14:54:56 RRSAgent has joined #rif 14:54:56 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/05/16-rif-irc 14:55:00 zakim, this will be rif 14:55:00 ok, sandro, I see SW_RIF()11:00AM already started 14:55:12 RRSAgent, draft minutes 14:55:13 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/05/16-rif-minutes.html sandro 14:55:17 Donald_Chapin has joined #rif 14:55:20 RRSAgent, make record public 14:55:36 +Dave_Reynolds (was Guest P1 74394) 14:55:37 +Dave_Reynolds 14:55:52 +Sandro 14:56:02 zakim, who is on the call? 14:56:02 On the phone I see Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Dave_Reynolds, Sandro 14:56:36 aharth has joined #rif 14:56:42 +Evan_Wallace 14:56:45 +??P9 14:57:17 +[IPcaller] 14:57:23 +Donald_Chapin (was [IPcaller]) 14:57:44 zakim, mute me 14:57:44 Donald_Chapin should now be muted 14:58:02 +??P12 14:58:04 +Andreas_Harth (was ??P9) 14:58:05 +Philippe_Bonnard (was ??P12) 14:58:09 Zakim, mute me 14:58:09 Philippe_Bonnard should now be muted 14:58:14 josb has joined #rif 14:58:25 csma has joined #rif 14:58:38 Allen has joined #rif 14:58:48 +PaulaP 14:59:32 +??P14 14:59:36 +Allen_Ginsberg 14:59:47 zakim, mute me 14:59:47 Allen_Ginsberg should now be muted 14:59:51 sandro has changed the topic to: 16 May Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006May/0177 15:00:19 Harold has joined #rif 15:00:28 mdean has joined #rif 15:00:33 +??P4 15:00:42 zakim, ??P4 is me 15:00:42 +csma; got it 15:00:46 GiorgosStoilos has joined #RIF 15:00:57 +David_Hirtle 15:01:17 ScribeNick: DaveReynolds 15:01:18 +[NRCC] 15:01:31 zakim, [NRCC] is me 15:01:31 +Harold; got it 15:01:43 MarkusK has joined #rif 15:01:54 Chair: csma 15:01:59 AxelPolleres has joined #rif 15:02:07 +GiorgosStoilos 15:02:34 Uli has joined #rif 15:02:38 igor has joined #rif 15:02:41 +Axel_Polleres 15:02:59 Stella_Mitchell has joined #rif 15:03:18 MoZ has joined #rif 15:03:32 Zakim, what is the code ? 15:03:32 the conference code is 74394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200), MoZ 15:03:36 +Igor_Mozetic 15:03:42 JeffP has joined #rif 15:03:49 zakim, mute me 15:03:49 Igor_Mozetic should now be muted 15:03:52 Darko has joined #rif 15:03:59 +[IBM] 15:04:02 johnhall has joined #rif 15:04:03 +??P18 15:04:09 I will be ther 15:04:14 PaulV has joined #RIF 15:04:19 +moz 15:04:23 zakim, ??P18 is uli 15:04:24 +uli; got it 15:04:25 csma: will next meeting be quorate due to www2006? 15:04:34 +1 will attend next week 15:04:37 +1 15:04:40 -1, sorry 15:04:40 +1 15:04:42 +1 next week 15:04:42 +1 15:04:44 +1 15:04:47 +1 next telecon 15:04:51 -1 I will not attend 15:04:52 -1 15:04:56 +??P22 15:04:56 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 15:05:00 -1 15:05:00 -1 Donald sorry 15:05:02 +[IPcaller] 15:05:03 -1 sorry 15:05:14 zakim, ipcaller is me 15:05:14 +johnhall; got it 15:05:15 -1 will be www2006 15:05:18 +??P27 15:05:23 zakim, mute me 15:05:23 johnhall should now be muted 15:05:27 +1 I will attend 15:05:30 Deborah_Nichols has joined #rif 15:05:32 +Mike_Dean 15:05:44 +Gary_Hallmark 15:06:00 +1 15:06:06 +1 15:06:11 -1 will not attend 15:06:25 +Deborah_Nichols 15:06:30 csma: will go ahead with telecon 15:06:40 Zakim, +??P27 is me 15:06:40 sorry, Darko, I do not recognize a party named '+??P27' 15:07:05 Zakim, +??P22 is me 15:07:05 sorry, Darko, I do not recognize a party named '+??P22' 15:07:11 Zakim, ??P27 is Darko 15:07:11 +Darko; got it 15:07:42 +1 delay accepting minutes until scribe is done with them 15:07:47 +1 15:07:50 (another week) 15:07:52 csma: wait until next meeting to accept minutes from last telecon 15:08:16 Topic: F2F Meetings 15:08:42 -GiorgosStoilos 15:08:43 MoZ_ has joined #rif 15:09:19 Paula: reminder to register for f2f, form open until June 3 15:09:25 +GiorgosStoilos 15:09:46 +??P33 15:09:58 Remark: please register f2f3 the sooner the better, we need an estimate how many persons come. 15:10:22 No update on f2f4 15:10:30 +[IPcaller] 15:10:37 Topic: Liaison 15:11:20 josderoo cannot be heard... 