IRC log of rif on 2006-06-08

Timestamps are in UTC.

06:31:15 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
06:31:16 [RRSAgent]
logging to
06:31:25 [der]
der has joined #rif
06:32:33 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
06:33:40 [Zakim]
06:34:19 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the call?
06:34:19 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Mike_Dean, RIF
06:34:31 [sandro]
Mike, can you hear anything?
06:34:39 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #rif
06:34:54 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
06:35:01 [mdean_home]
yes, i can year things intermittently
06:35:03 [Darko]
Darko has joined #rif
06:35:13 [mdean_home]
06:35:18 [patranja]
patranja has joined #rif
06:35:28 [Zakim]
06:35:45 [Darko]
06:36:55 [sandro]
(Phone seems to be working, as far as I can tell, with my VOIP connection)
06:44:41 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #rif
06:45:48 [sandro]
zakim, who is here?
06:45:48 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Mike_Dean, RIF, Sandro (muted)
06:45:49 [Zakim]
On IRC I see cgi-irc, PaulaP, Darko, GaryHallmark, ChrisW, DaveReynolds, RRSAgent, msintek, josb, MarkusK, DavidHirtle, aharth, Zakim, pfps_home, mdean_home, sandro, pfps, MoZ,
06:45:51 [Zakim]
... Keep
06:47:23 [Hassan]
Hassan has joined #rif
06:47:40 [Zakim]
06:47:52 [sandro]
zakim, who is here?
06:47:52 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Mike_Dean, RIF
06:47:53 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Hassan, Uta, PaulaP, Darko, GaryHallmark, ChrisW, DaveReynolds, RRSAgent, msintek, josb, MarkusK, DavidHirtle, aharth, Zakim, pfps_home, mdean_home, sandro, pfps, MoZ,
06:47:55 [Zakim]
... Keep
06:48:01 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #rif
06:48:54 [PaulV]
PaulV has joined #rif
06:49:03 [PaulV]
PaulV is scribe for this session
06:49:08 [Zakim]
06:49:10 [sandro]
scribe: PaulV
06:49:25 [sandro]
zakim, mute me
06:49:25 [Zakim]
Sandro should now be muted
06:49:29 [PaulV]
F2F3 Budva now in progress
06:49:29 [sandro]
zakim, mute rif
06:49:29 [Zakim]
RIF should now be muted
06:49:52 [PaulV]
Agenda discussion
06:50:06 [ChrisW]
mikeD, did you hear a bunch of static?
06:50:13 [mdean_home]
why is rif muted?
06:50:16 [mdean_home]
06:50:41 [sandro]
Mike, we were hearing some noise. Feel free to unmute rif if you want to talk.
06:50:51 [sandro]
06:50:52 [sandro]
06:51:00 [sandro]
zakim, unmute rif
06:51:00 [Zakim]
RIF should no longer be muted
06:51:08 [sandro]
my brain was being backwards.
06:51:09 [sandro]
06:51:13 [mdean_home]
zakim, mute me
06:51:13 [Zakim]
sorry, mdean_home, I do not see a party named 'mdean_home'
06:51:20 [PaulV]
Topic: Goals and CSF
06:51:25 [mdean_home]
zakim, mute mike_dean
06:51:25 [Zakim]
Mike_Dean should now be muted
06:51:45 [mdean_home]
did that help?
06:52:02 [PaulV]
06:52:02 [sandro]
I don't think it was actually from you, Mike.
06:52:10 [bonatti]
bonatti has joined #rif
06:52:11 [patranja]
patranja has joined #rif
06:52:16 [sandro]
(Axel fixed it some other way)
06:52:17 [PaulV]
Christian is chairing session
06:53:01 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
06:53:26 [ChrisW]
sandro is reading the goal from GCR doc
06:54:28 [ChrisW]
document being discussed:
06:54:34 [PaulV]
Vote who agrees on leaving goals and CSFs as are...
06:54:47 [sandro]
06:54:57 [PaulV]
poll: 15 agree, 1 against
06:55:26 [DavidHirtle]
DavidHirtle has joined #rif
06:55:35 [ChrisW]
discussing the third goal: "compatibility with W3C standards"
06:55:39 [PaulV]
Dave: another option is a goal ie a SW rule lang
06:55:45 [sandro]
Dave: modifiy 3rd goal, or 4th goal --- "Basis for Semantic Web Rule Language"
06:55:50 [sandro]
Dave: modifiy 3rd goal, or 4th goal --- "Basis for a Semantic Web Rule Language"
06:56:19 [sandro]
Dave: For example -- RDF Deduction rules. Not really motivated by W3C Consistency.
06:57:12 [PaulV]
Sandro: would this be covered if RIF covered existing SW rule langs?
06:57:16 [sandro]
Sandro: Would that goal come from convering eg N3 and JenaRules?
06:58:00 [sandro]
06:58:13 [PaulV]
Jos: support need for discussion on SW rule lang
06:58:48 [sandro]
Dave: Sandro, people need to know which language to write rules in.
06:58:55 [sandro]
Dave: Sandro, people need to know which language to write rules in (for the SemWeb)
06:58:56 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #rif
06:58:57 [PaulV]
Dave: reply: RIF does not solve *which lang* to choose for SWeb
06:59:04 [josb]
RIF should recommend THE language to use for the SemWeb
06:59:40 [sandro]
Mike, if you want to talk, you might include my name to help make sure I notice and let the chair know.
06:59:55 [PaulV]
Michael: building SWeb langs requires other groups involvement...
07:01:06 [igor]
igor has joined #rif
07:01:39 [PaulV]
Christian summary: option is 1 a new SW rule lang or 2 interchange with a SW rule lang
07:02:41 [GiorgosStoilos]
GiorgosStoilos has joined #rif
07:02:54 [PaulV]
Dave: maybe a SW rule lang is not a part of RIF, but specified langs could be defined as a subgroup of RIF; RIF WG needs to be clear on SW rule lang ambitions
07:03:07 [sandro]
DaveR: I'd like UCR to be clear that we have this ambition -- of being SemWeb Rule Language Basis
07:03:32 [PaulV]
Christian: opinion: specifing SW Rule Lang is out of scope for RIF
07:04:37 [PaulV]
Hassan: a SWeb rule lang needs to be RIF compliant, WHEN it is produced
07:06:16 [PaulV]
Christian: if a semantic is defined as appropriate for SWeb rules, and semantic is covered in RIF, then RIF could specify this semantic (not language)
07:06:30 [PaulV]
Jos: semantic = language (!)
07:07:33 [ChrisW]
syntax&semantics = language
07:07:56 [PaulV]
Sandro: (such a semantic) might not be called a "language" = small issue; problem with RIF as SW rule lang is that RIF != a single dialect
07:08:33 [PaulV]
Jos: you propose a particular way to implement a SW Rule Lang - is this a RIF goal? SWeb may have other semantics...
07:08:46 [sandro]
Sandro: Having RIF-WG recommend one selected dialect as the Semantic Web Rule Language -- would that address the need here? (Dave and Jos nod)
07:09:04 [PaulV]
Christian: RIF has not been chartered to select the semantic for SW Rule Lang
07:09:46 [PaulV]
Michael: dialect framework may be basis for SW rule lang requirement
07:11:36 [PaulV]
Harold: could have a group discussing interchange vs human use etc; call for implementations would be different eg translators rather than execution engines
07:12:25 [PaulV]
Sandro: general W3 is call for implementation (translator / executor not specified)
07:12:50 [sandro]
Proposed Goal or CSF -- "Single dialect recommended for interchanging Semantic Web Rules" or "Recommend Semantic Web Rule Language"
07:13:07 [sandro]
"Provide S.W.R.L" ?
07:13:11 [PaulV]
Axel: Requirement is a subgoal with translators
07:13:38 [PaulV]
Gary: RIF also used for exch between editors etc, eg consumer = human
07:13:43 [DavidHirtle]
Allen's "What is a RIF and Why Create One" may be relevant for the UCR
07:13:45 [DavidHirtle]
07:13:59 [DavidHirtle]
(it was omitted in the first draft)
07:14:01 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
07:15:01 [AxelPolleres]
PaulV: I meant: Requirement for Translators/Wrappers from to systems vs. Requirement for implementations to accept RIF natively boils down to the same thing.
07:15:49 [PaulV]
Axel comment correction: I meant: Requirement for Translators/Wrappers from to systems vs. Requirement for implementations to accept RIF natively boils down to the same thing.
07:16:28 [PaulV]
Jos: SW rule lang != fixed semantics; RIF in SWeb activity means RIF should be a SWeb rule lang.
