See also: IRC log
<DanC> I saw this in the minutes last week: "Chris: The chairs have polled the group about the Extensible Design: it should now be used as a working syntax." Is that a WG decision?
<ChrisW> my mind is a blank, DanC
<DanC> PFPS since sent a different proposal, and your response suggested it's in order, which suggests that's _not_ a WG decision.
<DanC> I'd like to see more discussion of how the proposals meet the requirements (and none at all about the meaning of 'unitary' ;-)
<ChrisW> yes, we need requirements, that will be our focus today and at the f2f
<ChrisW> We did not make a decision to use the syntax of the extensible design in RIF, just to begin comparing it to other systems
<DanC> so you did make a decision?
<ChrisW> your insistence on the word "decision" has me being cautious, perhaps overly so
<ChrisW> the context of the "poll" was specifically that it was not a vote
<DanC> that makes sense...
<ChrisW> about whether to accept the extensible design
<ChrisW> we just wanted people to start using it as a strawman to see what (if anything is needed)
<DanC> I learned the word "decision" from Jon Bosak; I joined some XML WG telcons after not attending them for months, and tried to discuss some topics, and they said "we've already made that Decision; unless you have new information, it's out of order to discuss it." It's an alternative to what Bosak observed as "last-man-standing consensus" in the IETF.
<ChrisW> a useful idea
<DanC> formally, W3C process only requires that a WG make 1 decision: to go to last call.
<DanC> but in my experience, it's useful to make a WG decision around each requirement and to close each issue.
<ChrisW> re: requirements, that is the plan
<Francois> zakim ??P8 is me.
<sandro> Francois, you need the comma after "Zakim", I'm afraid.
<csma> ack ??P3
<sandro> ack ??P3
<csma> scribenick: hassan
<AxelPolleres> I could have scribed... sorry, some seconds late
No weekly meeting next week because of F2F3
<JosDeRoo> \me Zakim, mute me
<igor> zkaim, mute me
<DanC> draft minutes 23 May
<sandro> FrankMcCabe, you need a trailing question mark for Zakim.
<DanC> how about noting the correction in today's minutes, right here?
Christian finds last week's minutes ambiguous about "missing features of the XML elements of RifRaf"
CSMA wishes to clarifies the minutes regarding this before accepting them
Amendments to the minutes?
Action reviews for F2F3?
<DanC> er... so is that done? "Check hotel reservation for F2F3"
Update on F2F3 - review the draft agenda for the meeting
<SaidTabet> Christian: will there be a telecon access for those of us who are not traveling to the F2F?
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask that RAF and DesignConstraints sessions be merged
CSMA: ask for feedback on the contents of the F2F3 agenda
DanC: suggests merging RIFRAF
session and Requirements session
... haven't seen group discussion of RIFRAF
Sandro: must distiguish requirements for systems and those specific for interchange
ChrisW: RIFRAF is a set of criteria to distinguish among rule systems to be classified
CSMA: Need to specify which part of RIFRAF is specific to interchange and what is not
<AxelPolleres> might be the wrong line
<AxelPolleres> I type it:
<ChrisW> ok, axel, hold on a moment
Harold: the RAF follows several dimensions - being a requirement depends on the dimension
<AxelPolleres> small issue: i'd kindly ask th chairs to answer my technical question on phone connectivity for f2f3.
<DanC> to clarify, "haven't seen group discussion of RIFRAF", I have seen very nice evaluation of systems vs. RIFRAF, but the RIFRAF itself seems to be treated just as fact, not as a list of candidate requirements.
<AxelPolleres> I typed the issue on the IRC.
DanC: RAF seems to be "facts" - there has not been a discussion about whether, e.g., "function free" is relevant
<JosDeRoo> Axel, you probably took my name while doing Zakim, P37 is me
<DanC> (ok, I hear that that the RIFRAF stuff _is_ a list of candidate requirements, in a way. good to know.)
Gary Hall: Need to see better adequacy of the classification criteria to special cases like PR's
<AxelPolleres> My issue again [F2F3]: I wrote a mail to the chairs concerning phone connectivity at F2F3, which I would kindly ask them to answer. Thanks (no need to discuss this in the phone conf)
CSMA: need to relate Requirements with RIFRAF
<AxelPolleres> I will try again to find out the number. let's discuss further per mail
Sandro: regarding F2F3 connectivity and dialups - need to find a means (bring VOIP box?)
<AxelPolleres> We will find a solution.
<AxelPolleres> Paula and me.
CSMA: any more comments on F2F3 agenda?
None - move on to F2F4
<PaulaP> Contact for F2F3: Axel Polleres and Paula-Lavinia Patranjan
PFPS (not attending today) sent email web-registration information using credit cards
CSMA: any more comments on F2F4 meeting?
CrisW: let's move on
CSAM Next item on the agenda: liaisons?
Action on Jos de Roo?
<JosDeRoo> I think Axel and JosDeRoo have switched lines...