15:11:23 Action: Jos to Identify someone to do the liasion with DAWB [CONTINUED] 15:11:31 s/DAWB/DAWG/ 15:12:31 SBVR - nothing new 15:12:53 Thanks 15:13:06 SaidTabet has joined #RIF 15:13:12 s/Jos/JosDeRoo/ 15:13:14 igor has joined #rif 15:14:07 JosDeRoo has joined #rif 15:15:16 Action all review web service policy WG charter, for next meeting 15:15:37 Topic: Use Cases and Requirements 15:15:51 q+ 15:16:31 cmsa actions 9 and 10 are continued 15:17:05 q+ 15:17:16 PaulaP: new draft refining Frank's proposal with some of Paula's CSF integrated in progress 15:17:32 PaulaP: plan to do more 15:17:46 action 12 on FrankMcCabe is continued 15:17:47 q? 15:18:00 zakim, unmute me 15:18:00 Allen_Ginsberg should no longer be muted 15:18:16 +1 action items must be on one person 15:18:26 Axel: can't place action on whole group to review the WS policy charter 15:19:50 ack axel 15:19:52 Elisa has joined #rif 15:21:37 +Said_Tabet 15:21:43 zakim, mute me 15:21:43 Said_Tabet should now be muted 15:21:56 q- 15:22:03 zakim, mute me 15:22:03 Allen_Ginsberg should now be muted 15:22:05 csma: re: WS policy charter review, post comments to list if can't be at next telecon 15:22:06 q? 15:23:06 zakim, who is on the call? 15:23:06 On the phone I see Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), Dave_Reynolds, Sandro, Evan_Wallace, Andreas_Harth, Donald_Chapin (muted), Philippe_Bonnard (muted), PaulaP, josb (muted), 15:23:09 ... Allen_Ginsberg (muted), csma, David_Hirtle, Harold, Axel_Polleres (muted), Igor_Mozetic (muted), [IBM] (muted), uli (muted), moz, JeffP, johnhall (muted), Darko, Mike_Dean, 15:23:11 ... Gary_Hallmark, Deborah_Nichols (muted), GiorgosStoilos, ??P33, MarkusK (muted), Said_Tabet (muted) 15:23:45 zakim, unmute me 15:23:45 Allen_Ginsberg should no longer be muted 15:23:49 q+ 15:23:56 q+ 15:24:01 csma: propose adding use case specifically to cover matchng XML documents 15:24:07 ack allen 15:24:17 When is the next version due? 15:24:40 Allen: could add to list of use cases rather than add to the 8 summary ones? 15:24:57 +Elisa_Kendall 15:25:06 zakim, mute me 15:25:06 Elisa_Kendall should now be muted 15:25:09 Allen: take it from the public comment http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006May/0152.html ? 15:25:48 q? 15:26:14 David: this is an important issue for RIF so clearer statement that RIF works with XML (e.g. in section 1.1) might help 15:26:17 ack paula 15:26:36 Paula: already have a use case on working with XML data, is it not enough? 15:26:38 here's the link to the XML use case: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Rule-Based_Combined_Access_to_XML_and_RDF_Data 15:26:51 (also included in my email yesterday) 15:27:50 csma: question to GaryHallmark, does his use case fit the commenters or Paulas? 15:29:05 GarryHallmark: the commenter is primarily suggesting integrity rules 15:29:29 GarryHallmark: this is very much on target for his users 15:29:49 GarryHallmark: current use cases are "thin" in covering this requirement 15:30:32 s/Garry/Gary/ 15:30:48 pfps has joined #rif 15:30:59 ACTION: GaryHallmark to draft XML use case based on one submitted by reviewer and own use cases 15:31:15 +??P31 15:31:23 zakim, ??p31 is me 15:31:23 +pfps; got it 15:32:44 q? 15:33:12 Sandro: suggests showing draft use case text to the reviewer 15:33:31 zakim , mute me 15:33:51 zakim, mute me 15:33:51 Allen_Ginsberg should now be muted 15:34:08 q+ 15:34:19 ack paulap 15:34:42 csma: any one have comments on the second review input? 