07:17:16 [PaulV]
Jos comment correction: SW Rule lang not necessarily a single fixed semantic
07:19:22 [PaulV]
Harold: Michael's comments could be dialects for different semantics, translation via RIF: propose glossary entry for distinctions between human vs machine level etc
07:19:57 [PaulV]
Hassan: agrees with Harold; no syntax in RIF, not human readable, not a language but a representation for languages
07:20:06 [sandro]
(many disagree with Hassan)
07:20:32 [PaulV]
Dave: use cases include human readable rules
07:21:16 [PaulV]
Dave: decision needed on dialects for SW rules lang
07:21:17 [josb]
+1 to Dave!
07:21:17 [sandro]
DaveR: spectrum:RIF will support all languages <----> one selected language
07:21:22 [AxelPolleres]
+1 to Dave
07:21:43 [mdean_home]
+1 to Dave
07:21:44 [PaulV]
Dave: charter calls for compatibility with SWeb: do we interpret this for SW Rule Lang?
07:22:55 [PaulV]
Sandro: possible 4th goal: SWeb Rule Lang; use cases need SWeb
07:23:20 [sandro]
Sandro: Proposed 4th goal: "Support Semantic Web"
07:23:24 [josb]
+1 to Sandro
07:23:37 [sandro]
Sandro: but that's implied by Use Cases, I think.
07:25:05 [PaulV]
Christian: computation characteristics eg features related to inference than lang are out of scope of RIF
07:25:38 [PaulV]
Sandro: call for poll for 4th goal "support for SWeb"
07:26:05 [PaulV]
Chris: ... but Dave asked for "SWeb rule lang"
07:26:30 [ChrisW]
I said, "Dave has asked for a goal: the BASIS for a semantic web rule language"
07:26:34 [PaulV]
Axel: Support for SemWeb and SemWeb Rule lang - these are the same...
07:27:25 [PaulV]
Hassan: SWeb rule lang way out of scope / unfeasible
07:27:51 [sandro]
(Hassan: I support goal "Support Semantic Web", but not "Foundation for Semantic Web Rule Language"
07:29:34 [PaulV]
Chris: proposal needs further discussion; accepting goals does NOT preclude adding more
07:29:59 [PaulV]
Christian: proposal: ACCEPT these goals NOT precluding adding new ones
07:30:38 [josb]
so what is the use of accepting them?
07:30:47 [DavidHirtle]
to settle on at least some
07:30:51 [ChrisW]
Goals: Exchange of Rules, Widescale Adoption, and Consistency with W3C spec
07:31:03 [PaulaP]
and get the UCR document ready soon :)
07:31:59 [PaulV]
Dave: clarify: not ruling out vs objective for next draft?
07:32:03 [sandro]
ChrisW: let's talk about the 4th goal more tomorrow
07:32:09 [sandro]
(and maybe during breaks and stuff)
07:32:54 [PaulV]
ACTION: Dave to compose email of proposal for 4th goal
07:32:57 [ChrisW]
action: DaveR to describe goal in more detail
07:33:17 [PaulV]
Poll to accept these goals ...
07:34:03 [PaulV]
Objections - none
07:34:23 [sandro]
Abstaining - FZI, DERI, JosefStefan
07:35:21 [sandro]
DERI-Insbruk abstaining. DERI Galway in favor.
07:35:28 [PaulV]
Approve: remaining
07:35:34 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: Accept three goals as goals for the RIF WG
07:35:45 [josb]
07:35:52 [ChrisW]
break time for 30 mins
07:35:55 [sandro]
topic: Break
07:35:56 [PaulV]
RESOLVED: accepted goals as proposed above
07:36:11 [PaulV]
07:41:23 [msintek]
msintek has joined #rif
08:04:18 [PaulV]
08:05:06 [AxelPolleres]
scribe Axel
08:05:16 [AxelPolleres]
scribenick AxelPolleres
08:05:38 [AxelPolleres]
topic: Requirements
08:06:21 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: Go through list discuss level of agreement, no classification yet.
08:07:55 [sandro]
1.a. Formal Semantics
08:08:16 [bonatti]
bonatti has joined #rif
08:08:23 [AxelPolleres]
Igor: What about languages which don't have a formal semantics?
08:08:27 [AxelPolleres]
Paul: Examples?
08:08:29 [sandro]
Ivan: What about languages that don't have a formal semantics?
08:08:45 [sandro]
08:09:29 [AxelPolleres]
csma: Better: waht does formal mean here?
08:09:44 [AxelPolleres]
Piero: precise and mathematical specified.
08:10:59 [AxelPolleres]
Gary: SQL for instance has only structured Englisch def. Should be good enough. Adjust the requirement.
08:12:54 [sandro]
csma: When you get a ruleset through the RIF, you should get the same results everywhere, however you are using it.
08:13:12 [AxelPolleres]
csma: Should define what it means to use the same ruleset. "formal semantics" maybe too strong
08:13:53 [AxelPolleres]
... are there objections against the requirement or the phrasing?
08:14:36 [sandro]
ChrisW: When you get a ruleset in RIF, the meaning of the Ruleset will have a clear and precise semantics.
08:16:15 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION: Paula capture proposals for rewordings for "1.1.1.a Formal Semantics"
08:16:35 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the phone?
08:16:35 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Mike_Dean (muted), RIF, Sandro (muted)
08:16:51 [sandro]
Mike, do you want us to be using the Mic?
08:17:05 [mdean_home]
that would help - thanks
08:17:16 [AxelPolleres]
mike, can you hear us?
08:17:36 [mdean_home]
most of the time
08:18:41 [sandro]
08:18:41 [AxelPolleres]
csma: rewording proposals,e.g. "clear and precise"
08:19:28 [AxelPolleres]
topic: 1.1.1.b Interchange of rule sets will often involve different semantics ...
08:20:44 [sandro]
Sandro: is this all-models vs minimal-model semantics?
08:20:54 [AxelPolleres]
csma: understanding: RIF should cover exchange even if semantics is not shared.
08:21:43 [AxelPolleres]
csma: e.g. stable model semantics vs XYZ
08:22:31 [Harold]
If we feel that "formal" is too much to ask of certain (sub)languages of RIF (Igor: Production Rules), the term "rigorous" may be better, because it does stronger than "clear" and weaker than "formal".
08:25:18 [AxelPolleres]
MichealK: better "different styles of semantics"
08:25:30 [bonatti]
"formal" can be applied to certain fragments; for "operational"fragments one might resort to weaker definitions
08:25:44 [sandro]
csma: Multple Semantics: RIF should be able to cover rule languages with different styles of semantics
08:25:53 [sandro]
08:26:43 [JosDeRoo]
JosDeRoo has joined #rif
08:27:06 [AxelPolleres]
Hassan: proof theoretic vs. modeltheoretic is not a discriminator, because one can coincide with the other.
08:27:45 [AxelPolleres]
... equally called operational vs. declarative
08:29:11 [AxelPolleres]
Gary: for ECA production rules the best you could do would be a kind of abstract machine semantics.
08:29:51 [sandro]
Gary: I don't want something to preclude various styles of specifying semantics
08:30:29 [Harold]
Multiple semantics: Styles of semantics (e.g. proof-theoretic vs. model-theoretic) should be distinguished from variations of semantics (LP vs. FOL).
08:30:31 [AxelPolleres]
csma: two axes: "ways to define semantics" and "different intended semantics"
08:31:37 [AxelPolleres]
Jos: the first is not a difference, the second can be mutually incompatible, thus we need this requirement
08:32:04 [Harold]
However, the variations of semantics should be done in a disciplined manner, with a well-defined characterization of the differences.
08:32:37 [AxelPolleres]
topic: 1.1.1.c Markup of semantics
08:32:50 [sandro]
general agreement on 1.1.1b
08:33:01 [msintek]
msintek has joined #rif
08:33:18 [AxelPolleres]
csma: This is equivalent with the previous one.
08:33:33 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: this is a consequence from the previous two.
08:36:09 [sandro]
Sandro: If you don't implement the semantics tag, you throw it away.
08:36:16 [sandro]
it == the ruleset
08:36:46 [AxelPolleres]
csma: there can be overlaps if you just discard a rule set for a different semantic "tag" e.g. full horn vs. datalog
08:37:30 [josb]
+1 to csma: tag is solution; not requirement
08:37:33 [sandro]
harold: the intended semantics should be reflected in the syntax
08:38:00 [AxelPolleres]
harold: refer to charter, mentions annotations already.
08:41:18 [sandro]
"The intended semantics of the rule set in a RIF document should be charactized syntactically"
08:41:52 [sandro]
"identified" instead of "characterized"
08:42:09 [AxelPolleres]
csma: 111a is clear and precise semantics, 111b is more than one, 111c is they should be "identifiable"
08:42:52 [sandro]
"RIF should have a standard way to speify the intended semantics of the rule set in a RIF document"
08:43:02 [sandro]
"RIF should have a standard way to specify the intended semantics of the rule set in a RIF document"
08:43:06 [Harold]
Let's distinguish the semantics of the layers of the RIF language and the semantics of a given RIF document, which should refer to the intended layer.
