SV_MEETING_TITLE -- 27 Jun 2006

<ChrisW> scribenick: StellaMitchell

ADMIN

ChirsW: next telecon is July4. We will vote on 2nd UCR draft on July 4

<JeffP> Zakim ??P5 is me

ChirsW: if there are concerns with releasing it, you need to let the group know
... by friday 6/30. If there are concerns, vote will be delayed

<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jun/att-0146/20-rif-minutes.html

<ChrisW> last week's minutes

ChrisW: proposed accept minutes of last week's meeting
... no objections. Approved
... no proposed ammendments to agenda
... minutes from last f2f are almost complete.

csma: On June 29, remaining minutes will be complete

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F3#preview

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F3

ChrisW: minutes of f2f are linked into agenda on the wiki page for the f2f
... action list from f2f is up to date
... people should review the minutes

<ChrisW> Peter's comments on f2f4:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jun/0139.html

csma: pfps is not here, but sent email with some information about f2f4

ChrisW: hoping registration will be open by end of July. We have a registration
... as discussed at f2f3 in Budva, we hope to have f2f5 early next year
... so think about hosting it. There are no proposals yet.
... in US or Canada is preferred because last 2 were in Europse

<josb> we are not in sparql

liasons for ?

which groups?

<PaulaP> SPARQL and RIF

ChrisW: need liasons for sparql and RIF

csma: were supposed to have prr f2f meeting today, but only csma showed up
... submitted revised draft to OMG and plan to have final

<sandro> ChrisW, did you want to mention the Common Logic draft, mentioned on the mailing list.... ? *shrug*

csma: draft submitted in mid-

december?

csma: prr draft should be submitted to rif members for review,
... provided that ILOG, IBM and ?

<ChrisW> fair isaac

what do they need to do?

<sandro> 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.

<scribe> ACTION: ChrisW will check that releasing PRR draft to RIF members is ok with IBM [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/27-rif-minutes.html#action01]

ChrisW: csma and ChrisW have outstanding action to come up with a process for deciding on UCR text about "cover"

<ChrisW> http://common-logic.org/

ChrisW: ChrisW and csma will talk about it later
... Chris Menzel sent final technical draft from common logic
... URL above
... unlike many ISO standards this will be freely available
... ODM in similar state as common logic
... ...waiting for implementation experience before putting final stame
... Evan W is not here

UCR

<DavidHirtle> draft:

<DavidHirtle> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/ucr/draft-20060626

<PaulaP> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/ucr/draft-20060626

<csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/ucr/draft-20060626

ChrisW: above is the draft of the URC draft
... David H - do you want to talk about latest draft?

David H: There are some outstanding issues, but do we want to

<PaulaP> +1

scribe: get a feeling from the non-editors. Haven't heard from them yet.

ChrisW: people have until Friday 6/30 to comment

David H: pfps's point was that requirements and (?) are inconsistent

Dave R: motivation/requirement links - agree on consistent set, or drop it

csma: we need to have a CSF that is alignment with relevant standards
... all the standards
... related to widescale adoption
... and then another CSF which is to be consistent with W3C
... and here is where semantic web comes in.

Dave R: I don't disagree, but that is not what is within the document

<DavidHirtle> it's shown in this diagram:

<DavidHirtle> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Goals?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=Goals.png

DaveR: two: 1. align with key w3c specifications
... 2. align with semantic web

ChrisW: is the point to align with key specification?

csma: I agree that we should merge the two mentioned above
... but I think we should add an additional one which is align with
... all relevant standards

David H: we don't have any requirements for alignment with widely deployed standards so why have a CSF for it

csma: xml is related to widescale adoption. so we need to have xml syntax
... if we move xml to alignment with semantic web, then I agree

ChrisW: one proposal was to merge, and if we merge then we need a new CSF
... but David R said if we add the new CSF then we don't
... have any requirements for it.
... text and picture don't agree.

csma: frank changed picture yesterday
... diagram is more up to date

David H: we don't need alignment with other specs because there

<ChrisW> ^csma^DavidH^

scribe: are no requierements to be aligned with other specs

csma: I think that in some circles, just saying RIF will be XML based

Dave R: re: XML based. Do we have a missing requirement?

csma: Yes, we didn't add in requirement from the Charter

ChrisW: would support alignment with widely deployed standards
... is there an objection to the way the diagram is now?

David H: yes, it is inconsistent.

