14:27:29 RRSAgent has joined #rif 14:27:29 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/05/09-rif-irc 14:27:34 zakim, this will be rif 14:27:34 ok, sandro; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 33 minutes 14:36:50 ChrisW has joined #rif 14:38:09 ChrisW has changed the topic to: 9 May Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006May/0109.html 14:39:04 zakim, this will be rif 14:39:04 ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 21 minutes 14:39:49 rrsagent, make minutes 14:39:49 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/05/09-rif-minutes.html ChrisW 14:43:50 RRSAgent, make record public 14:47:55 ChrisW has joined #rif 14:48:33 StanDevitt has joined #rif 14:48:50 did everyone just get bumped? 14:49:02 I just connected. 14:49:43 SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started 14:49:50 +[IPcaller] 14:50:02 zakim, IPcaller is me 14:50:02 +StanDevitt; got it 14:51:05 stan, are you all set? 14:51:11 Yes. 14:51:23 scribenick: StanDevitt 14:53:50 Meeting: RIF Telecon 9 May 2006 14:53:57 Chair: ChrisW 14:54:27 PhilippeB has joined #rif 14:54:43 PhilippeB has left #rif 14:55:29 zakim, next agendum 14:55:29 I see nothing on the agenda 14:55:30 Hassan has joined #rif 14:55:32 MarkusK has joined #rif 14:55:53 EvanWallace has joined #rif 14:56:07 +Hassan_Ait-Kaci 14:56:33 DavidHirtle has joined #rif 14:57:08 zakim, read agenda from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006May/0109.html 14:57:08 working on it, ChrisW 14:57:09 done reading agenda, ChrisW 14:57:20 PhilippeB has joined #rif 14:57:20 zakim, next agendum 14:57:20 I see nothing on the agenda 14:57:27 zakim, list agenda 14:57:27 I see nothing on the agenda 14:58:14 +[IBM] 14:58:23 der has joined #rif 14:58:31 +??P29 14:58:34 +[IPcaller] 14:58:35 Allen has joined #rif 14:58:39 +Philippe_Bonnard (was ??P29) 14:58:42 Zakim, mute me 14:58:42 Philippe_Bonnard should now be muted 14:58:52 zakim, [ibm] contains ChrisW, Stella_Mitchell 14:58:52 +ChrisW, Stella_Mitchell; got it 14:59:07 +Allen_Ginsberg 14:59:22 zakim, mute me 14:59:22 Allen_Ginsberg should now be muted 14:59:25 +Dave_Reynolds (was Guest P40 74394) 14:59:29 +Dave_Reynolds 14:59:52 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:59:52 On the phone I see StanDevitt (muted), Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), [IBM], Philippe_Bonnard (muted), MarkusK (muted), Allen_Ginsberg (muted), Dave_Reynolds 14:59:57 [IBM] has ChrisW, Stella_Mitchell 15:00:02 AxelPolleres has joined #rif 15:00:06 IanH has joined #rif 15:00:12 patranja has joined #rif 15:00:18 johnhall has joined #rif 15:00:28 +??P45 15:00:32 LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif 15:00:32 +Evan_Wallace 15:00:55 +David_Hirtle 15:01:02 pfps has joined #rif 15:01:10 +Axel_Polleres 15:01:29 +Leora_Morgenstern 15:01:36 +??P19 15:01:37 +PaulaP 15:01:39 zakim, mute me 15:01:39 Leora_Morgenstern should now be muted 15:01:42 zakim, ??p19 is me 15:01:42 +pfps; got it 15:02:00 +Sandro 15:02:13 +[IPcaller] 15:02:14 Zakim, IPcaller is me 15:02:14 +johnhall; got it 15:02:53 JeffP has joined #rif 15:03:00 zakim,mute me 15:03:01 johnhall should now be muted 15:03:11 minutes of last meeting: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006May/att-0013/2006-05-02-rif-minutes.html 15:03:18 AGENDA item 1 15:03:21 GiorgosStoilos has joined #rif 15:03:22 Francois has joined #rif 15:03:29 Deborah_Nichols has joined #rif 15:03:39 Minutes accepted - no objections. 15:03:39 +Deborah_Nichols 15:03:57 No additions to the Agenda 15:04:09 no news 15:04:24 ITEM: Update on FacetoFace in Montenegro 15:04:34 zakim, unmute PaulaP 15:04:44 PaulaP should no longer be muted 15:04:59 Discussion: Hotel confirmation problems. 