08:43:59 [sandro]
"RIF should have a standard way to identify the intended semantics of the rule set in a RIF document"
08:44:36 [sandro]
"RIF should have a standard way to specify the semantic style of the rule set in a RIF document"
08:45:25 [AxelPolleres]
paul: commercial languages tend to "grow", how to deal with that?
08:46:22 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION: Paul to describe an additional requirement for evolving semantics and check whether this is already covered in "extensibility"
08:46:54 [AxelPolleres]
topic 1.1.1.d Meta language features
08:47:03 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: drop this requirement.
08:47:53 [DavidHirtle]
this doesn't fit under "Soundness"
08:48:09 [DavidHirtle]
(probably "Coverage")
08:48:33 [AxelPolleres]
csma: seems to be subsumed by extensibility
08:49:35 [AxelPolleres]
topic: 1.1.2 Coverage
08:49:38 [josb]
note: meta-languages fit in extensibility, as well as coverage, according to the diagram
08:50:18 [AxelPolleres]
topic: 1.1.2a The RIF should support deduction rules
08:51:29 [sandro]
Sandro: synonym for "Logical Rules"
08:51:42 [AxelPolleres]
Paula: better general "logical rules"
08:56:39 [sandro]
Piero: this is about how the rules are used -- for users. Deduction Rules means Rules that produce more information.
08:56:56 [AxelPolleres]
piero: decuction rules vs. integrity constraints, i.e. deduction rules: produce consequences
08:57:15 [MoZ]
Zakim, what is the code?
08:57:15 [Zakim]
the conference code is 74394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200), MoZ
08:59:14 [sandro]
Sandro: this provides organization/classification for rule languages for us to cover
08:59:50 [sandro]
"rewrite rules" ?
09:01:12 [AxelPolleres]
Discussion: Does the requirement name specific languages or classes of rules (decuctive (FOL and LP style), normative,reactive)?
09:01:41 [AxelPolleres]
... to be discussed.
09:02:06 [Harold]
The LP vs. FOL distinction could me made orthogonally to the deduction vs. normative vs. reactive distinction:
09:02:20 [Harold]
E.g. there are LP normative rules.
09:03:59 [AxelPolleres]
topic 1.1.2.e Combined rulesets
09:03:59 [AxelPolleres]
09:04:13 [AxelPolleres]
09:05:11 [AxelPolleres]
paula: previeous topic missed the requirement on "coverage of prolog style rules"
09:05:55 [AxelPolleres]
chrisW: this is in the same bucket as the previously, back to combined rulesets
09:07:08 [AxelPolleres]
csma: the requirement should be about combining rulesets not about combining classes of rules.
09:07:43 [AxelPolleres]
michaelK: e.g. deductive and normative appear already in the same rulesets, e.g. in LP
09:07:56 [sandro]
mkifer: RIF must cover rule languages which support multiple styles of rules (eg normative and deduction)
09:08:44 [AxelPolleres]
chrisw: further discuss this one with the prevous one.
09:09:34 [AxelPolleres]
... (the aspect of combined rulesets which combine different types/classes of rules)
09:10:47 [PaulaP]
+1 to Christian
09:11:19 [sandro]
David: call this an objective
09:11:34 [AxelPolleres]
"The RIF should support rule sets where rules are composed of features from multiple rule languages."
09:11:44 [josb]
+1 to ChrisW: we cannot allow arbitrary combination of features
09:12:20 [AxelPolleres]
MichealK: combination of semantics difficult to define.
09:12:25 [DavidHirtle]
("objective" is what e.g. OWL UC&R document calls "nice to have" features)
09:12:55 [DavidHirtle]
09:14:00 [sandro]
Axel: this sounds like an open research question
09:15:26 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: next issue, this requires further discussion.
09:15:45 [AxelPolleres]
"a condition in a RIF rule may be a SPARQL query."
09:16:27 [AxelPolleres]
Chris W: should be "for example SPARQL"
09:18:14 [Zakim]
09:28:14 [DavidHirtle]
DavidHirtle has joined #rif
09:28:16 [PaulaP]
PaulaP has joined #rif
09:28:16 [MarkusK]
MarkusK has joined #rif
09:28:16 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
09:28:27 [bonatti]
bonatti has joined #rif
09:28:27 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
09:28:31 [josb_]
josb_ has joined #rif
09:28:39 [josb_]
josb_ has left #rif
09:28:56 [Harold]
Oracular is not a great term.
09:29:08 [Harold]
Black box is better.
09:30:57 [msintek]
msintek has joined #rif
09:31:20 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
09:32:39 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #rif
09:33:05 [AxelPolleres]
topic: 1.1.3.b Support oracular models
09:33:05 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: this is unclear.
09:33:05 [AxelPolleres]
Harold: better callout to "blackboxes". Oracle is bad wording.
09:33:05 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: One could argue that this is a violation of the "no surprises" requirement.
09:33:05 [AxelPolleres]
Axel: doesn't this link to semantic annotations of services.
09:33:07 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION: csma to explain why this "blackboxes" is not a contrdiction to "no surprises"
09:33:35 [sandro]
(more than "External Queries")
09:33:37 [AxelPolleres]
csma: merge with "external calls"?
09:33:53 [Zakim]
09:34:42 [Darko]
Darko has joined #rif
09:34:48 [sandro]
zakim, what is the code?
09:34:48 [Zakim]
the conference code is 74394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200), sandro
09:35:00 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
09:35:12 [Zakim]
09:35:14 [Zakim]
09:35:16 [Zakim]
09:35:28 [sandro]
we're re-dialing, Mike,
09:35:34 [mdean_home]
09:35:35 [Hassan]
Hassan has joined #rif
09:35:35 [aharth]
aharth has joined #rif
09:35:58 [DavidHirtle]
scribenick: aharth
09:36:28 [sandro]
can you hear?
09:36:42 [mdean_home]
09:36:45 [sandro]
09:36:53 [kifer]
kifer has joined #rif
09:37:24 [mdean_home]
09:37:37 [aharth_scribe]
next topic: markup of semantics
09:39:35 [kifer]
kifer has joined #rif
09:39:51 [AxelPolleres]
metanote: I will paste what was lost by the lack of connection now!
09:39:55 [AxelPolleres]
09:39:56 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPoller: 1.1.2.e.b part one is not feasible, part b should be rephrased.
09:39:56 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPoller: ACTION: Dave to rephrase 1.1.2.e.b
09:39:56 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPoller: topic: 1.1.2.f RIF should support uncertain and probabilistic information
09:39:56 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPoller: ChrisW: needs further discussion.
09:39:56 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPoller: topic: 1.1.2.g All requirements that are under the CSF 'Alignment with Semantic Web'
09:39:58 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPoller: ChrisW: needs further discussion.
09:40:00 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPoller: topic: 1.1.3. Extensibility
09:40:02 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPoller: topic: 1.1.3.a Support typed languages
09:40:05 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPoller: Paul: datatypes like XMLSchema types, etc.
09:40:06 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPoller: Gary: typechecking for functions and predicates.
09:40:08 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPoller: Josb: Datatypes or also ObjectTypes, with OWL compatibility we have part of this already.
09:40:10 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPoller: ChrisW: this is NOT an anchor into OWL.
09:40:12 [AxelPolleres]
09:40:47 [aharth_scribe]
sandro: if you extend the language that might break some things
09:42:19 [aharth_scribe]
bonatti: we might have a translation from one dialect to another which is not complete, i.e. doesn't cover all features
09:43:05 [aharth_scribe]
csma: if you retrieve a ruleset that you cannot process completely it should not break your application?
09:43:52 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #rif
09:44:20 [aharth_scribe]
chris: anyone who thinks they understand that requirement?
09:44:46 [AxelPolleres]
isn't this like "must understand" in SOAP, e.g.?
09:45:01 [sandro]
it's closely related, Axel.
09:45:59 [aharth_scribe]
harold: title is a repetition of the earlier title, should be able to interchange the semantics
09:46:26 [aharth_scribe]
paul: is this talking about partial coverage of the semantics? part of the graceful degredation aspect?
09:46:47 [sandro]
Yes -- it will result in the same designs
09:47:50 [aharth_scribe]
dave/chris: move this to the next requirement which covers conformance?
09:49:49 [aharth_scribe]
chris: rif must be extensible is a requirement?
09:49:57 [aharth_scribe]
sandro: that's more a sucess factor
09:50:43 [aharth_scribe]
csma: the charter says "how out of scope features can be expressed by extensions"
09:51:15 [aharth_scribe]
... inability to extend should be addressed by text that explains
09:51:22 [sandro]
s/says "/says we must specify "
09:52:31 [aharth_scribe]
csma: are there two different types of extensibility which need to be made explicit?
09:54:01 [aharth_scribe]
chris: is the issue whether it's a req or a critical success factor?
