14:47:35 RRSAgent has joined #rif 14:47:35 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-rif-irc 14:47:40 rrsagent, make record public 14:47:58 chair: Chris Welty 14:48:07 RRSAgent, make minutes 14:48:07 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-rif-minutes.html sandro 14:48:27 patranja has joined #rif 14:48:54 (Excellent question for Ilona, Paula.) 14:49:11 thanks :) 14:50:56 MarkusK has joined #rif 14:52:22 FrankMcCabe has joined #rif 14:55:00 PhilippeB has joined #rif 14:55:48 zakim, this is rif 14:55:48 ok, sandro; that matches SW_RIF()11:00AM 14:55:59 zakim, who is here? 14:55:59 On the phone I see MoZ, ??P35, Sandro 14:56:00 On IRC I see PhilippeB, FrankMcCabe, MarkusK, PaulaP, RRSAgent, Zakim, sandro, csma, Francois, MoZ, Keeper 14:56:24 zakim, 14:56:24 I don't understand '', Francois 14:56:29 Harold has joined #rif 14:56:46 +??P3 14:56:52 +Philippe_Bonnard (was ??P3) 14:57:04 zakim, ??P25 is Francois 14:57:04 I already had ??P25 as Ian, sandro 14:57:05 Zakim, mute me 14:57:05 Philippe_Bonnard should now be muted 14:57:05 +??P37 14:57:07 zakim, ??P35 is Francois 14:57:07 +Francois; got it 14:57:13 zakim, who is talking 14:57:13 I don't understand 'who is talking', sandro 14:57:18 IanH has joined #rif 14:57:25 zakim, ??P37 is me 14:57:25 +csma; got it 14:57:26 zakim, who is talking? 14:57:36 sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: MoZ (23%), Sandro (100%) 14:57:41 mute me 14:57:43 zakim, please mute me. 14:57:43 Francois should now be muted 14:57:48 Zakim, mute me 14:57:48 MoZ should now be muted 14:58:15 sandro, sorry cheap phone ! 14:58:21 + +1.703.717.aaaa 14:58:22 +??P38 14:58:28 +Chris_Welty (was +1.703.717.aaaa) 14:58:28 DavidHirtle has joined #rif 14:58:44 Is it a speaker phone, MoZ? 14:58:55 Allen has joined #rif 14:59:09 +PaulaP 14:59:16 sandro, yes 14:59:31 Hassan has joined #rif 14:59:32 +[NRCC] 14:59:40 +Allen_Ginsberg 14:59:47 zakim, [NRCC] is me 14:59:47 +Harold; got it 14:59:51 zakim, mute me 14:59:51 Allen_Ginsberg should now be muted 15:00:09 Moz, Okay, yeah, speakerphones that work on conference calls are very expensive if they work at all. :-) 15:00:09 Zakim, unmute me 15:00:09 Philippe_Bonnard should no longer be muted 15:00:12 +Hassan_Ait-Kaci 15:00:23 +[Fujitsu] 15:00:30 zakim, fujitsu is me 15:00:30 +FrankMcCabe; got it 15:00:36 +David_Hirtle 15:01:01 Darko has joined #rif 15:01:13 +[IPcaller] 15:01:13 Zakim, who is muted ? 15:01:14 I see MoZ, Francois, IanH, PaulaP, Allen_Ginsberg, David_Hirtle muted 15:01:16 scribe: philippeB 15:01:25 Zakim, mute me 15:01:25 Philippe_Bonnard should now be muted 15:01:45 zakim, who is on the call? 15:01:45 On the phone I see MoZ (muted), Francois (muted), Sandro, Philippe_Bonnard (muted), csma, Chris_Welty, IanH (muted), PaulaP (muted), Harold, Allen_Ginsberg (muted), Hassan_Ait-Kaci 15:01:48 ... (muted), FrankMcCabe, David_Hirtle (muted), MarkusK (muted) 15:01:55 SaidTabet has joined #RIF 15:02:23 +Darko_Anicic 15:02:29 LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif 15:02:43 +Said_Tabet 15:02:47 DaveReynolds has joined #rif 15:02:54 zakim, mute me 15:02:54 Said_Tabet should now be muted 15:02:55 CSMA: next meeting on thusday 15:03:04 zakim, mute me 15:03:04 Darko_Anicic should now be muted 15:03:23 +??P46 15:03:24 +Dave_Reynolds (was ??P46) 15:03:36 [DONE] ACTION: Christian will investigate RIF Telecon overlapping with DAWG/SPARQL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/04-rif-minutes.html#action04] 15:03:38 + +1.973.473.aabb 15:03:55 zakim, aabb is me 15:03:59 +LeoraMorgenstern; got it 15:04:07 zakim, mute me 15:04:07 LeoraMorgenstern should now be muted 15:04:21 csma: overlapping with SPARQL. Done. 15:05:05 PhilippeB, you can let me take care of recording which actions are done or not done. 15:05:13 zakim, unmute me 15:05:13 LeoraMorgenstern should no longer be muted 15:05:17 (I'm set up to cut & paste them) 15:05:27 csam: proposal to accept the last minute. proposed to postponed 15:05:38 about the minutes --- some action items weren't there 15:06:27 ACTION Leora: set up draft proposal on what we mean by FOL 15:06:38 ACTION Leora: Write up CSF for FOL 15:06:48 (these were from last time, but not recorded.) 