15:05:12 +[IVML] 15:05:14 +??P9 15:05:18 +Jeff_Pan 15:05:19 Paula thinks they are just a bit slow. 15:05:20 This happened to me also, but I got in touch with them today by phone 15:05:24 zakim, [IVML] is me 15:05:30 +GiorgosStoilos; got it 15:05:34 /me zakim, ??P9 is me. 15:05:39 -Leora_Morgenstern 15:05:47 Local organizers know about it. 15:06:05 JosDeRoo has joined #rif 15:06:10 zakim, ??P9 is me. 15:06:10 +Francois; got it 15:06:18 ACTION: All attendees check their reservations 15:06:34 +Leora_Morgenstern 15:06:43 zakim, mute me 15:06:43 Leora_Morgenstern should now be muted 15:06:46 zakim, mute me. 15:06:46 Francois should now be muted 15:07:14 +Jos_De_Roo 15:07:21 NOTE: update on colocation with IWC - no update at this time. 15:07:27 zakim, who is talking? 15:07:38 sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [IBM] (56%), StanDevitt (72%) 15:07:52 ITEM: Liason activities 15:08:07 NOTE: SPARQL has a new chair 15:08:23 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 15:08:27 SPARQL is in ? last review? 15:08:56 +Gary_Hallmark 15:08:56 :-( :-( (Jos de Roo having less time to spend on W3C and open-source work) 15:09:25 Jos Deroo: cannot attend SPARQL . 15:09:56 Searching for representative to coordinate with SPARQL. 15:09:59 Sandro: I believe DAWG uses UTC because of some Australians who are no longer in the group. 15:10:18 ACTION: Jos DeRoo will identify someone. 15:10:29 zakim, who is here? 15:10:29 On the phone I see StanDevitt (muted), Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), [IBM], Philippe_Bonnard (muted), MarkusK (muted), Allen_Ginsberg (muted), Dave_Reynolds (muted), IanH (muted), 15:10:30 No reps for XQUERY 15:10:32 ... Evan_Wallace, David_Hirtle, Axel_Polleres (muted), pfps, PaulaP (muted), Sandro, johnhall (muted), Deborah_Nichols (muted), GiorgosStoilos, Francois (muted), Jeff_Pan, 15:10:36 ... Leora_Morgenstern (muted), Jos_De_Roo, Gary_Hallmark 15:10:39 [IBM] has ChrisW, Stella_Mitchell 15:10:40 On IRC I see GaryHallmark, JosDeRoo, Deborah_Nichols, Francois, GiorgosStoilos, JeffP, pfps, LeoraMorgenstern, johnhall, PaulaP, IanH, AxelPolleres, Allen, DaveReynolds, PhilippeB, 15:10:42 ... DavidHirtle, EvanWallace, MarkusK, Hassan, StanDevitt, ChrisW, RRSAgent, Zakim, sandro, Keeper 15:10:44 Who is scribing today? 15:11:02 Hassan, StanDevitt is scribing. 15:11:04 no reps present for other SCVR 15:11:11 s/SCVR/SBVR/ 15:11:20 no news from ODM 15:11:27 who is speaking? 15:11:45 SBVR - still on schedule, issues close in July 15:11:56 Yes, 15:12:00 ITEM 4: Use cases and Requirements. 15:12:03 I emailed two things 15:12:07 just a few minutes ago 15:12:11 I have laryngitis 15:12:15 so it's hard for me to speak 15:12:19 Is it okay for me to type? 15:12:23 typing is good 15:12:36 Right --- the only thing is that I have put them in text 15:12:36 LEORA has completed her two ACTIONS. 15:12:43 and not as wikis 15:12:54 So, my question is .... should I put them as wikis as well? 15:12:55 ChrisW: Re DAWG: The formal overlap is: Enrico Franconi, Dan Connolly, Sergio Tessaris, Jos De Roo, Sven Groppe, and Bijan Parsia. 15:13:18 Sandro, do I need to have these as wikis? 15:13:24 or is email good enough? 15:13:43 I think e-mail is good enough for now. If we need them in the wiki, anyone can put them there. 15:13:48 ACTIONS 9 10 and 12 still open. The rest are closed. 15:14:16 Action on Frank is still active from Friday. 15:14:23 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Goals%2C_Critical_Success_Factors_and_Requirements 15:14:44 ITEM: Frank's version of document 15:14:52 GiorgosStoilos has joined #rif 15:15:06 Question: small group has a conscensus on these goals. What does the larger group think? 15:15:28 This is an informal poll. 15:15:45 who is speaking? 15:15:51 me, StanDevitt 15:16:05 Request for a discussion for why these three goals are important from Sandro. 15:16:15 Discussion led by Sandro: 15:16:26 Why important - there is a trade off. 15:16:30 Elisa has joined #rif 15:16:36 What makes interchange easy versus wide deployment. 