHirtle has joined #rif
16:34:51 [csma]
q?
16:35:01 [Allen]
q-
16:35:13 [DavidHirtle]
minor comment, Allen: "food stuff" --> "foodstuff"
16:35:30 [josb]
Axel: did not object to publishing it now, but it should be discussed what the discussion is between 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5
16:35:55 [FrankMcCabe]
q+
16:36:16 [sandro]
DavidHirtle, (I find "foodstuff" clumsy and wonder if "beverage" wouldn't be better.)
16:36:23 [josb]
ACTION: Axel to send email on redundance between use cases 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 and what should be done
16:36:36 [Allen]
how about "perishable" instead of "food stuff"
16:36:40 [josb]
s/redundance/redundancy/
16:36:52 [sandro]
(yes, perishable is good)
16:37:20 [DavidHirtle]
perishable: "Something, especially foodstuff, subject to decay or spoilage"
16:37:26 [DavidHirtle]
but I agree, it's better
16:37:26 [csma]
q?
16:37:36 [josb]
csma: other objections to use case 1.1?
16:37:39 [AxelPolleres]
q-
16:37:51 [josb]
... no
16:37:56 [josb]
csma: use case 1.2
16:38:09 [josb]
... comment Dave: need for interchange should be made more clear
16:38:14 [PaulaP]
I think this is clear enough in this version
16:38:15 [DaveReynolds]
ack me
16:38:33 [josb]
Dave: no objection to publishing at this time
16:39:18 [josb]
... the case for the rules to be exposed is not clear; it even seems that the information should be protected in this case
16:39:27 [josb]
csma agrees with Dave's comment
16:39:45 [josb]
csma: let's move on for now
16:40:00 [josb]
... editors to correct the mentioned typo
16:40:38 [josb]
Frank: about 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 to be similar: I actually think they are different
16:40:50 [josb]
s/to be/begin/
16:40:53 [DavidHirtle]
(I just fixed the typo Paula pointed out in 1.2)
16:41:12 [PaulaP]
ok
16:41:16 [Zakim]
+??P2
16:41:28 [IanH]
IanH has joined #rif
16:41:40 [AxelPolleres]
The narrative/scenario in 1.1,1.4,1.5 are very similar, the differences should be made clearer or a merged use case should cover all aspects. I will send a mail on that.
16:41:47 [csma]
q?
16:41:50 [GaryHallmark]
can the rules be boxed rather than bulleted for consistency?
16:41:55 [csma]
ack frank
16:42:16 [josb]
... about exchange rules vs. exchanging queries: distinction is made in section on processes
16:42:41 [josb]
csma: no objection to keeping 1.2 with the typo correction
16:42:50 [josb]
csma: Use case 1.3
16:43:05 [MichaelKifer1]
MichaelKifer1 has joined #rif
16:43:17 [josb]
... all commenters propose last paragraph to be dropped
16:43:21 [DavidHirtle]
Gary, they should be boxed in this latest version (in the wiki)
16:43:27 [csma]
q?
16:43:42 [IanH]
Can someone tell me my port number? I joined a couple of minutes ago.
16:44:05 [josb]
Allen: last paragraph is about SOA; no objection to moving that
16:44:12 [josb]
IanH: P2
16:44:41 [josb]
s/moving/removing/
16:44:46 [csma]
q?
16:44:47 [DavidHirtle]
Gary, I see you must be talking about 1.2 -- you're right
16:44:54 [AxelPolleres]
q+
16:45:03 [csma]
q?
16:45:11 [josb]
Frank: would like to keep the paragraph, because we need a connection with web services
16:45:24 [edbark]
q+
16:45:31 [csma]
ack axel
16:45:36 [PaulaP]
we could have another use case in the next UCR version
16:45:44 [PaulaP]
on web services and soa
16:45:58 [FrankMcCabe]
+1
16:46:02 [josb]
Axel: issue of service-level agreements is important, but it is not clear how it relates to this use case; perhaps a new use case
16:46:42 [josb]
s/case/case is necessary to capture this aspect/
16:47:12 [edbark]
q-
16:47:19 [josb]
csma: no real objections to keep this text, so we'll keep the text for the first public draft
16:47:27 [Zakim]
+ChrisW
16:47:47 [josb]
ChrisW joins
16:48:10 [josb]
csma: Use case 1.4
16:48:32 [josb]
... comments: that it is similar to 1.1 and 1.5; this is already put into an action for Axel
16:48:42 [josb]
... other comment by Axel: would like more examples
16:48:58 [josb]
Frank: could have a look at that
16:49:17 [josb]
... the original use case had an additional example
16:49:41 [josb]
Allen: there was a second rule, but it did not seem to refer to anything
16:49:53 [DavidHirtle]
if the product is available in the warehouse in sufficient quantity then order quantity can be met
16:50:03 [DavidHirtle]
is the rule that was cut out
16:50:28 [josb]
csma: no objections to keeping the use case as it is
16:50:41 [josb]
csma: use case 1.5
16:50:51 [josb]
... comment about redundancy
16:51:17 [josb]
... proposal to remove one part; supported by Dave and Paula
16:51:38 [Donald_Chapin]
q+
16:51:45 [csma]
ack dona
16:51:47 [Donald_Chapin]
zakim, unmute me
16:51:47 [Zakim]
Donald_Chapin was not muted, Donald_Chapin
16:51:49 [MalaMehrotra]
MalaMehrotra has joined #rif
16:52:01 [csma]
q?