15:34:59 csma: he seems to be registered as a WG participant and so could review the next draft! 15:35:03 Sven Groope is not actively involved in the WG 15:35:05 :-) 15:35:18 s/Groope/Groppe/ 15:35:50 csma: no date fixed for next draft 15:36:50 Sandro: reminder members of group should not act as member of public, but bring comments to the group directly and participate 15:37:29 SubTopic: Discuss new CSF/Requirements 15:38:12 First discussion: name for SH Prolog 15:38:31 csma: there was a proposal to just talk about ordered horn clauses 15:39:13 Next discussion: soundness 15:39:56 Sandro: conclusion that soundness means that inference procedures obey the semantics of the language 15:40:19 igor has joined #rif 15:40:23 Sandro: seems to be no disagreement now 15:40:35 MoZ_ has joined #rif 15:40:46 q? 15:41:34 RRSAgent, make minutes 15:41:34 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/05/16-rif-minutes.html sandro 15:41:59 q+ 15:42:07 Sandro: will keep progressing this if something more is needed 15:42:18 ack paula 15:42:23 MoZ__ has joined #rif 15:42:26 Paula: suggest wait for new list of requirements and see if this one is covered 15:42:40 Next discussion: FOL 15:43:47 Next topic: Frank's GCR document 15:44:24 Paula: have modified document 15:44:40 q+ 15:44:40 Paula: worked out some new CSFs but not yet put them in document 15:45:47 Paula: still a draft, hope to have something for discussion and feedback about next week 15:46:11 zakim, unmute me 15:46:11 Allen_Ginsberg should no longer be muted 15:46:13 Paula: aim for draft ready for f2f3 meeting 15:46:20 q? 15:46:30 ack paulap 15:46:41 the diff seems to be http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Goals%2C_Critical_Success_Factors_and_Requirements?action=diff&rev2=5&rev1=4 15:46:56 Allen: suggested modified text for first goal, not yet posted to whole group 15:47:26 q+ 15:47:46 ack allen 15:47:46 Allen: would like to use notion of rule language families to help to structure the description 15:47:53 ack paulap 15:48:20 ACTION: Allen to post his proposal to the mail list 15:48:26 q- 15:48:37 zakim, unmute me 15:48:37 Allen_Ginsberg was not muted, Allen 15:48:45 Topic: RIFRAF 15:49:55 action 15 on AxelPolleres [CONTINUED] extend to cover WRL as well 15:50:41 action 16 on Hassan [DONE] 15:51:00 MichaelKifer has joined #rif 15:51:06 action 18 on pfps [DONE] 15:51:16 action 17 on Paula [CONTINUED] 15:51:44 csma: to Hassan, would it be interesting to apply RIFRAF to a pure constraint rule language 15:52:02 Hassan: yes for a rule-based constraint language like Life, already done 15:52:13 q? 15:52:22 csma, I guess you can edit action 16 via http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/16/edit 15:52:35 Harold: will respond on Hassan's suggestions, points out that RIFRAF is only intended for phase 1 15:53:11 Hassan: hopes the feedback will prompt a more complete ontology 15:53:27 q+ 15:53:32 csma: call for more volunteers to apply RIFRAF to their own rule language 15:53:43 q? 15:53:49 q? 15:54:00 +Michael_Kifer 15:54:09 Agree with Sandro! good point 15:54:18 ack jeffp 15:54:41 Sandro: suggests waiting, giving time for RIFRAF to be modified before kicking off more 15:55:08 JeffPan: Looking at Constraint Interchange Format and how that would map to RIFRAF 15:55:31 JeffPan: CIF comes from the AKT project 15:56:15 Harold: agree that it is best to work more on the schema before coming back to instances 15:56:50 MichaelKifer: tried to put RIFRAF into a pictorial form 15:57:11 q? 15:57:23 MichaelKifer: lots of orthogonal features