<innovimax> sandro i am new to rif

<sandro> Ah, I see you now. People usually go by their own name instead of their organization's name.

<innovimax> ok sorry

<innovimax> i reconnect

<sandro> you can just use /nick

<moz> i'm back

<sandro> and welcome. :-) Do folks call you "moz" in person, or just on-line?

<moz> online

<moz_> sandro are you here ?

<sandro> yes.

<moz_> i'm trying to use xchat and it is trying to connect to mmclure.w3.org

<moz_> and it doesn't work

<sandro> what port?

<moz_> 6667

<sandro> You'll want port 6665 for this.

<sandro> (An unfortunate historical artifact.)

<moz_> any idea on how to specify port with xchat (sorry) ?

<sandro> xchat >> Server List , pick the server, click Edit, select the server, click edit, change the /6667 to /6665.

<sandro> (at least, that looks like it will do it.)

<sandro_> keeper is a bot.

<sandro_> I sent e-mail about MoZ a few minutes ago.

<sandro_> (new member)

<MoZ> chear all i am a new member

<ChrisW> hi moz

<ChrisW> welcome

<ChrisW> please read: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/TeleconEtiquette

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

<MoZ> thanks ChrisW

<csma> Who is ??P36

<sandro> yes

<josb> +1

<csma> +1

<DavidHirtle> chrisw: f2f2 minutes are now out; please go over them

<johnhall> sakim,mute me

<johnhall> OK thanks

f2f meetings

<DavidHirtle> chrisw: f2f3 will be in Montenegro June 8-9

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F3

<DavidHirtle> axel: wiki page updated with hotel details etc.

<cgi-irc> cgi-irc is StanDevitt

<DavidHirtle> chrisw: for f2f4 two possibilities so far...

<DavidHirtle> ... could be before or after ISWC in Atlanta

<sandro> No, Uli.

<sandro> It may be easier to read http://www.w3.org/1998/12/bridge/Zakim.html when you are looking for yourself.

<johnhall> Zakin, unmute me

<DavidHirtle> johnhall: will ask about 3rd and 4th of November

<DavidHirtle> pfps: Athens Center in Athens, Georgia is a possibility

<DavidHirtle> chrisw: in Atlanta (3-4 Nov or 4-5) $25 per day plus breaks

<ChrisW> +$15/person/day for lunhc

<DavidHirtle> chrisw: we're still open to proposals if anyone's willing to sponsor (doesn't have to be at same time as ISWC)

<Elisa> That drive is doable -- mostly freeway, fyi.

<EvanWallace> ISWC in Athens, GA, not Atlanta

<DavidHirtle> chrisw: expect in the range of 40 people

<DavidHirtle> csma: what is the feeling of everyone regarding having the f2f collocated with ISWC? ... many straight days of meetings

<josb> It is good to co-locate in order to reduce travel

<AxelPolleres> +1 to mk

<pfps> +1, colocation saves money and time, at the expense of some weariness

<MarkusK> +1

<josb> +1 to MK

<DavidHirtle> mkifer: understand csma's argument, but worth it

<EvanWallace> +1 on avoiding another marathon ISWC

<DavidHirtle> johnhall: there's an OMG meeting in Washington in December

<DavidHirtle> csma: December is too late

<FrankMcCabe> +1 from me too

<DavidHirtle> chrisw: we're still open but it seems people favor colocation with ISWC

<Elisa> nothing new from us.

liaison

<Donald_Chapin> http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?dtc/2006-03-02

<DavidHirtle> donald: OMG publication -- parts might be interesting for us

UC&R

<PaulaP> yes

<josb> it was already dropped

<PaulaP> drop the action

<AxelPolleres> didn't we drop it last time?

<csma> ACTION: Christian to create new Wiki page for requirements [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/21-rif-minutes.html#action01]

<josb> a few weeks ago already!

<DavidHirtle> csma: last week had discussion about whether to keep track of original use cases in the public draft

<csma> ACTION: Dieter to review the Requirements [DROPPED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/21-rif-minutes.html#action02]

<DavidHirtle> ... decided we wouldn't for the first draft

<ChrisW> ACTION: [DONE] chair to include the discussion on the 50 use cases (links to wiki in public drafts) in the agenda for the next telecon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/21-rif-minutes.html#action03]

<ChrisW> ACTION: [DONE] editors of the UCR document to write a stub which marks that requirements will follow in a later version [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/21-rif-minutes.html#action04]

<ChrisW> ACTION: [DONE] editors to remove paragraph to which chrisw objects [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/21-rif-minutes.html#action05]

<DavidHirtle> ... what do we do with initial use cases -- is it necessary to link back to them e.g. when discussing reqs?

