SV_MEETING_TITLE -- 11 Apr 2006

<IanH> +1

<Harold> zakim [NRCC] is me

<MoZ_> Zakim aabb is MoZ

<AlexK> I cannot connect, I can't hear anything

<sandro> AlexK, what happens when you try?

<AlexK> I'm typing in the conference call, I'm on the phone--total silence

<AlexK> Let me check: +1.617.761.6200 conference code 74394#

<ChrisW> uli, can you scribe?

<AlexK> I've joined finally

<ChrisW> scribenick: uli

<ChrisW> updated minutes: [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Apr/0036.html]

Hassan: minutes don't make sense at one point:

<LeoraMorgenstern> q

Hassan: chronolgy is unclear

<LeoraMorgenstern> I'm off the queue; Ian said what I wanted to say.

Hassan: doubts whether jiggsaw-puzzle can be accepted

Chris: explains how "+1" is always difficult,

<pfps> +1 :-)

Christian: advises scribes to add stuff as long as it's fresh in their mind.

<Deborah_Nichols> I can send some amplification from my notes

Hassan no longer objects

<ChrisW> +1

<MoZ_> +1

<ChrisW> +1 to ian

IanH suggest to wait with "+1" until scribe has scribed

<MoZ_> +1 to make clearer +1

<Zakim> sandro, you wanted to comment on +1 in IRC

ChrisW: no objections to accept the minutes?

<Harold> +1 to minutes

<csma> +1 to accept minutes

<PaulaP> +1 to accept minutes

Sandro: suggest to "annotate" the "+1"s with what you agree with (as in all the examples above)

<MarkusK> +1 to stating what one agrees to ;-)

CHrisW: minutes are accepted
... Christian's action

Christian: RIF telecon overlaps with Sparql telecon because of Boston time/universal time difference

ChristianW: has checked that there are no rules as to which time should be used for WGs

Christian: we could switch to UTC, but this will mean 1 hour later.

ChrisW: anybody wants to stay wrt constant?

<MoZ_> just prefer no overlapping

ChrisW: which means "no summertime"

??? prefers this because otherwise, RIF members can't participate in SPARQL meeting

<csma> ACTION: Christian will investigate overlap with SPARQL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/04-rif-minutes.html#action04] [CONTINUED]

JosDeRoo: finds summertime in general annoying

ChrisW: explains 2 problems: changing to/from summertime and soarql overlap

<pfps> there are places that don't go on summer time at all

ChrisW: isn't sure whether Rif's time is changeable
... F2F meeting:

F2F

<csma> ACTION: chair to put design for extensibility and discussion of proposals on agenda for next telecon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/28-rif-minutes.html#action14] [DONE]

ChrisW: repeats warning about filling flights to Dubrovnik

<Hassan> +1 to posting a page on travel

ChrisW: suggest to put up a page to register, Sandro?

<AlexK> I am enquiring with the management about my availability

<PaulaP> we can use the information found at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F3/TravelTimes

<AlexK> for the F2F

Sandro: ok, for registration and also travel times for co-ordination...
... will set up a RIF registration page

<csma> ACTION: Sandro to set up registration page for F2F3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/11-rif-minutes.html#action03]

ChrisW: SW conference will organize travel arrangements from the airport, and we need to co-ordinate with them

<AlexK> I can't access teh travel times page--not allowed to view this page

<csma> it seems likz the W3C site is down

<sandro> AlexK, you need to login to the wiki to get to that page. (BUt that page is now obsolete, if I understand correctly.)

<PaulaP> at moment it is not really clear whether the ESWC organizers will provide such a form

MKifer: are the visa requirements for Montenegro?

<AlexK> Croatia should be fine for most of us

MKifer: and visa for Croatia?

<MarkusK> Btw. Michael Sintek and I are going to Tivat

<PaulaP> there is information on the ESWC web page

<Deborah_Nichols> the country is Serbia and Montenegro. There is no Yugoslavia any more.

<IanH> We couldn't be so lucky as to be unable to go there!

<AlexK> http://www.southtravels.com/europe/serbiamontenegro/visa.html

Uli: ask your travel agent!

<igor> http://www.mfa.gov.yu/Visas/VisasR.htm

<AlexK> Have a look above

<igor> visa info for Montenegro

<PaulaP> http://www.mfa.gov.yu/Visas/VisasR.htm

Christian: seems most citizens won't need a visa...

ChrisW: reminder that next week is deadline for proposals for F2F4
... currently, there are 2 proposals
... Liasons?