09:54:06 [aharth_scribe]
... let's move on
09:54:22 [aharth_scribe]
... conformance model
09:54:55 [aharth_scribe]
jos: what is a conformance model? if you have a specified semantics, you know what the language means
09:55:11 [aharth_scribe]
csma: first is the granularity level, the other is related to the processing model
09:55:26 [aharth_scribe]
... how do you know that the other side is able to process your rule
09:55:46 [aharth_scribe]
sandro: how do you do conformance in the face of extensions?
09:55:57 [sandro]
(that's what this addresses)
09:56:01 [aharth_scribe]
... is another way of saying it
09:56:12 [aharth_scribe]
chirs: any objections to this as requirement?
09:56:31 [aharth_scribe]
... general agreement, no objections
09:56:48 [aharth_scribe]
csma: we're done with goal 1
09:56:48 [Darko]
09:57:09 [aharth_scribe]
... next one is low cost of implementation
09:57:54 [aharth_scribe]
davidhirtle: in the diagram there is no requirement supporting the low cost of implementation point
09:58:15 [aharth_scribe]
sandro: there are, e.g. using XML (for parsing)
09:58:36 [aharth_scribe]
csma: fact that it opposes other requirements means we have to find a trade-off
10:00:01 [aharth_scribe]
sandro: rif should be implementable using well-understood techniques
10:01:35 [aharth_scribe]
csma: rif should not contain features that are not covered by existing languages, implementing reasoners is out of scope for rif
10:02:30 [PaulaP]
+1 to csma
10:03:13 [aharth_scribe]
gary: what this means to me that you need to get ~~a partial conformance if you comply with some minimal rif subset
10:03:24 [aharth_scribe]
10:03:33 [sandro]
Gary: It should be possible get an easy mark of compliance, without supporting lots of stuff.
10:04:26 [aharth_scribe]
chris: does that mean there are degrees of compliance?
10:04:50 [aharth_scribe]
csma: then, what do you do with the part you don't support?
10:05:23 [aharth_scribe]
chris: the current wording is overly vague
10:05:59 [aharth_scribe]
dave: one is under extensibility, while the other point is what's in a "rif core"?
10:07:21 [aharth_scribe]
chris: rewording: "there are conformance levels, and not all compliant aplications are supposed to support all of rif"
10:07:50 [aharth_scribe]
sandro: object to trivial compliance
10:08:07 [aharth_scribe]
chris: there needs to be some minimal compliance
10:09:37 [aharth_scribe]
csma: postponed the "unnecessary burden" requirement
10:10:04 [aharth_scribe]
next one: well-understood implmentation techniques
10:10:19 [sandro]
general agreement on No Unnecessary Burden
10:10:51 [aharth_scribe]
csma: do we need to be more precise when we talk about rif implementation? reasoners vs. translators
10:11:45 [aharth_scribe]
chris: rif should be implementable - no objections
10:12:56 [aharth_scribe]
jos: implementable is not low cost of implementation
10:13:54 [sandro]
approved: RIF should be implementable using well understood techniques"
10:14:43 [aharth_scribe]
chris: next - use of standard support technologies such as XML parsers
10:16:22 [aharth_scribe]
chris: XML is not necessarily low cost
10:16:34 [aharth_scribe]
csma: XML syntax is a requirement from the charter
10:16:58 [aharth_scribe]
chris: XML syntax should be under W3C compatibility
10:17:38 [aharth_scribe]
csma: support XML as data is different to XML as syntax for rif
10:18:59 [Zakim]
10:19:10 [pfps]
zakim, ??p1 is me
10:19:10 [Zakim]
+pfps; got it
10:19:40 [sandro]
Gary: reuse existing reasoners
10:19:41 [aharth_scribe]
gary: reuse e.g. XSLT to translate from RIF to other formats
10:20:54 [aharth_scribe]
chris: lunch!
10:21:43 [Zakim]
10:21:52 [Zakim]
10:21:58 [sandro]
zakim, drop rif
10:21:58 [Zakim]
sorry, sandro, I do not see a party named 'rif'
10:21:59 [sandro]
topic: lunch
10:26:56 [msintek]
msintek has left #rif
10:56:50 [DaveReynolds_]
DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif
11:26:45 [MarkusK]
MarkusK has joined #rif
11:26:57 [GiorgosStoilos]
GiorgosStoilos has joined #rif
11:27:04 [DavidHirtle]
DavidHirtle has joined #rif
11:27:06 [sandro]
zakim, what is the code?
11:27:06 [Zakim]
the conference code is 74394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200), sandro
11:27:17 [Zakim]
11:27:18 [Zakim]
11:27:19 [Zakim]
11:27:48 [sandro]
zakim, who is here?
11:27:48 [Zakim]
On the phone I see RIF, pfps
11:27:49 [Zakim]
On IRC I see DavidHirtle, GiorgosStoilos, MarkusK, DaveReynolds, kifer, Darko, josb, bonatti, Harold, PaulaP, JosDeRoo, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps_home, mdean_home, sandro, pfps, MoZ,
11:27:52 [Zakim]
... Keep
11:28:38 [msinte1]
msinte1 has joined #rif
11:35:36 [Harold]
Lunch-time discussion between Hassan, DavidR, Sandro, and me:
11:35:48 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
11:36:00 [Darko]
scribe: Darko
11:36:22 [Darko]
Topic: Use Cases
11:36:28 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #rif
11:36:38 [Darko]
csma: 2 new use cases to be added
11:37:34 [Hassan]
Hassan has joined #rif
11:37:36 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
11:37:51 [aharth]
aharth has joined #rif
11:38:33 [PaulV]
PaulV has joined #RIF
11:38:49 [Zakim]
11:39:09 [Darko]
csma: is there any modification you want to add to current use cases?
11:41:52 [Darko]
csma: once we have UCs to cover all needs, we will clean them up and refine them
11:44:24 [Darko]
Axel: Publications of rules to be added as a new UC
11:44:31 [DavidHirtle]
11:44:36 [DavidHirtle]
Gary's use case
11:44:59 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #rif
11:45:04 [AxelPolleres]
11:47:59 [Darko]
csma: comments About Gary's UC?
11:48:41 [Darko]
Sandro: doesn't make sense
11:49:00 [Darko]
csma; objections to add this UC to the document?
11:49:38 [sandro]
s/doesn't make sense/the particularly example fragment of the rulebase is confusing/
11:49:51 [Darko]
csma: no objections
11:50:06 [Darko]
...this UC will be in the 2nd WD
11:50:12 [sandro]
RESOLVED: In include in UC WD2 (with possible editorial changes)
11:50:19 [sandro]
11:50:37 [Darko]
UC: Vocabularly Mapping for Data Integration
11:52:48 [sandro]
ACTION: DaveR to propose new text for Use Case 8, due 7 July
11:56:16 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #rif
11:56:53 [Darko]
csma: ex publication UC was not clear enough and it was removed
11:56:54 [sandro]
11:57:39 [AlexKozlenkov]
AlexKozlenkov has joined #rif
11:58:06 [sandro]
Hey, Alex.
11:58:32 [Darko]
csma: objections to Axel's UC?
11:58:54 [Darko]
... no objections. RESOLVED it will be added
11:59:10 [AlexKozlenkov]
Well, I a permanent British resident but have been lazy applying for a British passport
11:59:16 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
11:59:17 [Zakim]
On the phone I see RIF, pfps, Sandro (muted)
11:59:52 [AlexKozlenkov]
I was in Croatia a few years ago and didn;t require a visa--now they've changed the rules
11:59:59 [AlexKozlenkov]
12:01:24 [Darko]
David: 3 comments on the current publication (1.about ontolgies, Sven, 3.about XML data)
12:02:34 [Zakim]
12:02:42 [AlexKozlenkov]
Zakim, ??P6 is me
12:02:42 [Zakim]
+AlexKozlenkov; got it
12:02:54 [AlexKozlenkov]
Zakim mute me
12:03:39 [Darko]
ACTION: David to add pointers from the UC documet to requiremts by the end of this month
12:03:57 [Harold]
Alex, do you want to bring your use case on the phone?
12:05:34 [Darko]
Axel: 1 week since last comment is needed
12:06:12 [AlexKozlenkov]
I could if the line was better, so far I'm struggling hearing anything
12:06:53 [Harold]
Perhaps type in a distilled version here.
12:07:25 [sandro]
What's it sound like, Alex?
12:07:26 [Darko]
ACTION: Gary: take commets into account and send new version of the UC in 1 week
12:07:36 [DavidHirtle]
we may be able to hear you better than you can hear us, Alex
12:07:45 [AlexKozlenkov]
Sandro, it's breaking like the sound is tearing
12:07:49 [DavidHirtle]
(we're not always so good at getting the mic passed around)
12:08:13 [Harold]
12:08:18 [Darko]
ACTION: Axel to collect comments by this Friday and send new version of the UC and the next Friday
12:08:23 [Harold]
we ccan hear you well.
