14:45:47 RRSAgent has joined #rif 14:45:47 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/06/27-rif-irc 14:47:04 ChrisW has changed the topic to: 27 June Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jun/0134.html 14:47:17 mdean_home has joined #rif 14:54:19 patranja has joined #rif 14:55:33 Allen has joined #rif 14:56:55 cgi-irc has joined #rif 14:59:53 josb has joined #rif 14:59:58 SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started 15:00:05 +DavidHirtle 15:00:14 StellaMitchell has joined #rif 15:00:33 +Allen_Ginsberg 15:00:41 +??P15 15:00:53 +[NRCC] 15:00:57 zakim, mute me 15:00:57 Allen_Ginsberg should now be muted 15:01:07 JeffP has joined #rif 15:01:07 +[IBM] 15:01:13 DaveReynolds has joined #rif 15:01:19 +[IBM.a] 15:01:24 +Mike_Dean 15:01:28 zakim, [NRCC] is me 15:01:28 +Harold; got it 15:01:32 zakim, [ibm] is temporarily StellaMitchell 15:01:32 +StellaMitchell; got it 15:01:42 zakim, [IBM.a] is temporarily me 15:01:42 +ChrisW; got it 15:01:53 +PaulaP 15:02:00 +??P22 15:02:01 +Dave_Reynolds (was ??P22) 15:02:03 scribenick: StellaMitchell 15:02:50 LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif 15:03:47 +Leora_Morgenstern 15:04:03 zakim, please mute me 15:04:03 Leora_Morgenstern should now be muted 15:04:10 +Sandro 15:04:39 TOPIC: ADMIN 15:05:10 +??P5 15:05:11 ChirsW: next telecon is July4. We will vote on 2nd UCR draft on July 4 15:05:28 JosDeRoo has joined #rif 15:05:28 Zakim ??P5 is me 15:05:31 ... if there are concerns with releasing it, you need to let the group know 15:05:50 ...by friday 6/30. If there are concerns, vote will be delayed 15:05:53 +Christian 15:05:59 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jun/att-0146/20-rif-minutes.html 15:06:00 csma has joined #rif 15:06:03 last week's minutes 15:06:29 ChrisW: proposed accept minutes of last week's meeting 15:06:42 ChrisW: no objections. Approved 15:06:58 ChrisW: no proposed ammendments to agenda 15:07:05 MarkusK has joined #rif 15:07:15 ChrisW: minutes from last f2f are almost complete. 15:07:33 zakim, who is on the phone 15:07:33 I don't understand 'who is on the phone', csma 15:07:38 csma: On June 29, remaining minutes will be complete 15:07:45 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:07:45 On the phone I see DavidHirtle, Allen_Ginsberg (muted), josb (muted), Harold, StellaMitchell, ChrisW, Mike_Dean, PaulaP (muted), Dave_Reynolds (muted), Leora_Morgenstern (muted), 15:07:46 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F3#preview 15:07:48 ... Sandro, JeffP, Christian 15:07:54 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F3 15:07:57 Francois has joined #rif 15:08:29 ChrisW: minutes of f2f are linked into agenda on the wiki page for the f2f 15:08:32 zakim, christian is me 15:08:32 +csma; got it 15:08:49 ChrisW: action list from f2f is up to date 15:09:01 ChrisW: people should review the minutes 15:09:27 +??P21 15:09:38 Peter's comments on f2f4:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jun/0139.html 15:09:40 zakim, ??P21 is me. 15:09:40 +Francois; got it 15:09:40 csma: pfps is not here, but sent email with some information about f2f4 15:10:04 ChrisW: hoping registration will be open by end of July. We have a registration 15:10:48 sandro has joined #rif 15:10:50 ChrisW: as discussed at f2f3 in Budva, we hope to have f2f5 early next year 15:11:05 ... so think about hosting it. There are no proposals yet. 15:11:18 +[IPcaller] 15:11:19 ... in US or Canada is preferred because last 2 were in Europse 15:11:34 sandro has joined #rif 15:11:41 we are not in sparql 15:11:49 liasons for ? 15:11:54 which groups? 15:12:08 SPARQL and RIF 15:12:15 ChrisW: need liasons for sparql and RIF 15:12:35 -JeffP 15:13:18 csma: were supposed to have prr f2f meeting today, but only csma showed up 15:13:29 +??P5 15:13:34 csma: submitted revised draft to OMG and plan to have final 15:13:35 zakim, mute me. 15:13:35 Francois should now be muted 15:13:37 ChrisW, did you want to mention the Common Logic draft, mentioned on the mailing list.... ? *shrug* 15:13:47 ...draft submitted in mid- 15:13:51 december? 15:14:29 csma: prr draft should be submitted to rif members for review, 15:14:48 ...provided that ILOG, IBM and ? 