16:52:07 [Zakim]
-Hassan
16:52:13 [PaulaP]
I didn't offer support for removing something from 1.5
16:52:35 [josb]
Donald: thinks it should be discussed for the second draft, because there is a difference of opinions
16:52:38 [PaulaP]
just said that it would be good to have more on rif in the second part
16:52:55 [DavidHirtle]
(but you did say it was a bit long)
16:52:58 [PaulaP]
no hard objections
16:53:09 [DaveReynolds]
no hard objection
16:53:36 [DaveReynolds]
ack me
16:53:40 [Zakim]
+??P5
16:53:54 [PaulaP]
no hard objections
16:53:59 [sandro]
zakim, unmute me
16:53:59 [Zakim]
Sandro should no longer be muted
16:54:05 [PaulaP]
I accept the section
16:54:13 [PaulaP]
no problem
16:54:25 [csma]
q?
16:55:13 [josb]
chrisw (w/o chair's hat): objects to the use case as it stands; would like to move it to the "under development section"
16:55:59 [sandro]
(I'm trying to figure out if this is the place to use an Issue.)
16:56:07 [josb]
csma: can you accept the document as a whole with the use case as it
16:56:15 [josb]
s/it/it is/
16:56:36 [josb]
chrisw (w/o chair's hat): thinks this is not really a use case for RIF
16:56:48 [ugo]
ugo has joined #rif
16:56:57 [josb]
csma: sandro proposes that this can be added as an issue to the issues list
16:56:58 [edbark]
q+
16:57:32 [josb]
sandro: is not sure whether this is an issue for the issues list, because the issues list seems more for the technical issues, whereas this is a scope issue
16:57:45 [FrankMcCabe]
q+
16:57:46 [Allen]
q+
16:58:07 [csma]
ack edb
16:58:52 [josb]
edbark: there is a tight deadline, but there are still many comments
16:59:08 [josb]
... maybe we should have another round of edits before the first public draft
16:59:26 [AxelPolleres]
+1 to Edbark, I don't see this objection a harder point than the others, I removed my objections for the undersstanding that this is about getiing something out NOW
16:59:29 [josb]
csma: W3C says that drafts should be published as early as possible
17:00:02 [josb]
edbark: nobody will disagree with publishing a really early rough draft
17:00:21 [josb]
... it is not necessary to go over all the use cases now
17:00:26 [AxelPolleres]
+1 again
17:00:36 [csma]
ack
17:00:37 [PaulaP]
+1 for Ed
17:00:58 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the phone?
17:01:22 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Sandro, Harold, Deborah_Nichols (muted), FrankMcCabe, josb (muted), csma, Mala, Donald_Chapin, Allen_Ginsberg, Axel_Polleres, Dave_Reynolds (muted), pfps,
17:01:23 [josb]
Frank: 2 threads in this use case: (1) whether the rules are interpreted by the people and (2) rules about interorganizational business policies
17:01:28 [Zakim]
... DavidHirtle, Leora, Igor_Mozetic (muted), Mike_Dean, GiorgosStoilos, PaulaP (muted), Darko (muted), MarkusK (muted), JeffP, Gary_Hallmark, Ed_Barkmeyer (muted), Jos_De_Roo,
17:01:31 [josb]
+1 for Ed
17:01:35 [Zakim]
... PaulV, Michael_Kifer, IanH (muted), ChrisW, Hassan (muted)
17:01:36 [csma]
q?