<DavidHirtle> josb: not good idea to link to wiki pages

<csma> +1 to not linking to wiki from public drafts

<DavidHirtle> josb: at least not in final documents

<ChrisW> p51

<sandro> Uli, try "41#" to test it.

<sandro> Zakim ??P51 is Uli

<csma> ack, josb

<DavidHirtle> harold: in order to get wide adoption of RIF once ready, good to have wide selection of use cases

<DavidHirtle> ... good to keep around

<DavidHirtle> ... e.g. link from RIF homepage

<DavidHirtle> csma: like the idea of encouraging people to submit use cases

<DavidHirtle> harold: people could reuse existing template

<DavidHirtle> sandro: if people want to give us another use case, they should look over existing ones

<AxelPolleres> +1 to csma, makes sense.

<DavidHirtle> csma: we need comments on use cases in document, not the original ones

<josb> +1 to csma: we need comments on UCR draft, not original use cases

<DavidHirtle> csma: keep harold's idea in mind at least for later

<sandro> +1 (for this draft, at least)

<DavidHirtle> allen: agree with csma re: comments only on UCR draft

<AxelPolleres> we should internally discuss, monitor, whether the original use cases are *covered*, the original authors being responsible for this.

<DavidHirtle> ... may be useful later to have appendix where relevant original wiki use cases are mentioned

<josb> sound to me like opening a big can of worms

<sandro> scribenick: DavidHirtle

csma: don't need to have this discussion each time we publish

<josb> We can do that as an exception, but by default we should not link to wiki

sandro: later, could tell people to feel free to add info on implementation to public wiki page

csma: followup to publication - we want to disseminate the WD as much as possible
... make sure that as many people read the document as possible
... please disseminate within your organizations, lists, etc.

<igor> bye

<PaulV> PRR liaison: no problem disseminating, although RIF stage 1 / horn rules may not be of too much interest

<Donald_Chapin> SBVR Liaison will do

<scribe> ACTION: Paul, Donald and Lisa to publicize WD within the standards you represent [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/21-rif-minutes.html#action06]

<PaulV> Action confirmed for PRR Liaison to publish the UCR draft

chrisw: (action contingent on actual release, of course)

<csma> ACTION: csma to publicise to Java Rules [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/21-rif-minutes.html#action07]

<josb> what about sparql?

<sandro> ACTION ChrisW tell commonlogic about UCR pub

<sandro> ACTION CSMA tell java-rules about UCR pub

<csma> ACTION: ChrisW to publicise to ICO CL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/21-rif-minutes.html#action08]

<sandro> ACTION: ChrisW tell commonlogic about UCR pub [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/21-rif-minutes.html#action09]

<johnhall> yes

<csma> ACTION: John Hall to publicise to BR community [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/21-rif-minutes.html#action10]

<csma> ACTION: JosB to publicise to SPARQL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/21-rif-minutes.html#action11]

<csma> ACTION: Sandro to set up a wiki page to record dissemination actions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/21-rif-minutes.html#action12]

csma: what to do with comments after publication?

chrisw: respond to comments as a group

csma: don't reply before discussion

chrisw: one of chairs should reply that it's been received

sandro: could have autoreply...
... everyone will receive comments from the list
... we'll talk about it offline

<pfps> not important, in WebOnt only document editors were on the distribution list by default

chrisw: proposal - chairs only get the comments

<LeoraMorgenstern> Do we have the web page for the comments that are not sent to the mailing list?

chrisw: and editors

<LeoraMorgenstern> I mean, what is the url for that web page?

allen: at f2f had brainstorming session and made list of requirements -- is it on the wiki?

sandro: yes, a while ago

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F2/RequirementsBrainstorming

<SaidTabet> Bye everyone.

<ChrisW> ACTION: [PENDING] Chris to start email discussion about what issues are "fuzzy" wrt phase 1 & 2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/21-rif-minutes.html#action13]

csma: Paula's requirements list was bottom up; brainstorming was building on this

<Elisa> bye all

<ChrisW> ACTION: [PENDING] Chris to start email discussion about what issues are "fuzzy" wrt phase 1 & 2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/21-rif-minutes.html#action14]

leora: do we have the URL for the comments not going to the mailing list?