15:14:58 fair isaac 15:15:19 what do they need to do? 15:15:21 csma: If ILOG, FI. and IBM agree, the PRR draft can be circulated to RIF participants --- since the submitters & OMG agree, they can redistribute to whoever you want. 15:16:09 ACTION: ChrisW will check that releasing PRR draft to RIF members is ok with IBM 15:17:13 ChrisW: csma and ChrisW have outstanding action to come up with a process 15:17:29 http://common-logic.org/ 15:17:34 ChrisW: ChrisW and csma will talk about it later 15:17:40 s/process/process for deciding on UCR text about "cover" 15:18:00 ChrisW: Chris Menzel sent final technical draft from common logic 15:18:11 ChrisW: URL above 15:18:29 ChrisW: unlike many ISO standards this will be freely available 15:18:43 ChrisW: ODM in similar state as common logic 15:19:06 ChrisW: ...waiting for implementation experience before putting final stame 15:19:22 ChrisW: Evan W is not here 15:19:29 TOPIC: UCR 15:19:39 draft: 15:19:39 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/ucr/draft-20060626 15:19:39 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/ucr/draft-20060626 15:19:50 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/ucr/draft-20060626 15:19:56 ChrisW: above is the draft of the URC draft 15:20:23 zakim, mute me 15:20:23 csma should now be muted 15:20:41 ChrisW: David H - do you want to talk about latest draft? 15:21:09 David H: There are some outstanding issues, but do we want to 15:21:19 +1 15:21:21 ... get a feeling from the non-editors. Haven't heard from them yet. 15:21:34 ChrisW: people have until Friday 6/30 to comment 15:21:54 David H: pfps's point was that requirements and (?) are inconsistent 15:22:00 ack me 15:22:38 zakim, unmute me 15:22:38 csma should no longer be muted 15:22:42 Dave R: motivation/requirement links - agree on consistent set, or drop it 15:22:51 q+ 15:23:21 q? 15:23:26 ack csma 15:24:10 csma: we need to have a CSF that is alignment with relevant standards 15:24:13 q+ 15:24:24 ... all the standards 15:24:36 .... related to widescale adoption 15:24:53 ...and then another CSF which is to be consistent with W3C 15:25:04 ... and here is where semantic web comes in. 15:25:30 q? 15:25:42 Dave R: I don't disagree, but that is not what is within the document 15:25:42 Dave R: I don't disagree, but that is not what is within the document 15:26:05 it's shown in this diagram: 15:26:06 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Goals?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=Goals.png 15:26:15 DaveR: two: 1. align with key w3c specifications 15:26:22 ... 2. align with semantic web 15:26:44 ChrisW: is the point to align with key specification? 15:26:57 csma: I agree that we should merge the two mentioned above 15:27:13 ... but I think we should add an additional one which is align with 15:27:14 ack david 15:27:21 ... all relevant standards 15:27:46 David H: we don't have any requirements for ? so why have a CSF for it 15:28:06 s/?/alignment with widely deployed standards 15:28:41 csma: xml is related to widescale adoption. so we need to have xml syntax 15:28:55 ... if we move xml to alignment with semantic web, then I agree 15:29:30 ChrisW: one proposal was to merge, and if we merge then we need a new CSF 15:29:44 ChrisW: but David R said if we add the new CSF then we don't 15:29:52 ... have any requirements for it. 15:30:27 ChrisW: text and picture don't agree. 15:30:36 csma: frank changed picture yesterday 15:30:51 csma: diagram is more up to date 15:32:30 David H: we don't need alignment with other specs because there 15:32:37 ^csma^DavidH^ 15:32:48 ...are no requierements to be aligned with other specs 15:33:10 csma: I think that in some circles, just saying RIF will be XML based 15:33:28 q+ 15:34:20 Dave R: re: XML based. Do we have a missing requirement? 15:34:33 csma: Yes, we didn't add in requirement from the Charter 15:34:36 q- 15:34:49 ChrisW: would support alignment with widely deployed standards 15:35:00 ChrisW: is there an objection to the way the diagram is now? 15:35:15 David H: yes, it is inconsistent. 15:35:46 ChrisW: add that CSF supports w3c consistency as well 15:35:56 csma: I would say it supports widescale adoption only 15:36:03 q+ 15:36:45 q- 15:37:29 ChrisW: understand csma's point. widely deployed is there not just for xml 15:38:23 csma: merge alignment with semantic web into alignment into key w3c specification 15:38:38 ... if we can only keep one, we want to keep key w3c specification 15:38:46 ChrisW: any objection? 