15:06:50 zakim, mute me 15:06:50 LeoraMorgenstern should now be muted 15:07:05 csma: We'll put those in retro-actively. 15:07:14 MalaMehrotra has joined #rif 15:07:25 -Sandro 15:07:54 +Mala_Mehrotra 15:08:24 csma: f2f meeting 4, last day for proposal 15:08:44 +Sandro 15:09:37 Deborah_Nichols has joined #rif 15:09:50 ACTION: Sandro set up straw-poll on F2F4 (MITRE - 3 different dates - and Peter/ISWC) 15:10:20 q? 15:10:24 +Deborah_Nichols 15:11:04 Chris: straw-poll, indicate the preference between the 4 proposals 15:11:04 ack deb 15:11:49 one vote per organization? 15:12:06 ok 15:12:21 csma: Straw-poll -> it is not a vote, just possibilities indication 15:13:10 Deborah_Nichols: Will we have phone call-in ability for F2F3? 15:13:31 [DONE] ACTION: Sandro to set up registration page for F2F3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/11-rif-minutes.html#action03] 15:13:33 csma: sandro action regarding the transportation 15:13:35 http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/38457/f2f3reg/ 15:13:45 q? 15:13:47 sandro: action done 15:14:17 johnhall has joined #rif 15:14:47 sorry, can't get on audio yet 15:14:49 csma: a form per individual, not organization. 15:15:20 csma, me too, i'm interest by telcon ability 15:15:31 edbark has joined #rif 15:15:33 Paula: I think we'll have a conference phone open the whole day, but I'm not sure. 15:15:35 paula: phone possibiities not set yet 15:15:47 same question for IRC please 15:16:00 ACTION: Paula to check on phone-call-in capability, and if we'll have a speaker phone, and network? 15:16:02 ACTION: paula checking phone possibilities and speaker phone 15:16:10 csma: what about IRC ? 15:16:18 rrsagent, drop action 5 15:16:20 +Ed_Barkmeyer 15:16:29 ACTION: paula check IRC too 15:17:07 topic: Liaisons 15:17:07 liason with Xquery is difficult 15:17:14 because of overlapping 15:17:26 ack MoZ 15:18:07 +Gary_Hallmark 15:18:43 moz: XQuery and XSL telcon in the same time ...?. nduce probleme of liaison with XQuery 15:18:59 zakim, mute MoZ 15:18:59 MoZ should now be muted 15:19:53 ack john 15:20:24 -Ed_Barkmeyer 15:20:38 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 15:21:05 csma: Design constraint 15:21:14 +Ed_Barkmeyer 15:21:21 csma: sandro name of pure prolog 15:21:46 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Horn_Logic 15:22:35 sandor: propsal of a name -> "horn prolog" 15:22:36 q? 15:22:41 I think ordered horn logic is better 15:22:53 ack Hassan 15:23:01 Zakim, unmute me 15:23:01 Hassan_Ait-Kaci was not muted, Hassan 15:24:33 JosDeRoo has joined #rif 15:24:38 q+ 15:25:09 Francois has joined #rif 15:25:21 +q 15:25:31 q+ 15:26:05 +[IPcaller] 15:26:14 zakim, ipcaller is me 15:26:14 +johnhall; got it 15:26:24 zakim, mute me 15:26:24 johnhall should now be muted 15:26:53 MichaelKifer has joined #rif 15:27:00 +1 ordered horn clauses 15:27:29 -1 to calling it a logic! 