ChrisW: add that CSF supports w3c consistency as well

csma: I would say it supports widescale adoption only

ChrisW: understand csma's point. widely deployed is there not just for xml

csma: merge alignment with semantic web into alignment into key w3c specification
... if we can only keep one, we want to keep key w3c specification

ChrisW: any objection?
... the name will be alignment with key w3c specifications

<DavidHirtle> proposal: one CSF called "Alignment with key W3C specifications"

David H: agreed. and later we can add another if we need

<csma> ack

<DavidHirtle> proposal: RDF, OWL and XML requirements support this CSF, and this CSF supports both "Widescale adoption" and "W3C Consistency"

Dave R: not completely ok with proposal, but not sure how to phrase it

Dave R: not mentioning semantic web is slight step backwards

ChrisW: if we expand text in CSF to mention semantic web, would that be enough
... if we expand text in CSF to mention semantic web, would that be enough

Dave R: yes, that would be better

csma: may be confusing for non-semantic web people if we leave it in the title

ChrisW: other specs may be key, such as xquery, etc , so we
... want phrasing to indicate that we are still considering them

<DavidHirtle> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jun/0127.html

ChrisW: xml syntax. Sandro,Leora, and Davide analyzed reqs to see what from Charter might be missing

<DavidHirtle> (Sandro's email re: reqs from charter)

Leora: RIFRAF - a number of reqs that were not explictly mentioned
... in reqs document because it is assumed that they will be
... covered in RIFRAF

ChrisW: at f2f3, will postpose decision about some reqs until the
... RIFRAF is expressive enough to capture them

sandro: for someone skimming, they might miss link to coverage section

<sandro> Sandro: let's add to the start of Requirements, something like "PLEASE NOTE: Many requirements will appear in the _Coverage_ section, and not here"

sandro and csma: need to add something to introduction of reqs section

<scribe> ACTION: Leora will add text to introduction - will change it in the wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/27-rif-minutes.html#action02]

<sandro> introduction of Reqiuirements section, that is.

ChrisW: David H posted URL of Sandro's message
... let's review those
... SPARQL - is this a phase 1 req

Sandro?: yes, I think so

ChrisW: compatibility with SPARQL - does anyone object to that being a phase 1 req

Sandro: this isn't about external calls

csma: maybe we can add to reqs section to say that all reqs from charter apply

Dave R: want to return to Sandro's point to wording of charter

scribe: re: use of SPARQL.

Dave R: interpreation of "data set"

Dave R: external query vs. sparql inside

ChrisW: need to postpone and put on agenda
... XML syntax. Does anyone object?

no objections

<sandro> " The primary normative syntax of the language must be an XML syntax. "

<sandro> RESOLVED

<scribe> ACTION: David H will add the XML req to ? [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/27-rif-minutes.html#action03]

ChrisW: CSF, extensibility
... what did we decide at f2f3?

sandro: it's a CSF and we didn't discuss those at f2f3

csma: there is a CSF called extensibility

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/ucr/draft-20060626#Extensibility

ChrisW: limited number of dialects also supports exensitibility

sandro: support goes the other way

<DavidHirtle> anyone have problems with following wording?

<DavidHirtle> "RIF must have an XML syntax as its primary normative syntax."

<sandro> Compliance Model supports CSF:Extensibility

Dave R: don't see difference between ? and ?

Sandro: there is a difference:

csma: compliance model means you can be compliant without supporting every feature

<sandro> csma: Compliance Model :: you must be able to be compliant without supporting everything in RIF

<ChrisW> ?= compliance and default behavior

csma: default behavior supports predictability

<sandro> csma: Default Behavior :: This supports predictibility -- it says what you do when you encounter something you don't support.

csma: tells you what to do when you encounter something you do not support

sandro: can someone clarify the text?
... couldn't have default behavior without a compliance model

Dave R: agreed

<sandro> 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.

ChrisW: and next from Sandro's email: UCR for OWL

sandro: seems like it is a CSF for RIF and it is in the charter

<sandro> (agreement from DaveR)

ChrisW: is it covered by coverage or the merged alignment goal?

sandro: the alignment goal is more abstract

leora: this isn't a req per se, didn't belong in that part of the document

sandro: it is a CSF

ChrisW: but, are they already captured in current document? in coverage and alignment

sandro: no, I think it's different
... OWL users were upset because they perceived that we
... were coming up with competing technology and they wouldn't be easy to use together

ChrisW: 'easy to use together' is difficult to measure

sandro: this might support some of the reqs about RDF data and OWL data

<PaulaP> OWL data is a Phase 1 requirement and I think this is enough for the moment

ChrisW: can we postpone this discussion?

sandro: I think we're 95% there.

<PaulaP> I object, the discussion needs to be postponed

ChrisW: does anyone object ?

<Allen> yes

ChrisW: postoning OWL and SPARQL discussion for future draft
... let's review the motivates links in the use cases

who is speaking?

