06:12:30 RRSAgent has joined #rif 06:12:30 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/06/09-rif-irc 06:12:32 bonatti has joined #rif 06:12:44 zakim, this will be rif 06:12:44 ok, sandro, I see SW_RIF()2:00AM already started 06:13:04 Hassan has joined #rif 06:13:36 Uta has joined #rif 06:13:47 +Sandro 06:14:17 zakim, mute me 06:14:17 Sandro should now be muted 06:14:19 josb has joined #rif 06:15:10 uschwert has joined #rif 06:15:35 scribenick: igor 06:15:53 AxelPolleres has joined #rif 06:15:59 zakim, who is here? 06:15:59 On the phone I see Mike_Dean, RIF, Sandro (muted) 06:16:00 On IRC I see AxelPolleres, josb, Hassan, RRSAgent, Zakim, sandro, igor, mdean_home, pfps_home, Keep 06:16:09 Darko has joined #rif 06:16:39 Topic: requirements 06:17:27 uschwert has joined #rif 06:17:50 bonatti has joined #rif 06:17:58 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 06:18:02 WG charter phase 1 -- http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/charter#phase_1 06:18:14 msintek has joined #rif 06:19:00 In case that someone on the phone wants to speak, please let us know on IRC, we have to switch on a microphone manually in case. 06:20:15 Sandro: multiple semantics 06:20:53 necessary to understand in phase 1 06:21:28 JosB: phase 1 has to cater for multiple semantics for phase 2 06:22:18 PaulV has joined #rif 06:23:15 ChrisW: meta language features - phase 2 06:23:59 csma: make two requirements 06:24:46 difference between tags like priorities and authors -- meta data vs meta reasoning 06:26:22 hassan: move it into previous requirement 06:27:10 Sandro: we need meta data, not meta reasoning, and priorities/preferences are part of the language. 06:27:39 chrisw: add a new requirement on meta data 06:28:16 DavidHirtle has joined #rif 06:28:37 ACTION: Sandro to make sure the Requirements in Charter Phase 1 are in the Requirements Draft, or discussed in WG. 06:29:47 proposed: meta language features go into RIFRAF 06:30:00 Mike, are you generally hearing us well this morning, with our table mics? 06:31:18 patranja has joined #rif 06:32:17 meta rules for meta reasoning goes into Phase 1 06:32:20 yes - it's a lot better than yesterday 06:33:00 s/Phase 1/ Phase 1 and RIFRAF/ 06:36:37 GiorgosStoilos has joined #rif 06:38:37 s/Phase 1/Phase 2/ 06:39:26 RIF should support first order deductive rules 06:43:59 MichaelK: normative rules are in general any formulas, not just rules 06:44:41 chrisw: deductive rules (partially) go into Phase 1 06:44:55 ... normative and reactive go into Phase 2 06:46:06 aharth has joined #rif 06:46:31 sandro: some normative rules may be covered in phase 1 06:47:18 The term "Horn Logic" in the Charter is ambiguous about whether it includes Normative Rules. "Positive Horn" does not, and is the normal use of "Horn". 06:49:57 PaulV: we need to specify phase 1 target before ruling out languages 06:50:09 ... which go into phase 1 or phase 2 06:50:46 ... the phase 1 goal is to interchange fragments of languages 06:54:36 ChrisW: Phase 1 Goal == Interchange the Horn Fragement of existing Rule Languages 06:59:14 action: Paula writes exactly what goes into phase 1 and what into phase 2 07:02:01 s/Paula writes/Paula clarifies which deductive rules/ 07:05:01 I still don't understand why Phase 1 has to cater to multiple semantics 07:05:53 (I didn't mean to put the question to the entire group, just to Jos) 07:07:26 scribeNick: DavidHirtle 07:10:47 topic: RIF should cover production rules and ECA 07:10:57 anyone on the phone? 07:11:03 (awake) 07:11:03 DaveReynolds has joined #rif 07:11:19 action: Paul to clarify what part of production rules can be usefully translated using phase 1 RIF 07:11:22 I could be on the phone, but it is a bit involved from home. 07:11:52 topic: combined rulesets 07:12:48 pfps_home, I was just curious about whether ChrisW could be heard -- and if anyone cared. 