15:16:49 Common problem in W3C specs development. 15:17:12 By making these 3 top level the trade-offs are more obvious. 15:17:19 q? 15:17:25 q+ 15:17:28 ack me 15:17:29 I think they look good. 15:18:15 David Reynolds: too passive a way of phrasing it. Should be more a goal of enabling semantic web ... 15:18:45 Sandro: thinks this is a 4th goal. There may be more. 15:18:59 There is no conscencus on a 4th goal yet . 15:19:25 Goal: 1: Rule Interchange, 2: Widespead Adoption, 3: Consistency with W3C Specs, 15:19:41 Possible Goal 4: Consistency with W3C / Semantic Web Vision ? 15:19:52 Dave not opposed to finding a 4th goal out of this. 15:20:17 ITem: first goal 15:20:26 any objections ? NONE 15:20:41 second goal: any comments - objections? 15:20:44 none 15:20:51 objections as a goal? 15:20:51 zakim, unmute me 15:20:51 IanH should no longer be muted 15:21:28 comment: seems like a different sort of goal - higher level 15:21:45 Isn't this goal common to all W3C work? 15:22:32 answer: Sandro? similar to the first goals in that they are sort of obvious but needs stating. 15:22:53 q+ 15:23:01 criteria is that if you ignore it - you fail 15:23:06 zakim, unmute me 15:23:06 johnhall should no longer be muted 15:23:14 q+ 15:23:24 Peter talking: 15:23:47 If wide scale adoption is a goal shouldnt the actions be publicity. 15:24:19 comment: action yet to be decided 15:24:28 comment: not the only goal. 15:25:17 Peter: question - what is activity of the group - as determined by goals so He is concerned if the goal leads to the wrong activity. 15:25:21 q+ 15:25:46 How about "widescale adoptabilITY" 15:25:52 Isn't Wide Scale Adoption a CSF rather than a goal? 15:26:10 arising out of discussion: rephrase design something that can be adopted widely. 15:26:36 q+ 15:26:46 risk: Working group will not be finished till we achieve wide adoption. 15:26:54 ack me 15:27:06 Requirement must be met. Goals need not. 15:27:28 A goal is not measurable? Requirements are. 15:28:27 There is a distinction where you want to be and what you need to do to get there. 15:28:41 Allan: 15:28:45 ack Allen 15:28:46 zakim , unmute me 15:28:46 zakim, mute me 15:28:49 johnhall should now be muted 15:28:59 q- 15:29:42 Changing it to something that indicates the intention of building something that can serve the role of widescale adoption is preferred. 15:29:56 "Design for Widespread Adoption" ? 15:30:11 q+ To argue that we need to do more than design for W.A. 15:30:27 Agrees with Peter's point that there is a difference. 15:30:31 q? 15:31:08 Allen, are you arguing for the goal being " Design for Widespread Adoption " ? 15:31:13 ack hassan 15:31:16 He is generally in favour of trying to get to wide scale adoption. 15:31:26 Sandro, that sounds better 15:31:49 q- 15:31:54 A success factor is not a goal. 15:32:37 examples of goals - simplicity ... etc. 15:33:03 sandro: thinks the terminolgy is being used differently by the two individuals ?who? 15:33:20 +1 to Sandro, in this methodology this is a goal 15:33:21 ack sandro 15:33:21 sandro, you wanted to argue that we need to do more than design for W.A. 15:33:47 why the goal needs to be wide spread adoption is because there will be activities outside of the design that will be important and should be included. 15:33:54 q- 15:34:05 may be activities by our companies. 15:34:23 all would feel a sense of failure if it is not wide spread. 15:34:54 2 individuals: Frank McCabe and Hassan 15:35:05 Does the rewording as "design for" work for everyone? 15:35:18 Peter = yes 15:35:34 Hassan = yes 15:35:55 s/work for/ work better for/ 15:36:09 I can do that 15:36:31 I like it as it is. If we don't achieve wide-scale adoption, we will in the broader sense have failed 15:36:33 who? 15:36:41 (design for) widespread adoption 15:36:48 Sandro: 15:37:08 q? 15:37:18 Samdro not happy with rewording ... 