Axel: please press 41#
Jos de Roo: finished his action regarding DAWG
Need a liasion for SPARQL WG (since Jos de Roo is quitting his participation)
ChrisW: Do we need such a close relationship?
CSMA: close the action - we'll decide what we need when the time comes
Liaison with Common Logic?
Nothing to report...
Liaison with PRR - Paul Vincent?
PaulVincent: ok to give an update on PRR to this WG
Liaison with SBVR?
John: Telcon tomorrow - will report what transpires
Next topic: UCR
Actions re: UCR? two for CSMA (one continued, one done)
Action of Frank and Paula: merging requirement graph (done)
CSMA: Anyone to elaborate a new UC for XML Data (Axel & Dave)?
<DanC> for RDF data, no?
<AxelPolleres> I didn't volunteer for the XML use case?!?
<AxelPolleres> I put this use case online.
<DaveReynolds> Is this the rewrite of the integration use case?
<FrankMcCabe> I see 40 mins scheduled for a discussion on requirements
CSAM: yes Dave - it is a rewrite of the integration UC
CSAM: move on to the Req. discussion
DaveReynolds: What is the deadline for doing this?
CSMA: no deadline - just wanted
to know if the UC can be discussed at the F2F3
... because of low attendance at F2F3, please review all relevant documents and send comments before F2F3 especially if not attending
Leora: How come FOL has been eliminated from the Reqs?
ChrisW: Nothing has been eliminated
Leora: confused about several issues regarding what FOL and what "soundness" means for this WG
<johnhall> "Substantial proportion of FOL" ia also a question from SBVR team
Sandro: Christian please clarify about this issue about FOL
Mala: FOL req not in diagram, but is is the Wiki
Sorry again - please speakers state you names!
Leora: Worried about FOL being
not deemed as important as it should for RIF
... will explore the issue by email
<PaulaP> it was in an older version of the document
<LeoraMorgenstern> ^Leora: Worried^Leora: Concerned^
Frank: I don't see "substantial portion of FOL" - but see support for FOL - in the diagram
<ChrisW> we are taling about:
Frank: i wish to discuss the diagram for CSF to explain it to the WG
<PaulaP> the text under the DCs diagram is under development/refinement at moment
<DavidHirtle> (I think everyone doesn't realize this -- the diagram is really the up to date thing)
<LeoraMorgenstern> ^Leora: confused^Leora: has questions^
Frank: need to find better formulations
<LeoraMorgenstern> Hassan, just edited your transcribing of my remarks.
Frank: wishe to raise a few issues that need to be discussed: eg, Markups
<PaulaP> it is shortly explained in the text
Frank: procedural attachments?
<DaveReynolds> The text on "meta-language" doesn't match what Frank just said
<PaulaP> but we are going to refine it in the next days
<DaveReynolds> XML -> extensibilty is different from "XML support" -> extensibility
Frank: this diagram must be assessed for completeness, and commented with additional text
<DanC> "support XML" seems to be in a requirement box, but I don't understand how to test it. hm.
Frank: the diagram should be read as an index into the text
<LeoraMorgenstern> I'm glad that FOL has not been ruled out
Frank: to Leora: we have no intentions to rule out FOL as a Req.
<LeoraMorgenstern> Nevertheless, I think it's important to explicitly include FOL
<LeoraMorgenstern> as a requirement
PaulaP: There are open issues that need to be settled
CSMA: Not in my version!
<johnhall> click on the link in the agenda
CSAM: Oh now it is! :-)
<DanC> (so is http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Design_Constraints still used?)
<PaulaP> yes it is
CSMA: the list of Reqs to be discussed at the F2F3 is what will be posted before this Friday night
<ChrisW> Please see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006May/0254.html
Sandro: shall we prioritize them by championing them?
ChrisW: The wiki pages accommodate "championing" the Reqs
<sandro> (The term "champion" is lousy. "support" is better.)
<LeoraMorgenstern> With respect to the list of open requirements, it seems to me that requiring FOL should not be in the same bucket as requiring likelihood and probabilities.
<ChrisW> +1 to getting rid of older pages
Sandro: need to clean up all obsolete pages
ChrisW: I sent a list of pages that need to be reconciled
CSMA: Frank's and Paula's page
should be the reference
... ACTION on Frank and Paula to do the cleanup
<sandro> ACTION: Frank to Consolidate all the data from the four pages linked from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006May/0254.html on to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/30-rif-minutes.html#action01]
Frank: A design constraint is on the solution, a requirement is on the problem
<DanC> (huh? isn't requirement pretty much a synonym for design constraint? i.e. something you can test a design against. Can we please try discussing a requirement/constraint in practice?)
DavidHirtle: Are Goals and Reqs to be put in disting sections in the UCR document?