07:13:09 (we have more microphones today) 07:13:20 Harold has joined #rif 07:13:23 OK, I'll check the sound situation out. 07:13:26 zakim, who is on the phone? 07:13:26 On the phone I see Mike_Dean, RIF, Sandro (muted) 07:13:44 pfps_home, if you're not listening it doesn't really matter if you can hear us. :-) 07:15:33 +Peter_PS 07:15:55 Wow, Zakim remembers from years ago! 07:16:05 ChrisW: if all horn clauses mean the same thing, this is irrelevant for phase 1 07:16:41 Sound is much better than yesterday (modulo the occasional burst of noise). 07:17:29 csma: I still don't understand what this means exactly 07:18:04 paula: some rule languages have both deductive and reactive rules, for example 07:18:12 csma: then this is RIFRAF 07:19:19 Some people are very clear, as usual Chris is not so clear. :-) 07:19:39 (he doesn't always get the mic up to his mouth) 07:19:43 Chris is standing and keeps dropping his hand holding the mic 07:19:58 we should get Chris a lapel mix 07:20:00 we should get Chris a lapel mic 07:20:14 In general, only loud speakers come through - I think that the "cutover" level is set too high. 07:20:40 I can hear the background hiss cutting in and out when the sound level is too low. 07:22:32 topic: RIF rules should be ale to call out to external query processors 07:23:11 sandro: charter mentions arithmetic builtins 07:23:25 dave: that might do 07:23:30 AlexKozlenkov has joined #rif 07:23:58 AlexKozlenkov has joined #rif 07:24:05 sandro: we have to demonstrate extensibility, but not sure about phasing 07:24:35 dave: the mechanism is probably phase 1, the core set is phase 2 07:25:44 sandro/csma: not required by charter in phase 1 07:26:17 +??P3 07:26:27 Zakim, ??P3 is me 07:26:27 +AlexKozlenkov; got it 07:26:38 zakim, mute me 07:26:38 AlexKozlenkov should now be muted 07:27:51 chris: so it's phase 2 but we may do it earlier 07:28:04 topic: RIF should support uncertain and probabilistic information 07:28:10 chris: phase 2 07:28:35 topic: RIF should support typed languages 07:28:37 hassan: phase 1 07:29:30 csma reads http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/charter#datatype0 07:30:27 sandro: charter says nothing about typed variables 07:31:39 Difference between typed data values and type-constrainted varaibles 07:32:04 How do production rules *need* typed variables - OPS rules don't have them, I think. This is not to say that certain rule systems don't have them, just that some don't. 07:35:14 sandro: don't see why this is phase 1 07:35:20 sandro: why are typed variables in phase 1? 07:35:35 hassan: you can transform types into predicates 07:35:39 sandro: right 07:36:11 csma: does Horn preclude types? 07:36:22 Horn does not preclude typed variables 07:36:25 Extensions of Horn could easily include typed variables. 07:36:41 Prova uses typed variables in derivation and reaction rules 07:37:34 csma: we can choose whether we support types in phase 1 or phase 2 07:37:48 harold: we can regard it as a syntactic extension 07:37:55 syntactic sugar 07:38:38 sandro: I think types are really useful 07:39:02 dave: let's phrase it so we know it's just syntactic sugar 07:39:26 msintek has joined #rif 07:39:44 A simple example I 07:40:09 I don't understand why an interchange format should *ever* have syntactic sugar - syntactic sugar is designed to make things easier for people to see, and this is not a forcing function for interchange langugages, which are not designed for human consumption. 07:40:35 agree, pfps 07:40:53 if syntactic sugar allows for shorter messages, then it is good for an interchange format 07:41:04 pfps_home, one reason: because you want to round-trip through the RIF without losing the structure that people/systems find useful. 07:41:12 typed variables is not syntactic sugar 07:41:19 I agree 07:41:23 Isn't XML a counterexample against short interchange formats? 