Liason

<PaulV> OMG PRR: no news from liason

ChrisW; Use cases, actions check

<csma> ACTION: Christian to send email to propose resolution that decidability is a non-requirement and gather relevant arguments before next telecon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/04-rif-minutes.html#action14] [DONE]

ChrisW: ...?action continued

<csma> ACTION: Frank will produce an initial diagram with existing constraints [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/04-rif-minutes.html#action10] [CONTINUED]

ChrisW: decidability proposal

csma: was not comfortable with WG deciding "non-requirements", prefers requirements, etc
... so far, nobody submitted a requirement on decidability,

<csma> ACTION: MickaelK to extend page on pure prolog and give a precise definition (according to standard publications) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/04-rif-minutes.html#action13] [DONE]

csma: suggests to come up with a requirement that makes decidability a non-requirement

<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Apr/0005.html

ChrisW: topic: Dave's proposal

<DavidHirtle> I think he posted regrets on the wiki

<csma> ACTION: sandro to clarify meaning of sound and what is the requirement on RIF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/04-rif-minutes.html#action11] [CONTINUED]

<csma> ACTION: Sandro to clarify whether sound reasoning constraint with unknown dialects is a requirement or a critical success factor [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/04-rif-minutes.html#action12] [CONTINUED]

ChrisW: Dave's proposal is a good example of a requirement
... any comments on this?

csma: if we agree on a requirement/goal/etc., then they should be linked with other things on the web page

<csma> ACTION: Evan to publicize to ODM [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/28-rif-minutes.html#action09] [DONE]

sandro: we could use Dave's proposal as a "structural example" and have the others follow it

<pfps> Here we are getting into a problem similar to that brought up by Hassan - the log is not close to the timeline of the call

csma: disagrees

<sandro> Chris: Do we like this CSF Methodology?

chrisW: explains that we only meant the "abstract structure", not the specific proposal

who is speaking?

<sandro> FrankMcCabe

FMC: Sees some up-side down thinking and suggests to concentrate on goals before we go to requirements

csma: reminds that requirements can only come with critical success factors

<sandro> Frank: Mine goals from the charter.

FMC: suggests too mine charta for goals

MKifer: seconds FMC's suggestions, and observes that Dave's proposal is vague in parts
... e.g., "effective" and "sufficiently few dialects"
... doesn't understand implications of several points in Dave's proposal

<PaulaP> +1 to more clear and detailed constraints

csma: suggests to add details and comments on the wiki

MKifer: suggests to avoid "general words"

csma: suggests to add examples for implementation of a requirement

ChrisW: what's the relation between hierarchy and goals and design constraints?

csma: there are "dependencies" to be added
... and which will be visualised

ChrisW: sees representation problem
... we would need levels in hierarchy, to have structure between constraints

<Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask if it's a tree or a lattice?

FMC: explains how adding more justifications for a requirement makes it stronger

<sandro> Frank: It's important to know all the reasons why a Requirement is important (ie a lattice)

ChrisW: wants to know how to indicate direction of link?

<sandro> Sandro: I like "Motivation"

<sandro> paste link to what you're loking at, folks.

csma: explains how dependencies work between requirements and critical design factors...

<AlexK> critical SUCCESS factors

sandro: suggest to make things easier by using an indented list for requirements

<Zakim> sandro, you wanted to suggest a simple way to do the structure

sandro: and to add cdfs explicitly

ChrisW: and link requirements to detailed ...goals?
... this would make structure more apparent

<ChrisW> [http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/RIF_must_define_for_all_RIF_elements_a_default_behaviour_for_compliant_applications_that_do_not_know_how_to_process_it]

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

ChrisW: (using this one because its complete)...reads out an example from csma

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/RIF_must_define_for_all_RIF_elements_a_default_behaviour_for_compliant_applications_that_do_not_know_how_to_process_it

ChrisW: comments on requirement that compliant applications must be able to handle in a predictable way

csma: suggests that we start with a less complex one

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

ChrisW: so, comments on "Rif core must cover pure prolog"?
... reminds that we already discussed difficulty with "pure prolog"

csma: suggests to remove "core" from this requirement

<sandro> +1 to csma, it's too early to argue that RIF **Core** should cover pure Prolog

csma: would prefer that this is "Rif standard or Rif core"

<GaryHallmark> +1 to remove core. Core seems by definition the intersection of the other requirements

csma: in general, would prefer to be a bit more complete/global wrt different Rifs

pfps: even pure prolog is "very complicated", and suggests to decide whether/where we need to cover this
... suggests to replace "pure prolog" with "X", for a simpler logic
... it's inappropriate to talk about ISO standards here, and thus pure prolog is difficult

<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Apr/author.html

<MarkusK> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Pure_Prolog

Igor: explains that all information is found at the prolog wiki page

<PaulaP> +1 to pfps on finding the motivation of using pure prolog here

pfps: what about occurs check?

Igor: suggests to accept MKifer's suggestion to drop pure prolog

ChrisW: action on Igor, to explain what we mean on the wiki
... it's up to requirement's authors as to whether this will be prolog or Horn or...

Igor: suggests to replace pure prolog with "horn clauses"

ChrisW: Horn clauses is not unambiguous either...

sandro: any suggestions for a new name for "pure prolog"?

MKifer: repeats from his email: pp is horn plus ordering

csma: clarifies his previous remark, that requirements shouldn't target specific RIF variants
... this discussion should be left to a later point in time
... wants to get a complete picture first

<csma> ACTION: Sandro and Igor to find a name+definition for the "pure prolog" requirement that does not mention "pure prolog" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/11-rif-minutes.html#action10]

Harold: agrees with MKifer, and suggests "Ordered Horn clauses"
... because both ordering of literals and rules is important

<ChrisW> ach harold

<pfps> An interesting page on ISO Prolog is http://pauillac.inria.fr/~deransar/prolog/docs.html. The page seems to indicate that the occurs check is somehow optional, at least in some situations.