15:38:58 ChrisW: the name will be alignment with key w3c specifications 15:39:01 proposal: one CSF called "Alignment with key W3C specifications" 15:39:16 David H: agreed. and later we can add another if we need 15:39:20 q+ 15:39:36 ack 15:39:57 proposal: RDF, OWL and XML requirements support this CSF, and this CSF supports both "Widescale adoption" and "W3C Consistency" 15:40:14 Dave R: not completely ok with proposal, but not sure how to phrase it 15:40:31 Dave R: not mentioning semantic web is slight step backwards 15:41:09 ChrisW: if we expand text in CSF to mention semantic web, would that be enough 15:41:09 ChrisW: if we expand text in CSF to mention semantic web, would that be enough 15:41:19 Dave R: yes, that would be better 15:41:53 csma: may be confusing for non-semantic web people if we leave it in the title 15:42:12 ChrisW: other specs may be key, such as xquery, etc , so we 15:42:22 ...want phrasing to indicate that we are still considering them 15:43:09 q? 15:43:19 ack dave 15:43:20 q- 15:43:25 zakim, please unmute me 15:43:25 Leora_Morgenstern should no longer be muted 15:43:28 q+ 15:43:31 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jun/0127.html 15:43:33 ChrisW: xml syntax. Sandro,Leora, and Davide analyzed reqs to see what from Charter might be missing 15:43:52 (Sandro's email re: reqs from charter) 15:44:02 Leora: RIFRAF - a number of reqs that were not explictly mentioned 15:44:14 ... in reqs document because it is assumed that they will be 15:44:21 ... covered in RIFRAF 15:44:41 ChrisW: at f2f3, will postpose decision about some reqs until the 15:44:52 ...RIFRAF is expressive enough to capture them 15:45:59 sandro: for someone skimming, they might miss link to coverage section 15:46:20 Sandro: let's add to the start of Requirements, something like "PLEASE NOTE: Many requirements will appear in the _Coverage_ section, and not here" 15:46:20 sandro and csma: need to add something to introduction of reqs section 15:46:57 ACTION: Leora will add text to introduction - will change it in the wiki 15:47:15 introduction of Reqiuirements section, that is. 15:47:15 ChrisW: David H posted URL of Sandro's message 15:47:24 ChrisW: let's review those 15:47:32 zakim, please mute me 15:47:32 Leora_Morgenstern should now be muted 15:47:39 ChrisW: SPARQL - is this a phase 1 req 15:47:53 Sandro?: yes, I think so 15:48:13 ChrisW: compatibility with SPARQL - does anyone object to that being a phase 1 req 15:48:43 Sandro: this isn't about external calls 15:48:52 q+ 15:49:30 q- 15:49:34 csma: maybe we can add to reqs section to say that all reqs from charter apply 15:49:56 ack me 15:50:15 Dave R: want to return to Sandro's point to wording of charter 15:50:22 ... re: use of SPARQL. 15:51:33 Dave R: interpreation of "data set" 15:51:46 Dave R: external query vs. sparql inside 15:51:54 ChrisW: need to postpone and put on agenda 15:52:10 ChrisW: XML syntax. Does anyone object? 15:52:15 no objections 15:52:22 " The primary normative syntax of the language must be an XML syntax. " 15:52:24 RESOLVED 15:52:38 ACTION: David H will add the XML req to ? 15:52:56 ChrisW: CSF, extensibility 15:53:07 ChrisW: what did we decide at f2f3? 15:53:27 sandro: it's a CSF and we didn't discuss those at f2f3 15:53:36 csma: there is a CSF called extensibility 15:54:06 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/ucr/draft-20060626#Extensibility 15:54:24 ChrisW: limited number of dialects also supports exensitibility 15:54:54 sandro: support goes the other way 15:54:59 anyone have problems with following wording? 15:55:01 "RIF must have an XML syntax as its primary normative syntax." 15:55:09 q+ 15:55:24 Compliance Model supports CSF:Extensibility 15:55:42 ack dave 15:55:43 Dave R: don't see difference between ? and ? 15:55:56 Sandro: there is a difference: 15:56:16 csma: compliance model means you can be compliant without supporting every feature 15:56:23 csma: Compliance Model :: you must be able to be compliant without supporting everything in RIF 15:56:28 ?