07:41:33 is XML good? 07:41:55 one could have different type systems 07:43:07 But syntactic sugar is not a good thing for preserving structure, because it is so easy to flip between the sugar and the base. 07:44:05 csma: we dont want to force translators to de-sugar types, in phase 1 07:44:23 chris: who wants this in phase 1? 07:44:37 chris: otherwise, it's phase 2 07:45:11 ChrisW: resolved it's phase 2, for lack of a champion in phase 1 07:45:32 topic: support oracular models 07:45:41 csma: note that it can still be done in Phase 1, we're just not requiring it. 07:46:24 chris: is this different than an external call? 07:47:03 dave: it seems frank (who originally posted this) thought it was the same thing 07:47:32 ... because he replied to my email about external calls with "that's already there" 07:47:53 harold: it's just the wrong thing to call it oracular 07:47:54 josb has joined #rif 07:48:26 csma: replaced by "external calls" requirement 07:50:02 topic: extensibility of semantics markup 07:50:06 chris: phase 1 07:51:12 chris: whose requirement is this? 07:53:36 csma: requires clarification 07:53:47 sandro: I'd be happy to drop this 07:54:02 chris: like last one, this needs a champion otherwise it'll go away 07:54:06 "this" is slide "Extensibility of Semantic Markup" 07:54:34 csma: dropped because covered under the CSF of extensibility 07:54:37 topic: conformance model 07:55:14 sandro, not the whole requirement, just the slide? 07:55:37 (the topic is currently extensibility of semantics markup) 07:55:43 (well, was anyway) 07:58:43 DavidHirtle, um not sure, since I don't know what requirement corresponded to that slide 07:59:06 chris: phase 1 07:59:32 (break time) 07:59:37 Sandro: I'm am okay (if not happy) with dropping my Soundness requirement in favor of the more general "default behavior" requirement 07:59:45 -Peter_PS 07:59:53 -RIF 08:00:06 uschwert has joined #rif 08:00:36 sound is completely gone now 08:00:55 We're on break. 08:01:07 -AlexKozlenkov 08:02:30 -Sandro 08:16:18 JosDeRoo has joined #rif 08:28:07 MichaelKifer has joined #rif 08:30:03 ChrisW has joined #rif 08:32:57 MarkusK has joined #rif 08:32:59 -Mike_Dean 08:33:00 +Mike_Dean 08:33:01 +RIF 08:33:38 +Sandro 08:34:02 zakim, who is here? 08:34:02 On the phone I see Mike_Dean, RIF, Sandro 08:34:03 On IRC I see MarkusK, ChrisW, MichaelKifer, JosDeRoo, josb, msintek, AlexKozlenkov, Harold, DaveReynolds, aharth, GiorgosStoilos, PaulaP, DavidHirtle, PaulV, GaryHallmark, bonatti, 08:34:05 ... Darko, Hassan, RRSAgent, Zakim, sandro, igor, mdean_home, pfps_home, Keep 08:34:15 scribeNick: MichaelKifer 08:35:35 AxelPolleres has joined #rif 08:35:39 In case that someone on the phone wants to speak, please let us know on IRC, we have to switch on a microphone manually in case. 08:37:55 drop the requirement "should be possible to build reasoners for intended rulesets languages without unnecessary difficulty 08:39:38 uschwert has joined #rif 08:40:51 csma: in compliance model, some options must be optional 08:40:59 zakim, who is talking? 08:41:07 discussion of levels of compliance with RIF: should be possible to opt out of some features, but not out of all 08:41:12 sandro, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: Mike_Dean (61%), RIF (57%) 08:41:20 weird loud noise on the phone line. 08:41:32 zakim, mute mike_dean 08:41:32 Mike_Dean should now be muted 08:41:43 zakim, who is on the phone? 08:41:43 On the phone I see Mike_Dean (muted), RIF, Sandro 08:43:53 DaveReynolds: RIF will define a compliance model, which allows for optional features 08:47:39 +??P2 08:47:46 zakim, ??P2 is me 08:47:46 +AlexKozlenkov; got it 08:47:54 zakim, mute me 08:47:54 AlexKozlenkov should now be muted 08:51:24 Resolved to keep both: RIF should use standard support technologies (XML, parser generators) and "RIF should be implementable using well understood implementation techniques" 08:51:36 -AlexKozlenkov 08:53:40 Implementing RIF must not require changes to rule systems -- it must be implementable via translators. 