17:01:50 [csma]
ack frankc
17:01:53 [josb]
Frank: if it's about human execution, agree with chrisw
17:02:04 [csma]
ack frankmc
17:02:06 [Zakim]
-Hassan
17:02:08 [josb]
Donald: is about specification of ruels which are interpreted by both people and machines
17:02:34 [josb]
s/rueles/rules/
17:02:40 [josb]
s/ruels/rules/
17:02:58 [josb]
Allen: we don't want to use RIF for negotiation about what rules look like
17:03:24 [josb]
csma: chrisw's point is whether a ruel is interpreted by a human or a machine(?)
17:04:13 [josb]
csma: Frank and chrisw possibly object to use case included in first draft
17:04:24 [josb]
chrisw: objects to use case as it is
17:04:25 [Darko]
s/ruel/rule
17:04:44 [josb]
csma: thus use case is moved to section "under development"
17:05:05 [josb]
Donald: what if we remove paragraph to which chrisw objects from first draft and discuss it later?
17:05:18 [josb]
chrisw: yes
17:05:43 [josb]
Frank: objects to first paragraph; should be dropped
17:06:24 [sandro]
Discussion is on dropping "EU-Rent UK finds some problems in applying the rules. One is that sometimes it has to give free upgrades to customers. It wants to have one of the rules for insurance tax changed."
17:06:42 [sandro]
or maybe not.
17:06:55 [PaulaP]
I don't think the first para should be dropped
17:07:10 [josb]
Donald: many people think first paragraph should not be dropped
17:07:20 [ugo]
ugo has left #rif
17:07:39 [Allen]
we should publish it so we can get comments from outside the rif
17:07:58 [josb]
Frank: additional comment: should be faced at some point
17:08:07 [PaulaP]
but we can accept 1.5 at moment
17:08:15 [josb]
Allen: if we don't publish it, we don't know what the rest of the world thinks
17:08:34 [JosDeRoo]
JosDeRoo has joined #rif
17:08:43 [josb]
csma: no hard objections to publishing the use case with the paragraph to which chrisw objects removed
17:08:49 [sandro]
RESOLVED: include 1.5 in WD1 with the lines ChrisW objected to removed
17:09:05 [josb]
ACTION: editors to remove paragraph to which chrisw objects
17:09:12 [Allen]
q+
17:09:20 [josb]
csma: use case 1.6
17:09:47 [PaulaP]
no
17:09:54 [josb]
... any objection to removing part(?) of the use case
17:09:58 [LeoraMorgenstern]
I think it should be discussed
17:10:00 [LeoraMorgenstern]
q+
17:10:10 [csma]
q?
17:10:13 [josb]
s/part(?)/last part/
17:10:31 [DavidHirtle]
josb, after "Bob recently suffered a concussion"
17:11:03 [josb]
s/part/part, after "Bob recently suffered a concussion"/
17:11:29 [josb]
Allen: do we need a disclaimer?
17:11:57 [josb]
csma: different issue from removing part of the use case to align the length of the use case with the other use cases
17:12:22 [josb]
Leora: doesn't see the disclaimer
17:12:37 [PaulaP]
I don't have it either
17:13:16 [josb]
Leora: disclaimer should be reworded (sent in email); we should say it *may* be inaccurate, not that it is inaccurate
17:13:33 [Deborah_Nichols]
Disclaimer is in this version: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Ruleset_Integration__for_Medical_Decision_Support
17:13:44 [Allen]
Note: in the interest of readability and brevity, the information and rules presented in the following scenario may not precisely capture the current state of medical knowledge and best practices in this field, but may be somewhat simplified.
17:14:14 [DavidHirtle]
Paula, regarding your "these rules" comment, would it be fine with you to just remove "these"?
17:14:17 [josb]
Leora: it would be a pity to remove the part
17:14:21 [DavidHirtle]
(I think it's still clear)
17:14:42 [DavidHirtle]
i.e. "Decision support systems aid in the process of human decision making, especially decision making that relies on expertise. Reasoning with rules is an important part of this expert decision making."
17:14:45 [josb]
... prescription example could be made shorter and we could leave the part
17:14:46 [PaulaP]
yes for David's question
17:14:58 [DavidHirtle]
I'll make the change now
17:15:01 [PaulaP]
ok
17:15:04 [DaveReynolds]
Yes acceptable as is
17:15:18 [Donald_Chapin]
zakim, mute me
17:15:18 [Zakim]
Donald_Chapin should now be muted
17:15:36 [josb]
[RESOLVED]: include use case 1.6 in the WD with the disclaimer added
17:15:37 [csma]
q?
17:15:46 [LeoraMorgenstern]
q-
17:15:49 [csma]
q?