= compliance and default behavior 15:56:47 csma: default behavior supports predictability 15:57:04 csma: Default Behavior :: This supports predictibility -- it says what you do when you encounter something you don't support. 15:57:05 ...tells you what to do when you encounter something you do not support 15:57:34 sandro: can someone clarify the text? 15:57:53 -csma 15:58:15 sandro: couldn't have default behavior without a compliance model 15:58:22 Dave R: agreed 15:58:31 Note that Compliance Model is implied by Default Behavior. Arguably it's such a necessary/obvious requirement it doesn't need to be written down. 15:58:43 ChrisW: and next from Sandro's email: UCR for OWL 15:59:23 sandro: seems like it is a CSF for RIF and it is in the charter 15:59:24 (agreement from DaveR) 15:59:28 q+ 15:59:34 zakim, unmute me 15:59:34 Leora_Morgenstern should no longer be muted 15:59:37 ChrisW: is it covered by coverage or the merged alignment goal? 15:59:45 sandro: the alignment goal is more abstract 15:59:58 leora: this isn't a req per se, didn't belong in that part of the document 16:00:04 sandro: it is a CSF 16:00:38 ChrisW: but, are they already captured in current document? in coverage and alignment 16:00:44 sandro: no, I think it's different 16:01:02 sandro: OWL users were upset because they perceived that we 16:01:21 ... were coming up with competing technology and they wouldn't be easy to use together 16:01:30 q- 16:01:43 ChrisW: 'easy to use together' is difficult to measure 16:01:58 sandro: this might support some of the reqs about RDF data and OWL data 16:02:04 OWL data is a Phase 1 requirement and I think this is enough for the moment 16:02:11 ChrisW: can we postpone this discussion? 16:02:32 sandro: I think we're 95% there. 16:02:47 I object, the discussion needs to be postponed 16:02:56 ChrisW: does anyone object ? 16:03:07 yes 16:03:07 zakim, who is talking? 16:03:09 zakim, mute me 16:03:10 Leora_Morgenstern should now be muted 16:03:25 sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Leora_Morgenstern (4%), ChrisW (79%) 16:03:40 q? 16:03:40 q? 16:03:42 q? 16:03:44 ChrisW: postoning OWL and SPARQL discussion for future draft 16:03:49 +csma 16:04:25 ChrisW: let's review the motivates links in the use cases 16:04:32 who is speaking? 16:04:46 DavidHirtle 16:05:02 ChrisW: if you haven't read the use cases document, reserve your comments for later 16:05:20 zakim, mute me 16:05:20 csma should now be muted 16:05:25 ChrisW: if we can't come to agreement here, we can just remove motivate links 16:05:34 ... from the document (just for this draft) 16:05:35 q+ 16:05:47 David H: some are obvious, and we should keep them 16:05:57 q- 16:06:03 ChrisW: but then some will be filled in and some will be blank, and that will be confusing 16:06:21 ChrisW: negotiating e-business contracts across platforms 16:06:55 ChrisW: motivates semantic precision (clear), implementability (not so clear) 16:06:59 q+ 16:07:26 Dave R: all of the use cases require semantic precision, some things are 16:07:39 ... just required by RIFand either shouldn't be listed or should be listed in all 16:07:51 ack dave 16:08:43 David H: I think it makes more sense to have forward links, but I think having both is not necessary 16:09:10 yes 16:09:11 David H: 2.1 pfps suggested that compliance model and coverage are not necessary? 16:09:19 ChrisW: and implementability 16:09:19 q+ 16:10:31 Paula: implementability refers to implenentation of translators 16:10:39 no 16:10:42 coverage 16:11:23 Paula: yes, agrees that maybe this use case does not motivate implementability 16:12:00 sorry, but I must leave now. 16:12:11 Paula: author's of use cases should add the links 16:12:12 -Francois 16:12:22 david H: but then maybe we will get inconsistency 16:12:38 paula: then maybe better to leave out all links from use cases to requirements 16:12:54 ack csma 16:13:15 csma: the coverage req is motivated by all the use cases 16:13:18 +1 to csma 16:13:18 q+ 16:13:55 csma: if we leave the motivates links in this version, then the coverage can be 16:14:01 ... motivated by all use cases 16:14:20 ChrisW: semantic precison and coverage are two reqs that are motivated by everything 16:14:31 David H: there are degress of motivation 16:14:35 zakim, unmute me 16:14:35 Allen_Ginsberg should no longer be muted 16:15:06 Allan Ginsberg: I agree to either leave them out for time being or change them to something stronger 16:15:19 ... e.g. that they can't do without it 16:15:31 .... require instead of motivate. But that may be too disruptive for now 16:16:16 David H: if we don't have motivation links, the reasons that we have the use call will not be clear 16:16:46 csma: change motivate to uniquely motivate? 