08:53:54 discussion of the nature of RIF implementation 08:54:22 josb has joined #rif 08:55:25 (agreement on my proposed wording) 08:56:08 csma: rif implementation amounts to implementation of translators from RIF to existing languages 08:56:42 daveReynolds: this is implied by the nature of interchange - no need to make a requirement. 09:00:32 Low transfer cost, inexpensive representation - dropped as a requirement 09:01:38 this is about Efficient Implementation Possible 09:02:16 which is a CSF, not a requirement 09:02:45 Harold: but Horn has an exponential search space 09:03:03 csma: That's about Rule Engine performance --- I'm talking about translator requirement. 09:03:15 s/requirement/performance/ 09:05:29 sandro, csma: efficient implementation is a critical success factor, not a requirement 09:07:23 Efficient implementation: postponed for a future working draft 09:09:09 RDF compatibility: accepting rdf as data, expressing rdf deduction rules, permit sparql queries. 09:10:12 SPARQL queries - left for Phase 2; RDF as data and RDF deduction rules - Phase 1 09:11:36 RDF Deduction Rule -- RDF in the conclusion of a rule 09:14:00 RDF deduction rules - moved ro RIFRAF 09:15:13 s/ro/to 09:16:29 decided that phasing will be part of RIFRAF classification 09:17:13 ScribeNick: MarkusK 09:17:57 Requirement: RIF should support RDF triples as data / support RDF/XML 09:18:20 JosB: RDF data model is closely related to RDF deduction rules 09:18:52 csma: you could support triples without the rules 09:21:16 Discussion: what exactly is "RDF data model"? 09:21:51 ... And which parts are Phase 1 or Phase 2? 09:22:01 LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif 09:23:24 Harold: The term "data model "is unclear. "RDF semantics" or "RDF graph" would be more explicit. 09:23:26 +Leora_Morgenstern 09:23:59 zakim,please mute me 09:23:59 Leora_Morgenstern should now be muted 09:24:01 DaveReynolds: a mapping from RDF to RIF is required. We should specify it. 09:24:09 in phase 1 09:24:49 JosB: this is not possible in Phase 1. Since bnodes are not in represented Horn logic. 09:25:56 JosB: the RDF semantics is more complex than just the triples. What do we mean here? 09:26:38 Harold: explicitly mention RDF data model without bnodes 09:26:48 ... make bnodes an optional requirement 09:28:28 ChrisW: does everybody agree that RIF should accept gound triples (those without bnodes)? 09:28:39 s /gound/ground/ 09:29:55 ... even when excluding bnodes, types, properties, XML literals, ... would still be required for RIF 09:30:24 Rephrased requirement: "RIF should cover ground RDF triples as data" 09:31:04 JosB: mapping to RIF might generate an infinite number of ground triples 09:31:31 csma: is this a problem of the RIF? Do we have to care about the exact number? 09:31:43 ... we just want to interchange. 09:32:09 JosB: so the RIF should not represent the RDF semantics? 09:33:09 DaveReynolds: the requirement now is rather clear, we only discuss about the possible realisation of the requirement now 09:33:36 csma: cover RDF where feasible in Phase 1, and in Phase 2 otherwise 09:35:04 Added requirement: RIF should cover RDF triples as data in Phase 1 where compatible with Phase 1 semantics 09:36:36 GaryHallmark: what does this mean for the RIF? How much RDF is required in the RIF then? 09:37:21 josb has joined #rif 09:37:21 Sandro: just some parts of it have to be representable in the RIF. This does not imply that RDF syntax or parts of it are actually parts of the RIF. 09:37:32 Hassan: If RIF covers N3 then does RIF cover RDF? 09:37:40 Sandro: Yes, I guess it does! :-) 09:38:15 Added requirement: RIF should cover RDF for Phase 2. 