15:27:40 +Michael_Kifer 15:28:05 I like Horn Prolog == Horn intersect Prolog 15:28:26 zakim, please unmute me 15:28:26 Francois should no longer be muted 15:28:36 zxakim, mute me 15:28:42 zakim, mute me 15:28:42 Francois should now be muted 15:28:49 zakim, unmute me 15:28:49 Francois should no longer be muted 15:29:25 I think that the subset that you are interested in is sometimes called "clean prolog" 15:29:41 q? 15:29:45 Ian, so you also don't like linear 'logic' :-) 15:29:48 ack harol 15:29:48 q+ 15:30:00 ack franc 15:30:15 zakim, unmute me 15:30:15 Francois was not muted, Francois 15:31:26 What about "Sequential Horn Clauses"? Does not mention 'logic'. 15:32:10 "Sequential Horn Clauses with Prolog Syntax" 15:32:20 Fine with me! 15:32:29 csma: prolog -> to have a concrete syntax 15:32:41 q? 15:32:45 francois: have a full compatibility with prolog 15:32:48 everybody agree to have "Horn" in the name 15:32:54 zakim, please mute me 15:32:54 Francois should now be muted 15:33:16 I am not at all speaking in favour of a full compatibility with Prolog 15:33:23 ack franck 15:33:30 ack frank 15:33:31 zakim q+ 15:33:53 I sam saying referring to the name Prolog would suggest a full compatibility with a programming language -- someting beyond what we can achieve in 1 year. 15:34:03 Call it "Horn Clauses"!!!! 15:34:12 q? 15:34:55 zakim, who is talking? 15:35:00 ed Barkmeyer 15:35:05 csma, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Mala_Mehrotra (54%), csma (5%) 15:35:11 q+ 15:35:27 MoZ prefer the extension of horn as the subseting or Prolog 15:35:34 +Jos_De_Roo 15:36:13 01# 15:36:53 zakim, who is muted? 15:36:53 I see MoZ, Francois, Philippe_Bonnard, IanH, PaulaP, Allen_Ginsberg, David_Hirtle, MarkusK, Darko_Anicic, Said_Tabet, Dave_Reynolds, LeoraMorgenstern, Deborah_Nichols, 15:36:56 ... Ed_Barkmeyer, johnhall muted 15:37:07 zakim, who is unmuted? 15:37:07 I don't understand your question, MoZ. 15:37:13 Can I say one more word? 15:37:51 q? 15:37:57 zakim, unmute me 15:37:57 Francois should no longer be muted 15:38:05 ack franc 15:38:23 zakim, who is talking? 15:38:35 csma, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Francois (27%), Mala_Mehrotra (63%) 15:38:40 francois: need smthing horn logic with a prolog like syntax. 15:39:01 EvanWallace has joined #rif 15:39:18 q+ to respond! 15:39:42 francois: choose declarative semantics and not a procedural semantics. 15:39:49 q? 15:39:51 Francois: Just give RIF a simple declarative Semantics 15:39:56 zakim, please mute me 15:39:56 Francois should now be muted 15:40:44 I do not understand Sandro's viewpoint. 15:41:19 I would like SAndro ti write down hius viewpoint. 15:41:32 I'll wirte my view point down. 15:41:38 Sandro: I'm not saying RIF should have procedural semantics, I'm saying we need to show how to use RIF to exchange rules in languages which do have procedural semantics. 15:41:39 +1 15:41:42 zakim, who is making noise 15:41:42 I don't understand 'who is making noise', MoZ 15:41:45 zakim, who is making noise? 15:41:55 +1 on moving on 15:41:57 MoZ, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Mala_Mehrotra (34%), csma (81%) 15:42:03 Zakim, mute me 15:42:03 Jos_De_Roo should now be muted 15:42:03 zakim, mute MalaMehrotra 15:42:05 Mala_Mehrotra should now be muted 15:42:23 Sandro: THen why piuck up the very old lady Prolog is and not one of the young and sexy business rule languages? 15:42:28 csma: new requirement on RDF triple supported by RIF ? 15:42:59 ack me 15:43:01 Francois, because we all more-or-less know Prolog. 15:43:05 zakim, mute me 15:43:05 Mala_Mehrotra was already muted, MalaMehrotra 15:43:21 q? 15:43:31 ack sandro 15:43:31 sandro, you wanted to respond! 15:43:31 Sandro, who is "we", the academic crowd or the Business Rule uses? 15:43:32 ack sandro 15:43:34 q+ 15:43:51 zakim, unmute me 15:43:51 Allen_Ginsberg should no longer be muted 15:43:53 Francois, "we" is the 22 people on this call. 15:43:57 ack allen 15:44:30 Do we design a RIF for the 22 people on this call? Or do we want people out there to use it and make the Semantic WQeb a reality? 