12:09:21 [Harold]
Please speak up a bit.
12:09:28 [Harold]
12:09:47 [Harold]
Try once more.
12:10:27 [Darko]
Alex willl send his UC via email
12:11:00 [Darko]
ACTION: Alex to send his UC via email
12:11:33 [Darko]
12:11:41 [Harold]
Alex, can you elaborate on the sketch you sent?
12:12:00 [sandro]
Maybe Alex should do it on the Wiki, like the other use cases....?
12:12:06 [Darko]
csma: more comments on the UC section?
12:14:04 [AlexKozlenkov]
A short ouline posted
12:15:10 [ChrisW]
is it audible now?
12:15:19 [ChrisW]
(the phone)
12:15:55 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
12:15:55 [Zakim]
On the phone I see RIF, pfps, Sandro (muted), AlexKozlenkov
12:16:01 [Darko]
Topic: RIF-RAF
12:16:02 [ChrisW]
peter, are you there?
12:16:10 [ChrisW]
alex, can you hear better now?
12:16:33 [AlexKozlenkov]
12:16:52 [LeoraMorgenstern]
LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
12:16:54 [AlexKozlenkov]
Now there is total silence
12:16:55 [sandro]
pfps, Alex -- we have disconnected the Phone->Room connection for now, since it was just causing noise and didn't seem to be helping.
12:17:05 [AlexKozlenkov]
I see
12:17:26 [AlexKozlenkov]
I'm hanging up then?
12:17:33 [ChrisW]
can you hear paul now?
12:17:39 [AlexKozlenkov]
It's actually better now!
12:17:39 [sandro]
No, Alex, you should be able to hear
12:17:40 [Darko]
Paul is giving presentation on OMG Production Rule
12:17:49 [ChrisW]
(there was a brief break)
12:18:01 [csma]
csma has joined #rif
12:18:18 [sandro]
AlexKozlenkov, pfps -- the disconnection is only on sounds from Phone to the room -- this should make Room -to- Phone work better.
12:18:25 [Darko]
12:18:41 [ChrisW]
if you want to speak, then let us know on IRC
12:18:46 [AxelPolleres]
If somebody on the phone wants to say something, klet us know, we have to turn on the microphone in this case.
12:18:53 [Zakim]
12:18:53 [AlexKozlenkov]
Are you aware of a company called Kabira who has a similar MDA driven process with a custom workflow input?
12:18:55 [ChrisW]
(not sure that will work any better than before, though)
12:19:04 [LeoraMorgenstern]
zakim, mute me
12:19:04 [Zakim]
Leora_Morgenstern should now be muted
12:19:11 [AlexKozlenkov]
zakim, mute me
12:19:11 [Zakim]
AlexKozlenkov should now be muted
12:19:34 [sandro]
AlexKozlenkov, do you want me to speak that?
12:19:37 [LeoraMorgenstern]
I can't hear a thing; is anything happening?
12:19:46 [AlexKozlenkov]
Yes that would be good!#
12:20:06 [AxelPolleres]
Alex, can you paste a URI of this on irc
12:20:07 [AxelPolleres]
12:20:10 [ChrisW]
Leora, you cannot hear PaulV?
12:20:22 [AlexKozlenkov]
12:20:29 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Never mind; now I can hear. Not terribly well,
12:20:29 [sandro]
LeoraMorgenstern, Can you hear Paul talking now -- talking about standards at OMG, UML, etc?
12:20:38 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Yes, I can hear --- fuzzy, but I can hear.
12:20:55 [sandro]
That's about as good as it's going to get today, I'm afriad. We'll try to have better microphones tomorrow.
12:21:13 [LeoraMorgenstern]
I'm glad to hear something --- thank you!
12:22:13 [sandro]
Paul apologized that the slides he's using are not available yet, but he'll mail them out shortly.
12:22:28 [AlexKozlenkov]
Question to Paul: can actions be grouped together as a transaction?
12:24:05 [AlexKozlenkov]
12:27:09 [Zakim]
12:27:27 [AlexKozlenkov]
no sound now
12:27:39 [LeoraMorgenstern]
same here
12:27:59 [ChrisW]
the phone hung up
12:28:01 [ChrisW]
hold on
12:28:04 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Okay, thanks
12:28:38 [sandro]
zakim, what is the code?
12:28:38 [Zakim]
the conference code is 74394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200), sandro
12:28:52 [Zakim]
12:29:17 [AlexKozlenkov]
yes, you are back
12:29:21 [AlexKozlenkov]
12:29:29 [LeoraMorgenstern]
i can hear
12:30:17 [JosDeRoo]
JosDeRoo has joined #rif
12:35:35 [AlexKozlenkov]
Paul, any link for the action language? Are communication actions supported?
12:37:12 [AlexKozlenkov]
yes please
12:44:23 [GiorgosStoilos]
ACTION: on csm to check with OMG
12:44:46 [GiorgosStoilos]
topic: RIFRAF
12:45:23 [sandro]
s/on csm to check with OMG/csma to check whether OMG is okay with their member-only documents being sent to member-rif-wg (W3C member only list)/
12:45:26 [msintek]
msintek has joined #rif
12:47:24 [sandro]
12:48:27 [GiorgosStoilos]
chrisW: RIFRAF is to characterize different rule systems
12:48:50 [GiorgosStoilos]
...different types of semantics in rule systems
12:49:24 [GiorgosStoilos]
Harold: it is a classification system
12:50:17 [GiorgosStoilos]
Gary: it cannot be used for reactive rules at this point
12:51:16 [GiorgosStoilos]
chrisW: we need to extend some discriminators of RIFRAF to cover other staff we are discussing about
12:53:29 [sandro]
(confusion about rifraf 1.1.)
12:54:06 [AlexKozlenkov]
no sound
12:54:22 [sandro]
sorry -- conversation is moving too fast to move the mic
12:54:38 [AlexKozlenkov]
12:55:12 [GiorgosStoilos]
chrisW: rifraf 1.1 is about scope
12:55:28 [GiorgosStoilos]
s/is about/seems to be about
12:55:39 [sandro]
Harold: Existential variables, anonymous variables
12:56:14 [sandro]
Hassan: the head of a rule in LP is sometimes constrained to have all distinct variables
12:56:37 [GiorgosStoilos]
ACTION: Harold to add some examples for rifraf 1.1
12:57:43 [sandro]
Harold: forward-chaining woulod generate non-ground-facts, without range restriction
12:58:17 [GiorgosStoilos]
Gary: it is a good discriminator for production rules also
12:59:02 [sandro]
Axel: typed variables should go here
12:59:20 [GiorgosStoilos]
s/it is a good/rifraf 1.2
12:59:58 [GiorgosStoilos]
chrisW: 1.3 is a bit ambiguous
13:00:15 [GiorgosStoilos]
harold: is a classical definition from logic programming
13:01:57 [GiorgosStoilos]
Dave: why is rifraf 3 an interesting discriminator for RIF?
13:02:18 [GiorgosStoilos]
harold: it is interesting to look at the reduction between 2 languages
13:03:14 [GiorgosStoilos]
hasan: this is not what we call conservative extension
13:04:00 [GiorgosStoilos]
sandro: trnaslating to and back would u get the intial rules?
13:04:22 [sandro]
s/rules?/rules, or would L-T have been done?/
13:04:55 [GiorgosStoilos]
axel: this is a syntactic discriminator; whether u allow complex formulas or not
13:06:55 [Zakim]
13:12:43 [AlexKozlenkov]
I'm kicked out of RIF Wiki due to surge protection. Given we're shown as one IP, it is possible. Anything can be done at all about it?