09:38:36 Dropped requirement: Support RDF/XML syntax 09:38:56 Requirement: Support OWL 09:39:16 ... "RIF should accept OWL knowledge bases as data" 09:39:58 JosB: various ways of accepting OWL have been suggested 09:40:28 see http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Ways_of_using_OWL_KBs_as_data 09:41:25 csma: "tight integration" there would relate to RIFRAF 09:42:14 ... both "tight integration" and "external query processor for OWL" are solutions 09:42:44 JosB: they also refer to slightly different requirements, since the achieved interoperation is different 09:44:03 csma: "tight integration of OWL models and rules" appears to be a Phase 2 requirement 09:44:12 JosDeRoo has joined #rif 09:44:17 "tight integration" is usually called "homogeneous combination"; "external processor" is usually called "heterogeneous (hybrid) combination". 09:44:30 ... integrating OWL and rules tightly might be an objective of the SemWeb activity, but not a primary objective of RIF 09:44:39 Sandro: let us move this to Phase 2 then 09:45:21 Added requirement: RIF should cover OWL KB where compatible with Phase 1 semantics 09:47:07 s /OWL KB/OWL KBs as data/ 09:47:43 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Design_Constraints/Terminology 09:47:51 DavidHirtle: the terminology wiki page gives little hints on what "covering a language in RIF" means 09:47:53 mentions "covering" 09:49:04 Chris: "covering OWL KBs" is not covered by calls to external reasoners 09:49:46 csma: It's not a requirement that OWL KB's be conveyable in RIF 09:50:22 Dave Reynolds: but the relationship of RIF and OWL must be clarified in Phase 1 09:50:46 Sandro: most of this discussion could be postponed to Phase 2 09:50:46 Can a link for the Terminology page be placed also on the main page (for instance together with Glossary) ? 09:51:52 Darko, please go ahead and do it. 09:52:10 Action: Chris to clarify what to say about the relationship between RIF and OWL in Phase 1 09:53:41 Chris explains the difference between external calls for handling OWL and full coverage 09:54:18 csma: "covering" still allows RIF processors to use external calls for handling OWL 09:54:20 sandro, is the stuff in Terminology sufficiently different to warrant being distinct from the glossary? 09:55:32 Sandro: if a language is covered, then you could not distinguish the parts that originate from the language from other parts of RIF 09:55:45 ... it is not clear how to invoke external reasoners then 09:56:18 AxelPolleres: it seems that we now go in the direction of providing a complete RDF syntax in RIF 09:57:23 s/complete/completely new 09:58:11 Furhter discussion about RDF compliance ... 09:58:20 s /Furhter/Further/ 09:59:08 Clarification: I think that we should have as a general rationale to stay as close as possible with existing syntaxes and only modify/extend where absolutely NECESSARY in RIF. 09:59:12 Chris: "cover" still is different from "black box" 09:59:23 csma: still some clarification needed 09:59:58 (we're all out to lunch) 10:00:57 -Leora_Morgenstern 10:01:14 -Mike_Dean 10:05:29 msintek has left #rif 10:40:53 -Sandro 10:47:02 josb has joined #rif 11:17:01 AlexKozlenkov has joined #rif 11:23:02 +Leora_Morgenstern 11:23:04 -Leora_Morgenstern 11:23:05 +Leora_Morgenstern 11:23:33 -Leora_Morgenstern 11:25:29 MarkusK has joined #rif 11:26:48 msintek has joined #rif 11:28:19 ScribeNick: msintek 11:31:03 uschwert has joined #rif 11:31:35 Hello, test. 11:33:08 -RIF 11:33:09 SW_RIF()2:00AM has ended 11:33:11 Attendees were Mike_Dean, RIF, Sandro, Peter_PS, AlexKozlenkov, Leora_Morgenstern 11:33:41 zakim, who is here? 11:33:41 apparently SW_RIF()2:00AM has ended, sandro 11:33:42 On IRC I see Uta, msintek, MarkusK, AlexKozlenkov, josb, JosDeRoo, LeoraMorgenstern, ChrisW, MichaelKifer, Harold, DaveReynolds, aharth, PaulaP, PaulV, GaryHallmark, Darko, Hassan, 11:33:44 ... RRSAgent, Zakim, sandro, mdean_home, pfps_home, Keep 11:33:54 zakim, this is rif 11:33:54 sandro, I see SW_RIF()2:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be rif". 