15:44:33 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/The_RIF_Core_must_be_able_to_accept_RDF_triples_as_data 15:45:20 Dave: The condition part of the a rule could match RDF triples 15:46:48 csma: doesn't that mean RIF should have the query power of SPARQL 15:46:57 csma: accepting RDF triple as data -> SPQRQL query embeddabke in RIF ? 15:47:14 dave: it's more a subset of sparql -- the triple-match part 15:47:44 q? 15:47:44 dave: reuqirement leaves open whether rdf data is translated or not 15:48:16 dave: like jena rules, cwm, euler, .... 15:48:40 csma: any consequences of accepting this requirement? 15:48:46 csma: what consequence on RIF expression ? 15:49:18 csma: do we mean: any rif-compliant application, receiving a ruleset that referes to RDF triples should be able to process them? 15:49:26 csma: any application receiving RIF should be able to process RDF triple ? 15:50:39 dave: cf RDF Compatibiliy pages --- binary predicates map to RDF triples; or a single "triple" predicate -- providing either of these would meet this requirement. 15:51:10 (I find myself needing to see some designs before I can really understand CSMA's questions) 15:51:14 q+ 15:51:25 ack sandro 15:52:39 q+ 15:52:46 zakim, unmute me 15:52:46 Jos_De_Roo should no longer be muted 15:52:48 q: 15:53:11 q+ 15:53:11 csma/sandro: as phrased this requirement is perhaps too broad to be useful in distinquishing between designs. 15:53:19 ack allen 15:53:21 q+ 15:53:46 allen: compatibility with RDF important. 15:54:01 Allen: maybe there's a CSF here about RDF-compatibility. 15:54:40 ack dave 15:55:12 Dave: I agree, in my strawman breakdown I had "RDF Compatibility" as the 3rd CSF. This was one part of that. 15:55:15 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Apr/0005.html 15:55:27 dave: 1) RIF should accepte RDF triple as data, 2) ? 15:55:44 Dave: A concrete example being an XML Schema for rules? No, this is not about the syntax of RIF. 15:56:11 q+ To ask about RDF/XML Parser 15:56:21 csma: impact on implementing of the design of RIF ? 15:57:11 ack josd 15:57:40 zakim, mute me 15:57:40 Allen_Ginsberg should now be muted 15:57:46 JosDeRoo: also RDF simple entailment rules? are they covered by this requirement? RDFS-Closure 15:58:19 q+ 15:58:32 q+ 15:58:34 q+ 15:59:38 ack sandro 15:59:38 sandro, you wanted to ask about RDF/XML Parser 16:00:55 zakim, q+ 16:00:56 I see DaveReynolds, Francois, FrankMcCabe, edbark on the speaker queue 16:01:06 csma: volunteer for a use case on accepting RDF triple ? 16:01:10 sandro: I'd like to see this tied in with a use case, a scenario where RDF data is used and matters. 16:01:20 there is a use case concerning access to RDF and XML data 16:01:34 ack dave 16:01:40 pfps has joined #rif 16:01:43 PaulaP is right. We already have such a use case 16:01:54 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Rule-Based_Combined_Access_to_XML_and_RDF_Data 16:02:31 sandro: And I'd like to see whether or not we need an RDF/XML parser in all RIF software 16:02:32 contains examples of rules 16:02:42 q? 16:02:53 zakim, unmute me 16:02:56 Francois should no longer be muted 16:02:57 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Interchanging_Rule_Extensions_to_OWL 16:03:04 +??P21 16:03:10 zakim, ??p21 is me 16:03:18 +pfps; got it 16:03:42 q+ 16:03:52 ack franc 16:04:36 francois: central feature. If no supported, RIF not for semantic web. behond prolog, having the semantic of RDF triple. 16:05:34 zakim, mute me 16:05:34 Francois should now be muted 16:05:47 THanks Christian for clarifying! 16:06:36 csma: dave should explicit the link between use case and requirement ? 