that can be combined in different ways, hard to put in 2D diagram 15:57:57 MichaelKifer: means that not all describable languages correspond to nodes on the diagram, just too many combinations to show 15:58:11 q+ 15:58:53 q? 15:59:33 Hassan: question to MichaelKifer, HiLog is a language shouldn't be part of abstract classification 15:59:44 MichaelKifer: no HiLog is not a language 16:00:07 MichaelKifer: it's an idea of adding higher order features to first order logic 16:00:43 MichaelKifer: could add comment to clarify this 16:01:01 MichaelKifer: other terms like NAF and Fuzzy would need at least as much clarification 16:01:21 q- 16:01:47 q+ 16:01:48 csma: how see this classification used in the WG? 16:02:13 MichaelKifer: e.g. could be basis for tags which can be attached to rule set 16:02:26 -Philippe_Bonnard 16:02:32 csma: also useful to check coverage 16:03:27 Hassan: points out references on conceptual scaling, formal approach to forming such lattices 16:04:00 csma: but it is instance driven, you need a number of examles 16:04:09 s/examles/examples/ 16:04:24 q- 16:04:38 Topic: Technical Design 16:05:18 csma: want to examine what action is needed to follow up on the proposal from Harold et al 16:05:35 csma: has impression that there is general agreement that the approach is interesting 16:05:46 zakim, who is on the phone? 16:05:46 On the phone I see Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), Dave_Reynolds, Sandro, Evan_Wallace, Andreas_Harth, Donald_Chapin (muted), PaulaP (muted), josb (muted), Allen_Ginsberg, csma, 16:05:50 ... David_Hirtle, Harold, Axel_Polleres (muted), Igor_Mozetic (muted), [IBM] (muted), uli (muted), moz, JeffP, johnhall (muted), Darko, Mike_Dean, Gary_Hallmark, Deborah_Nichols 16:05:54 ... (muted), GiorgosStoilos, JosDeRoo (muted), MarkusK (muted), Said_Tabet (muted), Elisa_Kendall (muted), pfps, Michael_Kifer 16:06:28 csma: declarations of variables, quantification, typing - is that part of the condition language? 16:06:51 Harold: layered system, starts from positive conditions, type system supposed to be optional 16:07:57 Harold: some types may be delegated to RDF Schema or OWL 16:08:23 csma: if have logical rules, conclusion is expressed in same language as condition part, at least syntactically 16:08:49 Harold: started specifically with the condition part only 16:09:27 Harold: for horn the atomic clauses in conclusion are indeed the same as in the condition part 16:10:16 csma: Sense that people agree with notion of starting with the condition part, calls for round table check of views 16:10:36 zakim, who is on the call? 16:10:36 On the phone I see Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), Dave_Reynolds, Sandro, Evan_Wallace, Andreas_Harth, Donald_Chapin (muted), PaulaP (muted), josb (muted), Allen_Ginsberg, csma, 16:10:40 ... David_Hirtle, Harold, Axel_Polleres (muted), Igor_Mozetic (muted), [IBM] (muted), uli (muted), moz, JeffP, johnhall (muted), Darko, Mike_Dean, Gary_Hallmark, Deborah_Nichols 16:10:44 ... (muted), GiorgosStoilos, JosDeRoo (muted), MarkusK (muted), Said_Tabet (muted), Elisa_Kendall (muted), pfps, Michael_Kifer 16:10:47 -[IBM] 16:11:14 -Darko 16:11:37 Hassan: proposal with rule condition parts is just one way to express something used in many rule languages 16:12:15 Who is "IBM"? 16:12:28 I wonder if it was Stella.... 