13:20:20 [AlexKozlenkov]
AlexKozlenkov has joined #rif
13:23:11 [AlexKozlenkov]
I'm going to be back for the requirements session at 4
13:23:17 [Zakim]
13:27:40 [pfps]
no connection on IRC
13:33:43 [LeoraMorgenstern]
13:33:44 [Zakim]
13:37:30 [Zakim]
13:56:17 [pfps]
pfps has joined #rif
13:59:42 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
13:59:42 [josb_]
josb_ has joined #rif
13:59:48 [kifer]
kifer has joined #rif
14:00:01 [EvanWallace]
EvanWallace has joined #rif
14:00:25 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #rif
14:00:38 [josb]
josb has left #rif
14:00:40 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #rif
14:01:07 [josb_]
josb_ has left #rif
14:01:07 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
14:01:14 [josb__]
josb__ has joined #rif
14:01:16 [Darko]
Darko has joined #rif
14:01:48 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
14:01:58 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
14:02:00 [GaryHallmark]
scribe: gary hallmark
14:02:10 [GaryHallmark]
scribenick: GaryHallmark
14:02:28 [Zakim]
14:02:31 [Zakim]
14:02:33 [Zakim]
14:02:34 [Zakim]
14:03:16 [igor]
igor has joined #rif
14:03:38 [Zakim]
14:03:50 [AlexKozlenkov]
Zakim, P12 is me
14:03:50 [Zakim]
sorry, AlexKozlenkov, I do not recognize a party named 'P12'
14:04:00 [AlexKozlenkov]
Zakim, ??P12 is me
14:04:00 [Zakim]
+AlexKozlenkov; got it
14:04:10 [AlexKozlenkov]
Zakim, mute me
14:04:10 [Zakim]
AlexKozlenkov should now be muted
14:04:12 [GiorgosStoilos]
GiorgosStoilos has joined #rif
14:04:16 [LeoraMorgenstern]
LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
14:04:20 [DavidHirtle]
DavidHirtle has joined #rif
14:04:40 [bonatti]
bonatti has joined #rif
14:04:54 [PaulaP]
PaulaP has joined #rif
14:05:13 [Hassan]
Hassan has joined #rif
14:05:18 [GaryHallmark]
Topic: Requirements
14:06:20 [Zakim]
14:06:27 [GaryHallmark]
csma: continue sorting based on degree of agreement
14:06:44 [sandro]
... and clarifying wording
14:06:52 [Zakim]
14:07:16 [Zakim]
14:07:19 [LeoraMorgenstern]
zakim, mute me
14:07:19 [Zakim]
Leora_Morgenstern should now be muted
14:09:01 [GaryHallmark]
... widescale adoption/low cost of implementation/low transfer cost
14:09:21 [Zakim]
14:09:30 [GaryHallmark]
sandro: split it up
14:09:52 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
14:10:02 [Zakim]
14:10:17 [Zakim]
14:10:33 [LeoraMorgenstern]
zakim, please mute me
14:10:33 [Zakim]
Leora_Morgenstern should now be muted
14:10:34 [Zakim]
14:10:34 [GaryHallmark]
... emphasize real time performance
14:11:21 [Zakim]
14:11:30 [GaryHallmark]
daveR: why real-time goal?
14:11:40 [aharth]
aharth has joined #rif
14:12:13 [GaryHallmark]
paulV: means low deployment time cost
14:13:00 [GaryHallmark]
... low computation cost for consumer
14:13:06 [sandro]
"Low Cost of Implementation" ==> cheap serialization
14:13:27 [sandro]
small footprint? simple?
14:13:42 [GaryHallmark]
paulV: low complexity
14:13:43 [Zakim]
14:13:53 [LeoraMorgenstern]
zakim, please mute me
14:13:53 [Zakim]
Leora_Morgenstern should now be muted
14:13:57 [sandro]
Latency is a different issue
14:14:51 [GaryHallmark]
piero: expressive RIF will yield shorter msgs
14:15:00 [AlexKozlenkov]
Could anyone post the link to the very latest list of reqs? Thank you
14:15:40 [DavidHirtle]
14:15:49 [GaryHallmark]
... but expressive RIF may be more expensive to implement
14:15:55 [DavidHirtle]
we're on
14:16:17 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #rif
14:16:20 [AlexKozlenkov]
Thanks David
14:17:13 [GaryHallmark]
csma: need further discussion for this requirement
14:17:35 [bonatti]
...and if RIF is expressive enough, one can encode his/her rule base in a compact way
14:17:40 [DavidHirtle]
Alex, as we discuss them we are modifying some, but these modifications aren't viewable online (yet) unfortunately
14:18:08 [AlexKozlenkov]
I see
14:18:17 [EvanWallace]
numbering doesn't seem to match
14:18:35 [DavidHirtle]
1.2.3, within section 1
14:18:39 [GaryHallmark]
csma: how to measure this requirment?
14:18:47 [GaryHallmark]
paulV: 1-10 seconds
14:18:54 [DavidHirtle]
(I know it's confusing)
14:19:29 [GaryHallmark]
csma: moving right along to new goal: consistency with W3C specs
14:19:39 [GaryHallmark]
... RIF should support RDF
14:19:40 [sandro]
maybe: sub-second latency on transfer of practical 100-rule ruleset --- something like that.
14:19:57 [EvanWallace]
got it
14:20:16 [GaryHallmark]
... RIF should accept RDF triples as data
14:21:10 [GaryHallmark]
paula: means rules work with RDF data
14:21:44 [GaryHallmark]
paulV: is this obligatory or just feature?
14:21:47 [AlexKozlenkov]
Does it mean that RDF can be only in the body of the rules?
14:22:41 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
14:23:29 [GaryHallmark]
csma: what is relationship with SPARQL?
14:23:48 [DaveReynolds]
(b) implicitly talks about RDF in head, we are currently talking about (a) which, yes, is about the body
14:24:15 [GaryHallmark]
sandro: RDF more integrated than blackbox SPARQL
14:25:04 [AlexKozlenkov]
It's patchy
14:25:18 [AlexKozlenkov]
I can hear some speakers well
14:25:24 [GaryHallmark]
sandro: need RDF in reactive rules not just Horn
14:25:32 [EvanWallace]
I can't hear any speakers well
14:25:39 [GaryHallmark]
... all RIF dialects should accept RDF triples
14:25:50 [GaryHallmark]
... as data
14:26:48 [AlexKozlenkov]
Gary, what about SQL data?
14:26:54 [EvanWallace]
Can someone scribe PaulV's question re: rdf data
14:27:35 [GaryHallmark]
paulV: is RDF a requirement (mandatory?) of RIF or all rule languages using RIF?
14:27:37 [pfps]
If the RIF can't handle Semantic Web data, then what is the RIF WG doing in the SW activity?
14:28:21 [GaryHallmark]
sandro: must all RIF dialects support integers?
14:28:46 [GaryHallmark]
... yes
14:29:00 [GaryHallmark]
... and so for RDF triples
14:29:54 [GaryHallmark]
csma: need more discussion
14:30:20 [GaryHallmark]
sandro: ambiguous: RDF as serialization format vs. RDF as data model
14:30:39 [sandro]
RDF Data Model vs RDF/XML Serialization
14:31:53 [GaryHallmark]
... RDF brings along XML Schema datatypes
14:34:33 [GaryHallmark]
csma: rephrase to: RIF should support RDF data model?
14:36:04 [GaryHallmark]
daveR: if its in RIF core, its in all extensions, too
14:36:44 [GaryHallmark]
paulV: this is a strong constraint
14:37:18 [GaryHallmark]
chrisW: can't constrain all rule languages
14:38:03 [GaryHallmark]
sandro: need to define conformance
14:38:42 [GaryHallmark]
davidH: requirement is on RIF, not on rule languages
14:38:45 [sandro]
sandro: If you want conformance to RIF, then you need to support ....
14:39:17 [GaryHallmark]
csma: again, needs more discussion
14:39:44 [GaryHallmark]
csma: next: RIF should support RDF deduction rules
14:40:35 [GaryHallmark]
csma: no objection
14:41:13 [GaryHallmark]
Axel: what does "cover" mean?
14:42:05 [GaryHallmark]
Sandro: e.g. RDF deductions available as additional RDF data
14:42:07 [sandro]
So this is a shortcut for RIF Must Cover N3 / Jena Rules
14:42:09 [GaryHallmark]
Axel: ok
14:42:59 [GaryHallmark]
csma: SPARQL queries covered this morning, Dave has action
14:44:08 [GaryHallmark]
csma: next: Support OWL - are issues here the same as with RDF data?
14:45:09 [GaryHallmark]
kifer: is every OWL feature required?
14:45:58 [GaryHallmark]
josb: may depend on how it is integrated - e.g. like SWRL or more loosely
14:46:29 [GaryHallmark]
daveR: can't presuppose blackbox (loose) integration
14:46:44 [sandro]
If blackbox approach to OWL integration, then this is the same as call-out. But not all support that.
14:46:47 [GaryHallmark]
josb: pfps may want to comment
14:47:16 [GaryHallmark]
sandro: need to resolve phasing to make more progress here
14:47:42 [sandro]
s/here/here, for ALL requirements/
14:47:48 [sandro]
zakim, who is here?
14:47:48 [Zakim]
On the phone I see RIF, pfps, Mike_Dean, AlexKozlenkov (muted), Sandro (muted), Evan_Wallace, Leora_Morgenstern (muted)
14:47:50 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Harold, ChrisW, aharth, josb, Hassan, PaulaP, bonatti, DavidHirtle, LeoraMorgenstern, GiorgosStoilos, igor, GaryHallmark, Darko, DaveReynolds, Uta, AxelPolleres,
14:47:52 [Zakim]
... EvanWallace, kifer, pfps, AlexKozlenkov, JosDeRoo, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps_home, mdean_home, sandro, MoZ, Keep
14:48:02 [sandro]
pfps, you're not actually listening, are you?
14:48:30 [GaryHallmark]
kifer: what does it mean to include OWL subset relations in RIF?