17:15:49 [Allen]
q-
17:16:00 [josb]
csma: use case 1.7
17:16:20 [josb]
... comment Axel: should be extended, especially regarding motivation
17:16:56 [josb]
... not easy to solve quickly; comment Paula: acronyms MRI and MAE should be defined
17:16:56 [PaulaP]
MRI stands for magnetic resonance imaging
17:17:07 [PaulaP]
I don't know about MAE
17:17:24 [PaulaP]
no objections
17:17:29 [AxelPolleres]
q+
17:18:01 [josb]
[RESOLVED]: use case 1.7 to be included with the definitions of MRI and MAE added
17:18:24 [AxelPolleres]
q-
17:18:33 [josb]
csma: use case 1.8
17:18:38 [josb]
... is more of a placeholder
17:18:57 [AxelPolleres]
no
17:19:00 [josb]
... Axel said it should be developed and could help with the development
17:19:14 [josb]
[RESOLVED]: use case 1.8 to be included in WD as is
17:19:14 [JosDeRoo]
JosDeRoo has joined #rif
17:19:29 [csma]
zakim, who is noisy?
17:19:30 [sandro]
zakim, who is talking?
17:19:31 [Zakim]
-Igor_Mozetic
17:19:34 [Zakim]
-DavidHirtle
17:19:39 [Zakim]
csma, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: csma (52%), Jos_De_Roo (10%), Allen_Ginsberg (10%)
17:19:51 [Zakim]
sandro, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Sandro (21%), ChrisW (44%), csma (38%), Jos_De_Roo (12%), Allen_Ginsberg (16%)
17:19:53 [DavidHirtle]
(if you heard beeping, was probably me)
17:20:05 [Allen]
zakim, mute me
17:20:05 [Zakim]
Allen_Ginsberg should now be muted
17:20:14 [Zakim]
+Igor_Mozetic
17:20:25 [DavidHirtle]
(my phone just died)
17:20:27 [josb]
csma: proposal to publish first public draft of WD
17:20:29 [igor]
zakim, mute me
17:20:29 [Zakim]
Igor_Mozetic should now be muted
17:20:37 [josb]
... will call the vote
17:20:42 [Allen]
zakim, unmute me
17:20:42 [Zakim]
Allen_Ginsberg should no longer be muted
17:20:47 [josb]
AGFA: yes
17:20:50 [Donald_Chapin]
zakim, unmute me
17:20:50 [Zakim]
Donald_Chapin should no longer be muted
17:20:54 [AxelPolleres]
would +1 by each org on icq not be sufficient?
17:21:07 [josb]
DERI galway: yes
17:21:11 [josb]
DERI Innsbruck: yes
17:21:13 [josb]
SRI:
17:21:14 [JosDeRoo]
zakim. mute me
17:21:20 [csma]
ETRI
17:21:30 [JosDeRoo]
zakim, mute me
17:21:30 [Zakim]
Jos_De_Roo should now be muted
17:21:37 [josb]
ETRI: abstain?
17:21:49 [csma]
ack PaulV
17:21:49 [sandro]
let say "absent" for ETRI
17:21:56 [MarkusK]
FZI: yes
17:21:56 [josb]
FairIsaac: yes
17:22:09 [josb]
s/abstain?/absent/
17:22:19 [Zakim]
+DavidHirtle
17:22:20 [josb]
Bolzano: abstain
17:22:26 [josb]
fujitsu: yes
17:22:35 [MarkusK]
DFKI: absent
17:22:37 [IanH]
BTW, re 1.7, MAE is Material Anatomical Entity
17:22:41 [DaveReynolds]
HP: yes
17:22:52 [josb]
IBM: yes
17:23:03 [josb]
iLog: yes
17:23:14 [josb]
IVML: yes
17:23:18 [igor]
JSI: yes
17:23:33 [josb]
univ Maryland: absent
17:23:38 [josb]
MITRE: yes
17:23:39 [Allen]
MITRE: yes
17:23:41 [edbark]
NIST: yes
17:23:51 [Allen]
zakim, mute me
17:23:51 [Zakim]
Allen_Ginsberg should now be muted
17:24:19 [Harold]
NRC: yes
17:24:30 [josb]
s/univ/University of /
17:24:36 [josb]
Nokia: absent
17:24:39 [josb]
OMG: yes
17:24:47 [josb]
OntologyWorks: absent
17:24:49 [GaryHallmark]
Oracle: yes
17:25:04 [csma]
pragati
17:25:06 [sandro]
23Pragati Synergetic Research Inc.