CSMA: the structure of the UCR document will be discussed at the F2F3
<sandro> Sandro: Frank and Paula should go ahead and edit the wiki, starting at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR to make their work nicely readable
FrankMcCabe: UCR document : use cases, then goals and reqs, then design constraints
<DanC> (yeah, whatever csma said, somebody pls write it down. or perhaps Chris already did in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006May/0254.html ? )
<ChrisW> ACTION: paula and frank to update GCR document wrt previous work [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/30-rif-minutes.html#action02]
<ChrisW> (to be completed by next tuesday)
<hak> I am back
<ChrisW> leora: having RIF handle probabilities is in a different "bucket" than FOL
<ChrisW> ... FOL is much more basic
<ChrisW> ... at least to RIF
<ChrisW> csma: open issues is just a heap right now
<ChrisW> ... of "todo" items
<ChrisW> frank: will probably have the work done today or tomorrow
<ChrisW> ...so people will have time to respond
<ChrisW> ... so Friday is the deadline
<sandro> Proposed: Editors Draft of UCR/Requirements to be frozenon Friday
<ChrisW> ... for the GCR document
<hak> CSMA: must include the most recent posting (done before friday)
<hak> FrankMcCabe: the document cannot be frozen on Friday
<hak> Sandro: why not Monday?
<DanC> (it sounds to me like 2 round-trips is infeasible. I'd suggest just one. The editor's do their best in the next day or so and then freeze it, without setting any expectation that they'll address comments.)
<josb> Monday would be helpful
<hak> CSMA: Tuesday noon?
<PaulaP> +1 to ChrisW
<GaryHallmark> 1 for friday freeze
<DanC> I think freezing Friday is workable.
<hak> ChrisW: we need and extra round - please send comment right away, and we'll review Friday's version at the F2F3
<josb> Friday would be better
<DanC> (I heard Chris say we _don't_ need an extra round)
<DavidHirtle> (keyboard problem, Gary?)
<GaryHallmark> me thinks my plus sign is gone!
<ChrisW> ^ChrisW: we need^ChrisW: we DO NOT need^
<DanC> (sounds to me like the plan Chris laid out in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006May/0254.html is OK)
<hak> I heard ChrisW say we do need one
<hak> CSMA: move to RIFRAF topic
<hak> Action on Harold (DONE)
<hak> Sandro: what are our priorities for this call's agenda?
<ChrisW> Harold action done: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006May/0235.html
<hak> Sandro: we should discuss some of the requirement even if this meeting is extended
<hak> Sandro: anyone having prepared anything to step forth?
<DanC> in the agenda are "Discussion of Reactive Rules requirement" and "Discussion of OWL KBs requirement"
<hak> Sandro: now is the good time to bring up what you care about
<hak> ChrisW: extend this call by 30mins for one requirement discussion?
<LeoraMorgenstern> Right ... I thought in the agenda the 2 requirements up fordiscussion did *not* include FOL.
<LeoraMorgenstern> But sure, I am happy to discuss FOL.
<LeoraMorgenstern> But no one else is ...
<AlexKozlenkov> cannot discuss now even though it is important
<Francois> this does not look like many agreeing...
<hak> Sandro: hope everyone will be ready for a productive discussion
<Francois> bye. Sorry, i cannot stay longer...
<hak> CSMA: Actions on RIF/RAF criteria before F2F3?
<hak> CSMA: either (1) a new version of the RIF/RAF or (2) more classification of systems done
<hak> Harold: some amendment are possible, but not easy to modify the schema without breaking some instances
<DanC> we started formalizing the evaluations in DAWG, fyi... we didn't ever exploit the data, so it rotted... I'll find a pointer...
<hak> CSMA: actions on technical design
<AxelPolleres> continued, will try to send some mail by Friday.
<hak> CSMA: any last item?
<hak> CSMA: proposes to adjourn
<DanC> ChrisW, sorry for taking group time on stuff that was already covered.
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/1/ 1/ Found ScribeNick: hassan Inferring Scribes: hassan WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found. WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: AlexKozlenkov Allen Allen_Ginsberg Axel AxelP AxelPolleres CSAM CSMA ChrisW Christian CrisW DanC Darko DaveReynolds Dave_Reynolds DavidHirtle David_Hirtle Deborah_Nichols Francois Frank FrankMcCabe Gary GaryHallmark Gary_Hallmark Harold Hassan IBM IPcaller Igor_Mozetic JosD JosDeRoo Keep Leora LeoraMorgenstern Leora_Morgenstern Mala MalaMehrotra MarkusK MichaelKifer Mike_Dean NRCC P0 P1 P3 P34 P36 P37 P4 P41 P43 P45 P5 P7 P8 PaulV PaulaP PhilippeB Philippe_Bonnard Proposed SaidTabet StellaMitchell Stella_Mitchell aaaa cgi-irc hak igor johnhall josb mdean me patranja sandro scribenick was You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy 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: 30 May 2006 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2006/05/30-rif-minutes.html People with action items: frank paula WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found! Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>. Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of new discussion topics or agenda items, such as: <dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]