15:37:36 ITEM: Second goal 15:37:41 semi-resolved: " (design for) widespread adoption " ? 15:37:44 request for comments - no response. 15:38:07 NEW DISCUSSION: 15:38:14 Critical Success factor? 15:38:38 Exchange of rules: coverage 15:38:49 looking at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Goals%2C_Critical_Success_Factors_and_Requirements 15:38:56 ?? what was the second factor? 15:39:08 factor: soundess 15:39:18 q+ 15:39:23 q+ 15:39:30 ack paula 15:39:52 Coverage is okay in general, but needs flushing out. 15:40:13 Second one needs a better title - too much of a technical meaning. 15:40:17 q+ 15:40:41 observes that Frank had commented that we need to be careful to avoid confusion. 15:41:16 zakim, unmute me 15:41:16 Allen_Ginsberg was not muted, Allen 15:41:19 Chris - mentions goal of semantic aware exchange in this sense too. 15:41:35 +Elisa_Kendall 15:41:49 q+ 15:42:05 zakim, mute me 15:42:05 Elisa_Kendall should now be muted 15:42:08 Allen is not happy with the wording of Soundness. Suggests something like Meaning preserving. 15:42:40 I prefer "Meaning Preserving" as well (like Allen mentioned) rather than "Soundness" 15:42:49 q? 15:42:52 ack allen 15:42:58 Discussion about a new action to help with wording . 15:43:17 preference to finish an action first ... 15:44:08 Allen comments that there is still a lot of disussion and is a broad topic. Does it still mean what it did when Sandro proposed the term? 15:44:29 q+ 15:44:38 There is a lot here that are all points under discussion. 15:45:06 Dave feels these are not the critical factors but not sure yet what they are. 15:45:17 s/Dave/Sandro 15:45:18 ack ian 15:45:26 q- 15:45:31 Ian: need to understand the problem before saying it solved. 15:45:54 Axel: Extensibility is not in this list? Why? 15:45:55 +1 on extensibility (indeed) 15:46:02 Is it coverage? probably not. 15:46:07 ack me 15:46:20 ChrisW -- does it make a lot of sense to have this discussion without Frank? 15:46:26 q? 15:46:29 comment: extensibility is somewhere in Paula's document - but a good point. 15:47:05 (by ChrisW) 15:47:13 ITEM 5: Technical Design 15:47:30 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Apr/0068.html 15:47:49 zakim, mute me 15:47:49 Allen_Ginsberg should now be muted 15:47:52 introduction : a lot of discussion on email 15:48:42 q? 15:48:44 Chris is not clear where people stand on this as a syntax for condition rules? 15:48:49 q- 15:48:53 q+ 15:49:21 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:49:21 On the phone I see StanDevitt (muted), Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), [IBM], Philippe_Bonnard (muted), MarkusK (muted), Allen_Ginsberg (muted), Dave_Reynolds, IanH (muted), Evan_Wallace, 15:49:25 ... David_Hirtle, Axel_Polleres (muted), pfps, PaulaP (muted), Sandro, johnhall (muted), Deborah_Nichols (muted), GiorgosStoilos, Francois (muted), Jeff_Pan, Leora_Morgenstern 15:49:27 ... (muted), Jos_De_Roo (muted), Gary_Hallmark, Elisa_Kendall (muted) 15:49:28 [IBM] has ChrisW, Stella_Mitchell 15:49:31 Peter: What is the syntax? Is it more than syntax of functional style first order logic? 15:50:10 If not, why is it causing a problem? 15:50:30 (not many are here) 15:50:36 comments from authors? 15:50:57 Alex is. 15:51:34 note: authors are not well represented on the call. 15:51:41 Jeff Giorgos and Alex are listed as present 15:51:56 GiorgosStamou was an author 15:52:45 I already wrote my position ... 15:53:05 q+ 15:53:11 q- 15:53:35 maybe you should speak it, Hassan..... 15:53:58 Sandro: I wont be able to evaluate this proposal without trying to implement it 15:54:11 Hassan: what's interesting is that it relies on RIFRAF 15:54:35 q? 15:54:40 ack hassan 15:54:43 StanDevitt has joined #rif 15:55:27 comments: we need to work on the language structure to capture the structure 15:56:03 the technology of getting to a linear syntax is standard technology. 