17:25:12 [josb]
Pragati: yes
17:25:15 [PaulaP]
yes for REWERSE
17:25:20 [josb]
REWERSE: yes
17:25:29 [josb]
Sandpiper software: absent
17:25:31 [josb]
SRI: yes
17:25:40 [josb]
SUN: absent
17:25:46 [josb]
University of Aberdeen: yes
17:25:54 [josb]
University of Manchester: abstain
17:26:02 [josb]
Ben Grosof: absent
17:26:05 [josb]
Michael Kifer: yes
17:26:11 [josb]
Chris Menzel: absent
17:26:20 [josb]
W3C: yes
17:26:58 [sandro]
RESOLVED: to release WD1
17:27:06 [josb]
csma: applause for ourselves
17:27:52 [josb]
csma: we need to ask for approval from the director to publish the first WD
17:28:36 [josb]
sandro: comments to the draft will come in on public-rif-comments
17:28:46 [josb]
... everyone in the WG should be in that list
17:29:02 [josb]
s/comments/comments@w3.org/
17:29:15 [josb]
sandro: suggests to give 4 weeks for public comments
17:29:25 [josb]
csma: review period 2-4 weeks
17:29:38 [sandro]
RESOLVED: 4 week comment period
17:29:58 [Zakim]
-Igor_Mozetic
17:29:59 [PaulaP]
bye
17:29:59 [josb]
csma: bye
17:30:00 [Zakim]
-Donald_Chapin
17:30:01 [Zakim]
-Michael_Kifer
17:30:02 [Darko]
-Darko
17:30:02 [Zakim]
-GiorgosStoilos
17:30:03 [PaulV]
bye
17:30:03 [Zakim]
-Jos_De_Roo
17:30:03 [JeffP]
bye
17:30:04 [Zakim]
-Ed_Barkmeyer
17:30:05 [PaulV]
PaulV has left #rif
17:30:05 [Zakim]
-Mala
17:30:06 [igor]
bye
17:30:06 [Zakim]
-FrankMcCabe
17:30:07 [Deborah_Nichols]
bye
17:30:07 [Zakim]
-IanH
17:30:07 [Allen]
bye
17:30:09 [Zakim]
-Dave_Reynolds
17:30:10 [Zakim]
-Allen_Ginsberg
17:30:11 [josb]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:30:11 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/03/14-rif-minutes.html josb
17:30:12 [Zakim]
-Deborah_Nichols
17:30:14 [Zakim]
-Harold
17:30:15 [Zakim]
-Leora
17:30:15 [josb]
yes
17:30:17 [Zakim]
-MarkusK
17:30:19 [Zakim]
-Sandro
17:30:21 [Zakim]
-Gary_Hallmark
17:30:23 [Zakim]
-DavidHirtle
17:30:25 [Zakim]
-JeffP
17:30:27 [Zakim]
-Mike_Dean
17:30:29 [Zakim]
-Darko
17:30:31 [Zakim]
-PaulV
17:30:33 [Zakim]
-Axel_Polleres
17:30:35 [Zakim]
-pfps
17:31:58 [Zakim]
-PaulaP
17:33:08 [Zakim]
-josb
17:34:41 [sandro]
RRSAgent, make minutes
17:34:41 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/03/14-rif-minutes.html sandro
17:34:45 [Zakim]
-ChrisW
17:34:47 [Zakim]
-csma
17:34:48 [sandro]
rrsagent, pointer?
17:34:48 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2006/03/14-rif-irc#T17-34-48
17:34:49 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
17:34:50 [Zakim]
Attendees were Sandro, Hassan, Deborah_Nichols, Harold, FrankMcCabe, josb, csma, +1.408.564.aaaa, Mala, Donald_Chapin, Allen_Ginsberg, Axel_Polleres, Dave_Reynolds, pfps,
17:34:53 [Zakim]
... DavidHirtle, Igor_Mozetic, Mike_Dean, GiorgosStoilos, PaulaP, Darko, MarkusK, JeffP, Leora, Gary_Hallmark, Ed_Barkmeyer, Jos_De_Roo, PaulV, Michael_Kifer, IanH, ChrisW
17:35:12 [csma]
sandro, Jos cannot access the minutes and IRC log. Can you make sure he has the roght access
17:35:22 [csma]
s/roght/right/
17:36:29 [sandro]
access fixed.
17:36:40 [csma]
thanx
17:39:15 [csma]
csma has left #rif
17:44:35 [MalaMehrotra]
logout
18:38:23 [DavidHirtle]
DavidHirtle has left #rif
19:35:21 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rif