16:12:29 +??P17 16:12:39 q+ 16:12:41 zakim, P17 is me 16:12:41 sorry, Darko, I do not recognize a party named 'P17' 16:12:56 DaveReynolds: happy as starting point, details to work through 16:13:03 q- 16:13:06 zakim, unmute me 16:13:06 Donald_Chapin should no longer be muted 16:13:07 Zakim, P17 is Darko 16:13:08 sorry, MoZ, I do not recognize a party named 'P17' 16:13:14 Zakim, ??P17 is Darko 16:13:14 +Darko; got it 16:13:15 Sandro: yes in same way 16:13:33 Evan: no opinion 16:13:45 Andreas: yes, but not with XML syntax 16:13:56 DonaldChapin: would need to consult with SVBR team 16:14:02 zakim, unmute me 16:14:02 Donald_Chapin was not muted, Donald_Chapin 16:14:08 Paula: yes fully supporting proposal 16:14:12 Josb: yes 16:14:12 zakim, mute me 16:14:12 Donald_Chapin should now be muted 16:14:42 s/SVBR/SBVR 16:14:44 Allen: yes, a way to describe the things you are talking about in the language 16:14:53 csma: +1 to Allen 16:15:01 DavidHirtle: yes 16:15:07 Harold: yes! 16:15:08 zakim, unmute me 16:15:08 Igor_Mozetic should no longer be muted 16:15:21 Axel: yes, comments on details 16:15:25 Igor: yes, good start 16:15:33 zakim, mute me 16:15:33 Igor_Mozetic should now be muted 16:15:42 Uli: yes, contains eveything needed in conditions, good start 16:15:55 yes 16:15:57 moz: yes 16:16:00 JeffP: yes 16:16:02 ack johnhall 16:16:16 JohnHall: yes 16:16:17 yes 16:16:23 Darko: yes 16:16:25 zakim, mute me 16:16:25 johnhall should now be muted 16:16:28 MikeDead: yes 16:16:34 zakim, unmute me 16:16:34 Elisa_Kendall should no longer be muted 16:16:35 s/Dead/Dean/ 16:16:52 Gary: yes 16:17:07 Deborah: yes 16:17:10 yes 16:17:15 GiorgosStoilos: yes 16:17:24 zakim, unmute me 16:17:25 Said_Tabet should no longer be muted 16:17:26 ack SaidTabet 16:17:35 JosDeRoo: yes, core close to SPARQL language good candidate 16:17:53 MarkusK: yes 16:17:54 zakim, mute me 16:17:54 Said_Tabet should now be muted 16:18:00 Said: yes 16:18:03 JosDeRoo: The SPARQL Where Clause should be considered (without Filter) as the Condition language here 16:18:30 Elisa: yes, mentions work on extending ODM to support rules and this subset would be a good candidate starting point for them 16:18:32 Refinement for the notes: Jos said, SAPARGL *WHERE clause*. IMO, we should also have full sparql queries in rule bodies 16:18:37 zakim, mute me 16:18:37 Elisa_Kendall should now be muted 16:19:08 pfps: no, can't support it, semantics part is nearly missing (just substitution) 16:19:33 pfps: syntax is not bad, but can't stamp this document as a good start 16:20:04 s/SAPARGL/SPARQL/ 16:21:20 Francois has joined #rif 16:21:22 q+ 16:22:10 csma: suggests trying mappings from existing languages into this proposal 16:22:33 pfps: the document itself is not suff. well defined to do this from just the document 16:23:07 q+ 16:23:35 ack MichaelKifer 16:23:44 csma: map both ways round and explain how their engine would interpret this condition language 16:24:16 MichaelKifer: respond to pfps, the semantics is an attribute of the rule language not of the condition language 16:24:32 MichaelKifer: just defined a notion of satisfaction of conditions 16:25:24 ack me 16:25:25 q- 16:27:55 csma: mapping would illuminate "what it would mean to interpret the condition language in their own rule language" 16:28:06 q+ 16:28:14 q? 16:28:51 Axel volunteers to do such a mapping for ? 16:29:30 WRL, and DLV, check whether conditions allowed in these languages are covered by the proposal 16:29:40 pfps: could provide one for SWRL, in fact several are possible 16:30:02 Hassan: could do one 16:30:11 Shouldn't we record action items? 16:30:27 Quite, are these formal actions? 16:30:43 ACTION: pfps to suggest a SWRL mapping 16:30:49 q+ 16:30:53 q= 16:30:57 ACTION: Axel to suggest mapping for WRL and DLV 16:30:58 q- 16:31:20 ACTION: Hassan to suggest mapping for ILOG 16:31:33 ACTION: Harold to put proposal on the Wiki 16:32:02 Sandro: suggests we should have an editor for the doc soonish 16:32:11 -MarkusK 16:32:12 Uli has left #rif 16:32:17