14:48:58 [GaryHallmark]
action on josb: clarify this requirment
14:49:32 [sandro]
ACTION: josb to disambiguate
14:50:24 [GaryHallmark]
csma: next: support XML
14:51:54 [GaryHallmark]
kifer: need more precise defn
14:52:14 [GaryHallmark]
paulV: often used by PR
14:52:45 [GaryHallmark]
sandro: map xml to prolog term
14:53:19 [sandro]
mkifer: there's anb approach where you use XML documents as templates
14:53:19 [GaryHallmark]
kifer: is this similar to xml extensions to SQL?
14:54:10 [GaryHallmark]
csma: can owl, rdf, and xml data be generalized to "data source"?
14:54:30 [GaryHallmark]
sandro: seems straightforward
14:55:56 [sandro]
sandro: I think it's important to approve this requirement, as is
14:56:02 [GaryHallmark]
chrisW: should RIF handle interchange of XML data without translation?
14:56:10 [sandro]
DaveR: yes, but also for RDF
14:56:21 [GaryHallmark]
... ditto for RDF and OWL
14:57:14 [AlexKozlenkov]
I'm wondering if direct access to SQL should be allowed. That would allow us to tap into the world of industrial databases
14:57:19 [sandro]
Sandro: There are two kinds of compatibility with RDF -- at the low model level, I want that in ALL dialects; at the detailed level it can be only in some dialects
14:57:24 [GaryHallmark]
s/should RIF/RIF should/
14:57:34 [GaryHallmark]
14:57:38 [sandro]
DaveR: "You can do useful pattern matching on XML documents"
14:59:19 [GaryHallmark]
csma: set of requirements around data sources and external calls (sparql, xslt, etc)
14:59:30 [GaryHallmark]
... should deal with them in a uniform way
15:00:17 [bonatti]
sribe: piero (bonatti)
15:00:31 [josb]
scribenick: bonatti
15:00:39 [bonatti]
next topic: permit XML info types to be expressed using XML schema
15:01:09 [josb]
s/next topic/topic/
15:01:19 [bonatti]
csma: equivalent to supporting built-in XML elements?
15:01:24 [DavidHirtle]
15:01:35 [bonatti]
...(equivalent to Dave's point)
15:01:54 [DavidHirtle]
15:01:58 [DavidHirtle]
(to avoid confusion)
15:02:38 [sandro]
Charter: In Phase 1, the format must support literals and common functions and operators for at least: text strings (xsd:string), 32-bit signed integers (xsd:int), unlimited-size decimal numbers (xsd:decimal), Boolean values xsd:boolean), and list structures.
15:02:38 [sandro]
15:02:48 [sandro]
15:03:00 [bonatti]
Dave: need clarification
15:03:29 [MarkusK]
MarkusK has joined #rif
15:03:47 [msintek]
msintek has joined #rif
15:04:14 [bonatti]
hassan: what extend of XML schema is to be supported?
15:04:53 [bonatti]
sandro: streese is more than elemntary datatypes - he mentions lists
15:05:22 [bonatti]
dave: he mentions restrictions to datatypes
15:05:46 [bonatti]
csma: this needs to be clarified
15:05:58 [sandro]
Clarify relationship to XS unions and restrcitions on types
15:06:26 [sandro]
DaveR: RIF must be clear about which XS features are required for Conformance
15:06:58 [bonatti]
csma next: RIF should cover LP + negation as failure and strong negation
15:07:55 [sandro]
"Strong Negation" is more related to 3-values, or maybe intuitionistic/constructive. No Excluded Middle.
15:08:30 [bonatti]
csma: not clear what strong negation means
15:09:23 [sandro]
summary: Strong Negation is like Classical Negation but without Law Of Excluded Model -- part of stable model semantics.
15:10:39 [sandro]
Piero: There is no interplay between positive and strongly-negated atoms. Strongly-negated atoms are like atoms re-written.
15:11:08 [bonatti]
bonatti: strong megation can be "implemented" by replacong strongly negated atoms with new atoms uniformly
15:11:37 [bonatti]
...puts no requirements on negation as failure (such as stratification)
15:11:49 [josb]
strong negation is part of the answer set semantics, which in turn is based on the stable model semantics; strong negation is an extension of the stable model semantics
15:11:57 [sandro]
DLV supports both
15:12:35 [sandro]
=> "strong negation" as in DLV
15:12:43 [bonatti]
csma: let's use DLV as reference to specify what we mean
15:13:20 [bonatti]
harlod: Wagner (REWERSE) has proposed/supported strong negation
15:13:49 [bonatti]
sandro: isn't this good for phase 2?
15:14:23 [sandro]
Handle this under Phase-2-RIFRAF.
15:14:32 [bonatti]
csma: maybe such things should be discussed as a whole
15:14:36 [josb]
THE reference on strong negation in logic programs, implemented in, e.g. DLV:
15:15:03 [bonatti]
next: module constructs for scoped positive and negationas failure queries
15:15:19 [josb]
15:15:25 [bonatti]
harold modules similar to contexts etc
15:15:43 [bonatti]
...efficiency is important
15:16:03 [bonatti]
csma: can we propose concrete languages needing this?
15:16:33 [bonatti]
csma: poroperty of a language, not RIF
15:17:08 [bonatti]
Josb: many languages (eg flora) have modules and have to be exchanged
15:18:11 [bonatti]
harold: modules should be a requirement
15:18:29 [uschwert]
uschwert has joined #rif
15:20:07 [AlexKozlenkov]
I have a question, should each individual rule have unique id? Also, if module id can be dynamically assigned, one could add/remove rulesets in one step.
15:20:22 [bonatti]
sandro: working mamory, a DBMS are example of scopes
15:20:32 [bonatti]
15:20:38 [AlexKozlenkov]
What I am saying is that rules may accessed both individually and as groups
15:21:16 [bonatti]
csma: needs discussion, strongly related, actually belongs to, RIFRAF
15:22:44 [FrankMcCabe]
FrankMcCabe has joined #rif
15:23:12 [sandro]
PROPOSED: add a requirement that all features
15:23:21 [sandro]
PROPOSED: add a requirement that all features in RIFRAF are requirements
15:23:23 [bonatti]
davidh: add a requirement saying that all prioritized features described in RIFRAF are to be covered by RIF
15:23:56 [DavidHirtle]
(something like that)
15:24:04 [sandro]
DaveR: We'll use RIFRAF to identify the features we cover
15:24:28 [bonatti]
PROPOSED: RIFRAF will identify the set of languages to be covered by RIF
15:24:34 [sandro]
DaveR: We'll use RIFRAF to identify the set of language features RIF may cover
15:25:43 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Every feature in RIFRAF will be discussed in the future as a possible Requirement.
15:26:20 [sandro]
Harold: No -- they are orthogonal
15:26:46 [GaryHallmark]
RIFRAF must be "larger" than the set of requirements (currently it is not, e.g. reactive rules)
15:27:27 [sandro]
PROPOSED: We will use RIFRAF to identify classes of language to be covered by RIF
15:27:37 [sandro]
PROPOSED: We will use RIFRAF to identify classes of languages to be covered by RIF
15:27:51 [sandro]
RESOLVED: We will use RIFRAF to identify classes of languages to be covered by RIF
15:27:58 [AlexKozlenkov]
RIFRAF surely has more bearing on derivation rules
15:28:40 [AlexKozlenkov]
Does ot mean that RIFRIF will be extended to cover, say, reaction rules?
15:28:57 [sandro]
AlexKozlenkov, what you're seeing is that RIFRAF right now only covers phase one -- Horn rules.
15:28:59 [bonatti]
next topic: tagging intended semantics: already discussed
15:29:02 [DaveReynolds]
Alex, yes I would say it should
15:29:14 [MichaelKifer]
MichaelKifer has joined #rif
15:29:25 [AlexKozlenkov]
Can we explicitely mention that it will be extended, so that it is written down
15:29:53 [bonatti]
next topic: higher order and frame based syntax: 2 requirements, moved to RIFRAF
15:29:58 [sandro]
It should be in the minutes of the RIFRAF session earlier today, I think, Alex.
15:30:22 [sandro]
s/next //
15:30:30 [AlexKozlenkov]
OK, thanks, Sandro
15:31:15 [bonatti]
harold: for each dimension there can be multiple choices - e.g. extent of support to function calls (prolog example)
15:32:08 [bonatti]
...not every combination of features in RIFRAF shall be supported
15:32:23 [bonatti]
topic: consistency w. major market technology
15:32:35 [bonatti]
15:33:36 [bonatti]
chrisW 1-3 look like requirements
15:35:05 [bonatti]
gary: 1 and 2 similar to the data sources issue
15:37:17 [bonatti]
csma: nobody really understands "UML Instances": it should be postponed
15:38:16 [sandro]
Category -- data access by rules
15:38:22 [bonatti]
chrisW: should we describe these languages as classes of RIFRAF features?