16:07:21 the use case is not in the UCR document 16:07:32 dave: requiement of the charter not covered by the current use case. 16:07:32 probably in the last one: Vocabularly Mapping for Data Integration 16:09:42 +1 with RIF accepting RDF data witrh its semantics. 16:10:18 I think I will object to Sandro's rqmt for RDF parser 16:10:30 why, edbark? 16:10:31 csma: specif requirement on RIF ? need XML-RDF parser ? 16:10:35 Christian: the specific requirement is to work out a semantics covering Blank Nodes. This is a tough issue. But the only tough issue. 16:10:36 qq? 16:10:39 +1 to accepting RIF data with its semantics 16:10:40 q? 16:10:41 csma there is a UCR with "Requirements on the rule interchange format include semantic compatibility with OWL-DL and RDF" 16:11:31 Sandro, it's not about syntax, it's about assertions 16:11:43 frank: impossbiel situation. The semantic of prolog is incompatible of RDF. 16:11:52 q+ 16:12:10 What means "The semantic of prolog is incompatible of RDF"? 16:12:16 s it is defined, it is different. 16:12:24 ut one can make both of them compatible. 16:13:32 +1 with Frank 16:13:56 ack frank 16:13:58 q? 16:14:04 q- 16:14:07 ack edb 16:14:16 Then we are done already aren't we? Surely exchanging rules is trivial if we don't care about interoperability. 16:15:00 +1 to IanH 16:15:04 +1 with accepting RDF assertions with their semantics 16:15:27 zakim, unmute me 16:15:27 Francois should no longer be muted 16:15:34 ack franc 16:16:43 francois: lookat the data : XML, RDF. What kind of rules we need ? prolog syntax (its idea) working with XML, RDF and OWL datas. 16:17:23 +1 to Francois 16:19:51 francois: cna't take old rule language. What is is the meaning of rules ? deduction rules, DB constraints (OWL, RDF), rules realizing changing (production rule). 16:19:57 q+ 16:20:05 MalaMehrotra has joined #rif 16:21:58 there are requirements regarding the different types of rules 16:22:09 on the design constraints wiki page 16:22:22 q? 16:22:39 ACTION: Francois write up what he's saying on the DesignConstraints page 16:23:30 MalaMehrotra has joined #rif 16:27:23 MichaelKifer has joined #rif 16:27:23 q? 16:27:29 q- 16:28:05 ack dave 16:28:13 Zakim who is making the noise 16:28:43 q+ 16:29:13 ack franc 16:29:13 zakim, please unmute me 16:29:14 Francois was not muted, Francois 16:31:40 francois: need clear declarative semantics. RIF should be more abstract than traditionnal programming language. 16:31:54 q+ 16:32:07 Sorry, have to go. 16:32:20 -johnhall 16:32:46 Uh oh, we're over time. And I have to say, I'm finding this meeting too long as it is. :-/ 16:32:57 q+ 16:33:17 -IanH 16:33:18 francois: need to follow "SQL properties" : declarative but not too procedural.. ? 16:33:24 Francois: I'm 99% sure no one in the Working Group wants procedural semantics for RIF. 16:33:52 ack frank 16:34:23 Frank: We're not necessarily designing a new language, we're talking about interchanging existing rule languages. 16:34:27 ack michaelk 16:34:37 MichaelKifer: I propose we resolve to never mention Prolog in the telecon. 16:34:48 Phlippe: I was saying SQL's semantics leaves room for several procedural interpretartions that all are correct. 16:35:09 Sorry for miss interpreting your thoughts ! 16:35:20 ...: It's an illformed question. If you send me some prolog text, what should I do with it? How many answers will it give before it perhaps goes into a loop where it doesn't terminate. 16:35:51 PhilippeB, you're doing very well -- this is an extremely hard meeting to scribe. 16:36:07 Sandro and Michael: Look at practical Use Cases like EU-Rent. The points are right but academic. 16:36:14 q+ 16:36:19 Move to adjourn! 16:36:24