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

<sandro> "Comments from the public to the Working Group are welcome at public-rif-comments@w3.org (public archive"

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

sandro: while going over brainstorming results, struck me that we're using "RIF" in different ways

<ChrisW> Public commetns url: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-comments

chrisw: can you add them to the glossary?

sandro: looking for comments; if this doesn't work for you, propose something else

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

harold: by default, we should stick to the charter

csma: when adding a design constraint to the list, wouldn't mention whether phase 1 or phase 2

<ChrisW> you can't hear?

<ChrisW> david?

<Deborah_Nichols> yes

<PaulaP> I can try to scribe

thanks Paula

<ChrisW> scribenick: PaulaP

csma: is not an issue of phase 1 or 2
... it is an issue of urgency and depends on the use of rif core and extensions
... we can derive the definitions from the design constraints

<sandro> +1 csma -- don't state phasing in your Design Constraints -- state urgency

csma: and still keep the charter issues

frank: there is a methodology for capturing requirements
... establish high-level goals and identify factors that are necessary for these goals
... very useful and helps clarify what is important

<csma> http://wiki.oasis-open.org/soa-rm/Goals,_Critical_Success_Factors_and_Requirements

frank: there should be 3 or 4 high-level goals
... identify from them technology requirements

dave: a huge number of requirements at moment
... need proposals on email

chris: the discussion on the process could take too long
... but we can try to make proposals on email

<josb> if you don't structure your discussion on requirements, it will go on forever

Designing for extensability

csma: the objective of phase 1 is on achitecture principles and focus on extensions
... the idea of limiting the expressive power of rif to horn rules is just for postponing difficult issues to phase 2
... we should focus on the extension mechanisms and the basics for rif core
... afterwards we can start dealing with difficult issues
... this is also mentioned in the conclusion of the workshop we had
... we should leave the semantical and theoretical questions for phase 2

<GaryHallmark> +1 for extensibility. Or to put it another way, to make sure we don't paint ourselves into a corner and preclude e.g. reactive rules

chris: any further discussions?

<Uli> -1 for "semantical questions"

chris: this is an important point not clear from the charter

<Uli> ok

<StanDevitt> Another way to put it is to be sure that phase 1 design does not limit the later extensibility.

csma: difficult features instead of semantical questions
... there are many ways to deal with the extensibility mechanisms
... not really clear how and where we should start

chris: it is important for our work
... need to devote more time next week on this issue
... think to propose kinds of such mechanisms

<josb> What is an "extensibility mechanism"?

chris: based on these proposals the group can start discussions

<csma> ACTION: chair to put design for extensibility and discussion of proposals on agenda for next telecon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/21-rif-minutes.html#action15]

chris: we define a core language to be extended

<josb> ah

<StanDevitt> +1

chris: need to define how we extend this core

harold: e.g. in lisp you have functions for defining new functions
... this is not the case for rif

<josb> Shouldn't we say "methods for extension"?

harold: we can use different syntactic methods, semantically is much more difficult

<josb> +1 to Harold: we need to take both syntactic and semantic aspects into account

<josb> We need to distinguish between syntactic and semantic extensions

<csma> +1 to josb

sandro: things to be added are to be added by the designers, not by the programmers (in a programming-language analogy)

csma: we can find a better term than mechanism
... if we define this mechanism

<PaulV> Bye

<Allen> Bye

<JeffP> bye

<josb> bye

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.127  of Date: 2005/08/16 15:12:03  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/is/it/
Succeeded: s/R com/BR com/
Succeeded: s/yes/yes, a while ago/
Succeeded: s/discussion/discussion on requirements/
Succeeded: s/ers/ers (in a programming-language analogy)/
Found ScribeNick: DavidHirtle
Found ScribeNick: PaulaP
Inferring Scribes: DavidHirtle, PaulaP
Scribes: DavidHirtle, PaulaP
ScribeNicks: DavidHirtle, PaulaP
Default Present: Allen_Ginsberg, Sandro, csma, josb, Evan_Wallace, DavidHirtle, Axel_Polleres, ChrisW, Philippe_Bonnard, Dave_Reynolds
Present: Allen_Ginsberg Sandro csma josb Evan_Wallace DavidHirtle Axel_Polleres ChrisW Philippe_Bonnard Dave_Reynolds

WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting


WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Got date from IRC log name: 21 Mar 2006
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2006/03/21-rif-minutes.html

WARNING: No person found for ACTION item: chair to put design for extensibility and discussion of proposals on agenda for next telecon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/21-rif-minutes.html#action15]

People with action items: chris chrisw csma donald hall john josb lisa paul sandro