15:56:08 -1 on OWL sufficient to describe conditions, but not sure whether I understand this question right?!? 15:56:18 Sorry, I must leave now... See/hear you later... 15:56:24 Is owl sufficient? 15:56:24 Ciao, Francois. 15:56:53 -Francois 15:56:57 ChrisW: suggests leaving this discussion till the authors are present. 15:57:03 AxelPolleres, I wasn't suggesting OWL for describing conditions -- but for describing RIFRAF. 15:57:12 q- 15:57:14 proposes to go back to the success factors. 15:57:29 thnx for clarification. 15:57:38 +1 15:57:44 There are still to success factors to discuss. 15:57:46 q+ 15:57:58 s/to/two/ 15:58:04 +1 on waiting for the authors, but we need to bite the bullet of RIFRAF at one point! 15:59:04 q+ 15:59:54 q? 15:59:54 q? 15:59:54 ChrisW wants suggestions for actions to prepare for next week. 16:00:00 ack PaulaP 16:00:04 ack paula 16:00:06 q+ PaulaP 16:00:07 ack hassan 16:00:19 Is there a pointer to RIFRAF? 16:00:55 RIFRAF: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Rulesystem_Arrangement_Framework 16:00:59 current status of rifraf: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Rulesystem_Arrangement_Framework 16:01:03 jynx! 16:01:07 hassan suggests action: take a ILOG and LIGHT and looking at RIFRAF and trying to see how they match. 16:01:33 s/LIGHT/LIFE 16:01:35 Everyone should try out the concept in the language they have in mind. 16:01:58 q? 16:02:38 zakim, pick a victim 16:02:38 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose StanDevitt (muted) 16:02:43 zakim, pick a victim 16:02:43 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Axel_Polleres (muted) 16:02:45 zakim, pick a victim 16:02:45 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Axel_Polleres (muted) 16:02:47 zakim, pick a victim 16:02:48 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose PaulaP 16:02:55 zakim, who is on the phone? 16:02:55 On the phone I see StanDevitt (muted), Hassan_Ait-Kaci, [IBM], Philippe_Bonnard (muted), MarkusK (muted), Allen_Ginsberg (muted), Dave_Reynolds, IanH (muted), Evan_Wallace, 16:02:58 ... David_Hirtle, Axel_Polleres (muted), pfps, PaulaP, Sandro, johnhall (muted), Deborah_Nichols (muted), GiorgosStoilos, Jeff_Pan, Leora_Morgenstern (muted), Jos_De_Roo (muted), 16:03:01 ... Gary_Hallmark, Elisa_Kendall (muted) 16:03:02 [IBM] has ChrisW, Stella_Mitchell 16:03:14 ACTION: Hassan will finish this comparison exercise 16:03:37 ACTON: Hassan analyse how RIFRAF applies to J-Rules 16:04:03 ACTION: Hassan analyse how RIFRAF applies to J-Rules, to help us evaluate RIFRAF. 16:04:31 keep in mind - can I represent my constructs using this proposal? 16:04:48 We want more people and more languages to do this review? 16:05:09 Xcerpt and XChange 16:05:24 ACTION: Paula to try to apply RIFRAF to Xcerpt and XChange 16:05:31 ack pfps 16:05:43 q- 16:06:10 Search for someone to do this for SWRL? 16:06:33 Chris: The exercise is to see if the RIFRAF represents all the properties of rulesystems that people in this WG care about. 16:06:51 Peter: why would anyone want to do this? 16:06:51 Doubt expressed about why one would do it for this particular language? 16:07:05 Chris offers a beer 16:07:37 Probably the authors can exemplify by FLORA-2, WSML, SWSL-Rules, etc. I myself could do something on the DLV language, which is essentially datalog with various useful extensions such as aggregates, external predicates, etc. if this would be of interest. 16:07:48 Chris: I would be good to know if RIFRAF is adequate to the task of figuring out if RIF will cover rule languages. 16:08:04 I mean the authors of the Exensible design doc. 16:08:17 who? 16:08:24 ACTION: Peter, apply RIFRAF to SWRL 16:08:32 What about a beer for me??? :-) 16:08:44 Chris: Beer for Hassan, too. 16:09:02 ack AxelPolleres 16:09:02 ack 16:09:03 Other volunteers? 16:09:47