<ChrisW> ach\k harold

<Harold> We can now define positively what we converged to mean by "Pure Prolog": "Ordered Horn clause".

<csma> ACTION: Sandro to discuss on email whether the "pure prolog" requirement can be replaced by a "horn logic" requirement or if we need both [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/11-rif-minutes.html#action11]

JDR: agrees with Harold, and points out how complicated prolog is (with occurs check and such like)

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

ChrisW: next design constraint: extended RIF ...

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Extended_RIF_must_cover_FOL

FMC: wants to know critical success factor of FOL

<Harold> "Ordered Horn Clauses" could be the result of annotating "Horn Clauses".

<AlexK> I'll just merely say about the FOL that it captures requirements in some applications

LMo: explains that FOL is important because of expressiveness

<csma> +1 to FOL being impotant because of expressiveness

ChrisW: reminds that we are talking about "critical success factors"

<sandro> perhaps: goal = RIF must be useful for KR ?

LMo: will formulate critical success factor for FOL
... ...and expressiveness

<AlexK> do we have meta-definitions of Goal, Requirement, CSF?

<LeoraMorgenstern> Uli, could you cite me as Leora instead of LMo?

<LeoraMorgenstern> I didn't know who leora is, and no-one else will ...

MalaM: seconds "RIF should cover FOL"

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/1998/12/bridge/Zakim.html

<AlexK> Am I identified?

MKifer: proposes that we apply same standard to FOL as to pure prologue, and hence to explain exactly what we mean by FOL

<sandro> I don't think so, AlexK. Try pressing "41#" on your telephone keypad.

<Hassan> +1 with Mike

<LeoraMorgenstern> q

<AlexK> I have typed it then what

csma: (1) "extended RIF" will cover everything since it will be extensible

<sandro> Thanks, AlexK, that was enough.

csma: (2) agrees that FOL is important, but he thinks that it is a critical success factor

<AlexK> Do I do it always when I join?

<MalaMehrotra> +1 to csma

<sandro> No, AlexK. Um, but let's talk about this after the telecon.

leora: asks (procedural) how we agree on what we mean by FOL

ChrisW: the champions decide what they mean, and then we revise it

MarkusK: wondered in how far "rule set" is ...?

neither am i

MarkusK: do we find "rules" in FOL?
... that is, can we view any FOL theory as a rule set?

<sandro> Markus: does using the word Ruleset mean we're only talking about part of FOL?

ChrisW: so we need to clarify the relation between "rule set" and FOL

sandro: points out that "FOL" should mean "arbitrary FOL theories"

<sandro> Frank: CSF might be "you have to support KR", FOL is not a CSF

FrankMcCabe: doesn't think that FOL is critical success factor because it is ..KR..?

<sandro> Frank: as in, "if you can't do FOL, you can't do KR"

FrankMcCabe: doesn't think that FOL is a requirement (?) since "if you can't do FOL, you can't do KR"

thanks, sandro

<sandro> Frank: Which aspects, eg universally quanitied variables, etc.

csma: suggests that Frank means is something between requirement and csf

<AlexK> FOL is quite important for KR appplications, exchanging those between companies is very useful

Frank: as an example "we need to express existentially quantified variables" would be more like a csf

<csma> I clarified that Franck said that FOL was too specific to be a csf but not specific enough to be a requirement

<sandro> Frank: it's a short circuit to jump to FOL

Frank: "we need FOL" is to short since FOL is a technology

<Zakim> sandro, you wanted to argue that things like "sorted" don't matter for this purpose

<sandro> Sandro: I think "FOL" is the right level of granularity for this year.

Hassan: it concerned about "theories" are "rules"

<LeoraMorgenstern> +1 with sandro

Hassan: there are too many ways to describe the same theory (gentzen, sequents, etc),
... wants to know whether RIF is about "(deduction) rule interchange" or "theory interchange"

<sandro> Sandro: I'm just talking about standard, textbook, FOL here, as something we need to support in an extension.

<sandro> LeoraMorgenstern: FOL is a cohesive whole, too, to it's a good point of granularity.

leora: sees lots of little requirements as suggested by sandro, and then the risk of people taking subsets of these and obtaining unintended things

ChrisW: points out importance of clarity in the requirements formulation

leora: points out the risk of mini-requirements

<LeoraMorgenstern> Uli --- it wasn't sandro who suggested little requirements; it was frank

ChrisW: topic AOB

<PaulaP> bye

<PaulV> bye

<JeffP> bye

<Deborah_Nichols> bye

<MalaMehrotra> bye

<MoZ_> bye

bye bye

<igor> bye

<sandro> alex, you left....

- DRAFT -

SV_MEETING_TITLE

11 Apr 2006

Attendees

Contents

F2F

Liason

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/RIF_must_define_for_all_RIF_elements_a_default_behaviour_for_compliant_applications_that_do_not_know_how_to_process_it

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Extended_RIF_must_cover_FOL

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output