11:34:01 zakim, this will be rif 11:34:01 ok, sandro; I see SW_RIF()2:00AM scheduled to start 334 minutes ago 11:34:02 igor has joined #rif 11:34:44 SW_RIF()2:00AM has now started 11:34:45 +RIF 11:34:56 starting again. 11:35:11 topic: F2F4 and F2F5 11:35:49 DavidHirtle has joined #rif 11:36:01 F2F4: no news from Peter (not on the phone) 11:36:16 F2F5: time to consider 11:36:20 Sandro: he did say the contract had been signed 11:36:40 Dec - Feb 11:36:41 zakim, who is on the phone? 11:36:41 On the phone I see RIF 11:37:07 Dec too soon, so early next year 11:37:31 probably in US (pattern: two EU, two US) 11:37:35 we are discussing f2fs 11:37:42 do you have anything to say re: f2f4? 11:38:09 the contract for the space and catering is set up - registration should be set up soon 11:38:25 hotel information will go on the site in a week or so 11:38:58 thanks 11:39:34 host searched; close to airport if possible; internet and phone connectivity; refreshments; lunch/dinner; accomodation (not all covered by host :-) ) 11:39:53 no candidates yet 11:40:41 no other comments 11:41:10 next topic: requirements cont'd 11:41:27 slide: what does it mean to "cover" 11:42:04 explains "RIF covers L" and "RIF covers L1 and L2" 11:42:04 bonatti has joined #rif 11:43:12 +Leora_Morgenstern 11:43:14 -Leora_Morgenstern 11:43:15 +Leora_Morgenstern 11:43:27 zakim, please mute me 11:43:27 Leora_Morgenstern should now be muted 11:43:40 example: RIF covers RDF 11:45:06 Sandro: def is not more precise than his own 11:45:43 Sandro: what does equivalence mean is the problem 11:47:15 csma: no agreement that the new definition is really ok 11:47:54 AxelPolleres has joined #rif 11:48:11 for example -- changing variable names does not change what's entailed, but does change how it affects users. 11:48:12 Sandro's definition attempt is on the wiki 11:48:39 can you add the link to sandro's definition? 11:49:44 process to discuss on this will be decided later 11:50:03 Action: Chairs to come up with a process for settling on definition text for "cover" 11:50:26 next topic: support XML requirement 11:51:25 jos: not all xml schema datatypes in phase 1 11:51:33 AxelPolleres, my defn is http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Design_Constraints/Terminology 11:51:55 charter specifies which are in phase 1 11:52:12 rest is phase 2 11:53:06 josb has joined #rif 11:54:20 accepting XML elements is phase 2 11:55:01 next topic: rif will cover languages identified in RIFRAF: already agreed 11:55:48 support lp semantics with NAF and strong negation: moved to RIFRAF, phase 2 11:56:09 pfps_home, the (mailing list / wiki) floor is open for improvements. CSMA proposed one, but I didn't think it was an improvement. It moved the "faithfully convey" fuzzyness into an "equivalence" fuzzyness. We may need to go straight to test cases on this. 11:56:14 module construct for scoped negation and NAF queries: is RIFRAF, or not? 11:56:35 might be phase 1 11:57:24 permit restricted form of equality 11:57:31 goes in RIFRAF 11:58:07 tagging intended semantics 11:59:00 replaced by "markup of semantics" 11:59:21 higher order and frame-based syntax, moved to RIFRAF 11:59:27 possible phase 2 12:00:05 consistency with mahor market tech 12:00:34 replaced by ... (lot's of phase 2 stuff) 12:02:09 dave clarifies sql queries part 12:02:16 are external calls 12:02:28 so moved there 12:03:16 harold: back to higher order and frame-based syntax 12:03:26 harold: is in charter in p 1 12:04:35 frame-based syntax is in charter for phase 1 -- in the sense of slot/role names 12:04:37 only aspect of slots is in p1 12:04:56 moved to RIFRAF 12:05:33 next: metadata for "currency" of rules 12:05:59 posponed for future version 12:06:21 next: capability to pass comments 12:06:29 is p1 12:06:42 next: meta-data indication executab. of rules 12:06:46 postponed 12:07:10 next: RIF scope - exchange of RDFS/OWL fact models 12:08:36 dave: thinks this is "dont invent new syntax for RDF" 12:09:08