See also: IRC log
<ChrisW> scribenick: StellaMitchell
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> 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: 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 ?
<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-
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: 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
ChrisW: above is the draft of the
... David H - do you want to talk about latest draft?
David H: There are some outstanding issues, but do we want to
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
Dave R: I don't disagree, but that is not what is within the document
<DavidHirtle> it's shown in this diagram:
DaveR: two: 1. align with key w3c
... 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
... diagram is more up to date
David H: we don't need alignment with other specs because there
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
<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
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
... 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
... XML syntax. Does anyone object?
<sandro> " The primary normative syntax of the language must be an XML syntax. "
<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
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
... 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
... 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 ?
ChrisW: postoning OWL and SPARQL
discussion for future draft
... let's review the motivates links in the use cases
who is speaking?
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
... 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
David H: 2.1 pfps suggested that compliance model and coverage are not necessary?
ChrisW: and implementability
Paula: implementability refers to implenentation of translators
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
... 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
... 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:
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
... 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
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?
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.127 of Date: 2005/08/16 15:12:03 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/process/process for deciding on UCR text about "cover"/ Succeeded: s/?/alignment with widely deployed standards/ Succeeded: s/the use call/the new use cases/ Found ScribeNick: StellaMitchell Inferring Scribes: StellaMitchell WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: Allen Allen_Ginsberg ChirsW ChrisW Christian DaveR DaveReynolds Dave_Reynolds DavidHirtle Francois Harold IBM IPcaller JeffP JosDeRoo Leora LeoraMorgenstern Leora_Morgenstern MarkusK Mike_Dean NRCC P15 P21 P22 P5 Paula PaulaP Sandro StellaMitchell cgi-irc csma draft josb mdean_home patranja proposal scribenick was You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Got date from IRC log name: 27 Jun 2006 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2006/06/27-rif-minutes.html People with action items: add allen check chrisw csma david draft g h leora paula prr releasing text that will[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]