15:38:32 [sandro]
"Data Sources"
15:38:35 [EvanWallace]
Sound dropping out a lot
15:38:57 [AlexKozlenkov]
I guess the mic is not being passed around really
15:39:17 [sandro]
RIght. It's incredibly hard/expensive to pass the mic around, so we sometimes give up on it.
15:39:42 [bonatti]
dave: let's move the SBVR point to RIFRAF and discuss "UML instances " and ORM fact model populations"
15:39:46 [sandro]
Tomorrow, we're supposed to have more mics
15:39:46 [AlexKozlenkov]
Perfectly understandable, I was just commenting on the sound dropping
15:40:00 [EvanWallace]
Fine. Then scribe better.
15:40:16 [sandro]
Very funny, EvanWallace. :-)
15:40:39 [sandro]
(bonatti is scribing this session.)
15:41:07 [bonatti]
gary: some languages can import business obj model from UML
15:41:09 [sandro]
(it's simliarly hard to scribe everything said in a fast-moving discussion.)
15:42:02 [bonatti]
csma: this has to do with sharing obj models - this is orthogonal
15:42:48 [AlexKozlenkov]
Eclipse Ecore/EMF is one way to store UML instances, one can run OCL queries on it, one could also imagine a RIF integration
15:42:57 [bonatti]
paulv: representing OCL as rules is an interesting topic, too
15:43:11 [bonatti]
topic: meta-data for currency of rules
15:43:15 [AlexKozlenkov]
OCL querying on EMF instances is actually quite cute
15:43:36 [bonatti]
...refers to rule validity (in time)
15:43:39 [AlexKozlenkov]
Integrating EMF instances with RIF has value
15:43:59 [bonatti]
csma: it has to do with rule management, not interchange
15:44:13 [AlexKozlenkov]
I see
15:44:34 [bonatti]
paulv: it is redundant - it could be done in rule languages that support time
15:44:42 [Zakim]
15:44:46 [bonatti]
hassan: no, it has rather to do with versioning
15:46:06 [Zakim]
15:46:55 [bonatti]
chrisW: the wiki page mentions "retrospective analysis"
15:47:13 [bonatti]
paulv: such a "what-if" kind of reasoning is beyond the scope of RIF
15:47:48 [bonatti]
dave: time validity could be part of the metadata (rule-tagging) effort
15:48:32 [bonatti]
csma: discuss later with metadata
15:49:04 [sandro]
Charter: RIF "must include a way to express facts as well as rules, and also metadata (annotations) about documents, facts, and rules. "
15:49:10 [Harold]
Piero and All, RE: "e.g. extent of support to function calls (prolog example)" I meant "e.g. to support vs. not to support user/equality-defined functions (LIFE vs. Prolog)". This is an example where pointing to a RIFRAF dimension is not enough to express a design constraint: You have to say which value you pick in that dimension. For details see Hassan's email on logic with equality.
15:50:09 [bonatti]
csma: having time validity means that a compliant application should ignore them if outside validity period
15:50:35 [AlexKozlenkov]
There is a whole range of issues related to rules management. E.g., is RIF concerned with the rights management?
15:51:14 [bonatti]
chrisW: not like "author" meta-tags: validity tags affect execution/reasoning
15:52:13 [bonatti]
dave/csma: there is a requirement that RIF covers metadata: should we discuss it or just provide a mechanism to add metadata?
15:52:14 [AlexKozlenkov]
One could say: limit inference to specific rules source/origin
15:53:24 [AlexKozlenkov]
Extensible metadata should be a requirement. We cannot predict all the types of metadata people would want to associate with rules
15:55:13 [bonatti]
gary: the question is about metadata in general
15:55:34 [bonatti]
topic: passing descriptive text through RIF
15:55:45 [bonatti]
...i.e. something like comment tags
15:56:15 [bonatti]
chrisW: if this just means "coments" then we all agree
15:56:21 [bonatti]
15:56:47 [bonatti]
15:57:10 [Zakim]
15:57:24 [bonatti]
topic: metadata indicating exedcutability of rules
15:57:37 [AlexKozlenkov]
Aren't comments part of metadata?
15:57:55 [Zakim]
+ +1.646.872.aaaa
15:58:08 [LeoraMorgenstern]
aaaa is LeoraMorgenstern
15:58:16 [bonatti]
...needs further discussion
15:58:17 [LeoraMorgenstern]
zakim, aaaa is LeoraMorgenstern
15:58:17 [Zakim]
+LeoraMorgenstern; got it
15:58:35 [LeoraMorgenstern]
zakim, please mute me
15:58:35 [Zakim]
LeoraMorgenstern should now be muted
15:58:50 [bonatti]
topic: RIF scope - exchange of RDFS/OWL fact models
15:59:17 [bonatti]
davidh: only some of the issues here are requirements
15:59:39 [bonatti]
csma: it duplicates previous discussion on data sources
16:00:28 [bonatti]
gary: during last f2f facts were distinct from data
16:00:46 [bonatti]
harold: data are not given any model-theoretic menaing
16:00:53 [bonatti]
16:02:04 [bonatti]
csma: it's inthe data source discussion
16:02:14 [bonatti]
topic: 4 modal operators
16:02:18 [bonatti]
csma; goes to RIFRAF
16:03:07 [bonatti]
paula: Allen made a proposal not in the list of issues on design constraints: should it be discussed?
16:03:18 [AlexKozlenkov]
zakim, who is here?
16:03:18 [Zakim]
On the phone I see RIF, pfps, AlexKozlenkov (muted), Sandro (muted), Evan_Wallace, Mike_Dean, LeoraMorgenstern (muted)
16:03:20 [Zakim]
On IRC I see MichaelKifer, FrankMcCabe, MarkusK, Harold, Hassan, PaulaP, bonatti, DavidHirtle, LeoraMorgenstern, GiorgosStoilos, igor, GaryHallmark, Darko, DaveReynolds, Uta,
16:03:22 [Zakim]
... AxelPolleres, EvanWallace, AlexKozlenkov, JosDeRoo, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps_home, mdean_home, sandro, MoZ, Keep
16:03:29 [bonatti] can be found in the e-mail archive
16:04:09 [bonatti]
csma: it won't be in the draft to be produced on friday, so its discussion is postponed
16:04:21 [AlexKozlenkov]
I find it impossible to follow on the phone, I'm hanging up--will be following on the IRC
16:04:29 [Zakim]
16:04:32 [Darko]
16:04:44 [bonatti]
csma: meet you all tomorrow at 8...
16:05:15 [sandro]
Telephone: goodnight!
16:05:20 [PaulaP]
PaulaP has left #rif
16:05:24 [EvanWallace]
16:05:24 [Zakim]
16:05:29 [Zakim]
16:05:48 [sandro]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:05:48 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate sandro
16:06:09 [Zakim]
16:06:23 [Zakim]
16:06:38 [Uta]
16:06:46 [AlexKozlenkov]
I'd certainly appreciate minutes with resolutions. Particularly, with the amended Requirements
16:06:48 [sandro]
zakim, who is here?
16:06:48 [Zakim]
On the phone I see pfps, LeoraMorgenstern (muted)
16:06:49 [Zakim]
On IRC I see FrankMcCabe, MarkusK, Harold, DavidHirtle, LeoraMorgenstern, GiorgosStoilos, AxelPolleres, EvanWallace, AlexKozlenkov, JosDeRoo, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps_home,
16:06:52 [Zakim]
... mdean_home, sandro, MoZ, Keep
16:07:01 [Harold]
Harold has left #rif
16:08:49 [Zakim]
16:11:34 [AlexKozlenkov]
zakim, who is here?
16:11:34 [Zakim]
On the phone I see pfps
16:11:35 [Zakim]
On IRC I see FrankMcCabe, MarkusK, LeoraMorgenstern, GiorgosStoilos, EvanWallace, AlexKozlenkov, JosDeRoo, RRSAgent, Zakim, pfps_home, mdean_home, sandro, MoZ, Keep
16:17:05 [pfps]
pfps has joined #rif
16:26:52 [Zakim]
16:26:53 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()2:00AM has ended
16:26:54 [Zakim]
Attendees were Mike_Dean, RIF, Sandro, pfps, AlexKozlenkov, Leora_Morgenstern, Evan_Wallace, +1.646.872.aaaa, LeoraMorgenstern
16:27:11 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #rif
16:27:17 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, pointer?
16:27:17 [RRSAgent]
16:27:39 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, makes logs visible
16:27:39 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'makes logs visible', ChrisW. Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:27:46 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make logs visible
16:27:53 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make logs world visible
16:27:53 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make logs world visible', ChrisW. Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:28:10 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make logs world public
16:28:10 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make logs world public', ChrisW. Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:28:10 [sandro]
RRSAgent, make record public
16:28:22 [ChrisW]
17:45:29 [FrankMcCabe]
FrankMcCabe has joined #rif
18:32:28 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rif