<DavidHirtle> DavidHirtle

ChrisW: if you haven't read the use cases document, reserve your comments for later
... if we can't come to agreement here, we can just remove motivate links
... from the document (just for this draft)

David H: some are obvious, and we should keep them

ChrisW: but then some will be filled in and some will be blank, and that will be confusing
... negotiating e-business contracts across platforms
... motivates semantic precision (clear), implementability (not so clear)

Dave R: all of the use cases require semantic precision, some things are

scribe: just required by RIFand either shouldn't be listed or should be listed in all

David H: I think it makes more sense to have forward links, but I think having both is not necessary

<PaulaP> yes

David H: 2.1 pfps suggested that compliance model and coverage are not necessary?

ChrisW: and implementability

Paula: implementability refers to implenentation of translators

<csma> no

<csma> coverage

Paula: yes, agrees that maybe this use case does not motivate implementability

<Francois> sorry, but I must leave now.

Paula: author's of use cases should add the links

david H: but then maybe we will get inconsistency

paula: then maybe better to leave out all links from use cases to requirements

csma: the coverage req is motivated by all the use cases

<PaulaP> +1 to csma

csma: if we leave the motivates links in this version, then the coverage can be
... motivated by all use cases

ChrisW: semantic precison and coverage are two reqs that are motivated by everything

David H: there are degress of motivation

Allan Ginsberg: I agree to either leave them out for time being or change them to something stronger

scribe: e.g. that they can't do without it
... require instead of motivate. But that may be too disruptive for now

David H: if we don't have motivation links, the reasons that we have the new use cases will not be clear

csma: change motivate to uniquely motivate?

ChrisW: use case 2.1. Is there a req that it uniquely motivates?

paula: in some use cases, the form of the data is not mentioned, so I don't think it uniquely requires

Allen G: it doesn't uniquely require, but it really requires instead of just motivates

ChrisW: it is a substantive change. a big semantic change to add this. Given the current deadline
... it is perhaps to just remove the motivates link for this draft
... it will be important to have them, But we will add them later.

<PaulaP> +1 to remove the links use cases - requirements

<csma> +1 to remove the motivate links for now

David H: what does Sandro think? I think we are close to having it figured out?

Sandro: I agree with Chris. We don't havfe tinme to figure it out now

<scribe> ACTION: David H: Remove the motivates links. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/27-rif-minutes.html#action04]

ChrisW: and we need to make the topics of motivates links does not get dropped

paula: use case 2.8 has rules in a different structure from the others

sandro: pfps made the point that we should have disclaimer about
... rules controllig human behavior

david H: can change the structure of rules for use case 2.8 to be more like the others

david H: this case has to do with mapping data, and that was the reason they are different

<sandro> Peter's Comments, ChrisW: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jun/0149.html

dave R: yes, easier to map data structures in semi-formal way rather than natural language

dave r: I think it's ok as is.

<DavidHirtle> we're talking about the rules here:

<DavidHirtle> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/ucr/draft-20060626#Vocabulary_Mapping_for_Data_Integration

dave r: 2.7 looks like a rule, so if we want consistency we have to change that one too

ChrisW: who objected to use case 2.8?

paula p: I don't object to leave them as they are, it was just a question.

ChrisW: maybe add a small disclaimer. Intro already mentions intentional lack of a syntax
... pfps suggested we add an additional disclaimer

<ChrisW> However, this informality can lead readers to the conclusion that

<ChrisW> rules can perform arbitrary actions in the real world. This is not

<ChrisW> the case - the RIF WG has not yet decided on the ultimate power

<ChrisW> that rules will have.

ChrisW: does anyone object to adding pfps's suggested further disclaimer?

David H: add more to end of disclaimer "except where doing do would detract from readability"

<sandro> +1 "Except where doing do would detract from readability"

<sandro> +1 Peter's furthur disclaiminer

<sandro> RESOLVED

ChrisW: no objections

<scribe> ACTION: David H to update use cases introduction [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/27-rif-minutes.html#action05]

ChrisW: we wanted to talk about process for populating RIFRAF today, but we are out of time

<scribe> ACTION: csma to ask Frank to merge first two CSF's [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/27-rif-minutes.html#action06]

<scribe> ACTION: Paula P to update the text to merge the first 2 CSF's [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/27-rif-minutes.html#action07]

<PaulaP> +1 to adding an overview

<scribe> ACTION: Allen G to add an organizational overview to the introduction by 6/27 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/27-rif-minutes.html#action08]

ChrisW: all the people who have actions should send an email to Sandro when they are done
... any other business?

<DavidHirtle> sandro, can we talk for a moment after?

<PaulaP> bye

- DRAFT -

SV_MEETING_TITLE

27 Jun 2006

Attendees

Contents

ADMIN

UCR

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output