16:16:46 s/the use call/the new use cases/ 16:17:17 ChrisW: use case 2.1. Is there a req that it uniquely motivates? 16:17:34 zakim, mute me 16:17:34 csma should now be muted 16:17:51 paula: in some use cases, the form of the data is not mentioned, so I don't think it uniquely requires 16:18:10 Allen G: it doesn't uniquely require, but it really requires instead of just motivates 16:18:40 ChrisW: it is a substantive change. a big semantic change to add this. Given the current deadline 16:18:50 ... it is perhaps to just remove the motivates link for this draft 16:18:59 ... it will be important to have them, But we will add them later. 16:19:03 +1 to remove the links use cases - requirements 16:19:21 +1 to remove the motivate links for now 16:19:32 David H: what does Sandro think? I think we are close to having it figured out? 16:19:55 Sandro: I agree with Chris. We don't havfe tinme to figure it out now 16:20:37 ACTION: David H: Remove the motivates links. 16:21:03 q? 16:21:05 ChrisW: and we need to make the topics of motivates links does not get dropped 16:21:10 ack allen 16:21:43 paula: use case 2.8 has rules in a different structure from the others 16:21:59 sandro: pfps made the point that we should have disclaimer about 16:22:07 ... rules controllig human behavior 16:22:50 david H: can change the structure of rules for use case 2.8 to be more like the others 16:23:13 david H: this case has to do with mapping data, and that was the reason they are different 16:23:35 Peter's Comments, ChrisW: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jun/0149.html 16:23:46 dave R: yes, easier to map data structures in semi-formal way rather than natural language 16:23:55 dave r: I think it's ok as is. 16:24:08 we're talking about the rules here: 16:24:09 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/ucr/draft-20060626#Vocabulary_Mapping_for_Data_Integration 16:24:14 dave r: 2.7 looks like a rule, so if we want consistency we have to change that one too 16:24:26 ChrisW: who objected to use case 2.8? 16:24:41 paula p: I don't object to leave them as they are, it was just a question. 16:25:10 ChrisW: maybe add a small disclaimer. Intro already mentions intentional lack of a syntax 16:25:24 ChrisW: pfps suggested we add an additional disclaimer 16:25:46 However, this informality can lead readers to the conclusion that 16:25:46 rules can perform arbitrary actions in the real world. This is not 16:25:46 the case - the RIF WG has not yet decided on the ultimate power 16:25:46 that rules will have. 16:25:57 ChrisW: does anyone object to adding pfps's suggested further disclaimer? 16:26:43 David H: add more to end of disclaimer "except where doing do would detract from readability" 16:26:46 +1 "Except where doing do would detract from readability" 16:26:52 +1 Peter's furthur disclaiminer 16:27:02 RESOLVED 16:27:03 ChrisW: no objections 16:27:17 ACTION: David H to update use cases introduction 16:27:40 zakim, unmute me 16:27:40 csma should no longer be muted 16:27:46 ChrisW: we wanted to talk about process for populating RIFRAF today, but we are out of time 16:28:24 ACTION: csma to ask Frank to merge first two CSF's 16:29:01 ACTION: Paula P to update the text to merge the first 2 CSF's 16:30:14 +1 to adding an overview 16:30:53 ACTION: Allen G to add an organizational overview to the introduction by 6/27 16:31:28 ChrisW: all the people who have actions should send an email to Sandro when they are done 16:31:36 ChrisW: any other business? 16:31:38 sandro, can we talk for a moment after? 16:31:40 -josb 16:31:42 -Harold 16:31:45 -Dave_Reynolds 16:31:47 -MarkusK 16:31:48 bye 16:31:48 -Allen_Ginsberg 16:31:48 -JeffP 16:31:54 -Leora_Morgenstern 16:31:57 -PaulaP 16:31:59 rrsagent, make minutes 16:32:00 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/06/27-rif-minutes.html ChrisW 16:32:04 -Mike_Dean 16:32:06