<AlexKozlenkov> zakim ??P18 is me

<AlexKozlenkov> mute me

<josb> scribenick: FrankMcCabe

<Elisa> zakim mute me

<csma> topic 'RIF 11 July http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jul/0013.html'

<igor> 41#

<csma> agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jul/0013.html

CSMA: What about the summer?

<AxelPolleres> +1 normally

Continue meetings as normal during the summer

^^csma

<csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jul/att-0018/minutes.txt

csma: Propose to accept above minutes

<Harold> +1

<PaulaP> +1

<AlexKozlenkov> +1

csma: Minutes of july 4th accepted

<AxelPolleres> DaveR sent a request!

<JeffP> It is addressed.

pfps: No change for F2F4

<sandro> [steps out for a few moments]

<AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jul/0015

<AxelPolleres> moment

<AxelPolleres> ok

<AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/28

<AxelPolleres> ACTION: 28 to closed [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/11-rif-minutes.html#action01]

<AxelPolleres> Action 28 [CLOSED]

<sandro> [returns from interrupt]

csma: SPARQL, XQUERY, XPATH, PRR, SBVR no news

Elisa: ODM was recommended for adoption at OMG Boston Meeting
... FTF starts in September

<AxelPolleres> Can you send a pointer to these discussions?

DaveR What is our position on Semantic Coordination Group

csma: The rule layer in SW stack needs to be synched with RIF
... Is the RIF going to develop a rule language or is a rule interchange format different to a rule language
... This needs to be clarified with the SCG

daver: debate on fourth goal for RIF to develop rule language not reflected on SWCG

csma: I wrote that it was not a goal, not part of the charter
... no decision, currently under dicsussion

daver: I see the followup message, that it was your opinion not the RIF's policy
... Is this an extension of the charter or not

csma: Prefer to interpret the charter in a minimal way given that it is already v. broad in scope
... Jury out on whether RIF implies rule language or not

daver: Followup in the SWCG following any discussion/decision in RIF

csma: ACTION Let SWCG know that there is an ongoing discussion and they will be updated

ACTION csma will let SWCG know that there is an ongoing discussion and they will be updated

<JeffP> ACTION: csma will let SWCG know that there is an ongoing discussion and they will be updated [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/11-rif-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

<Zakim> DavidHirtle, you wanted to ask sandro re: possibility of edit

daveH: Style of UCR doesnt work well in IE or Firefox

<scribe> ACTION: sandro: to fix the styles of the UCR [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/11-rif-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

<DavidHirtle> thanks Sandro; I wasn't sure if anything could be done after publication

csma: How do we get feedback.

<AlexKozlenkov> I tthink we should contact commercial most rule vendors

csma: The liaisons shouldspread the word in their respective groups

<AlexKozlenkov> most commercial rule zakim, unmute me

<AlexKozlenkov> Yes, I could do it

<AlexKozlenkov> yes

<scribe> ACTION: AlexKozlenkov will contact commercial rules vendors to take a look at the UCR [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/11-rif-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

<josb> I could notify the sparql wg again, since we have no "real" liaison at sparql

AlexK: there are now many rules languages/vendors. Ensuring interoperability will be hard.

<sandro> trackbot, this is rifwg

<scribe> ACTION: AlexK will contact JSR94 community [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/11-rif-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

csma: action 33 closed
... action 38 continued
... action 9 continued
... action 41 continued

<PaulaP> continued

csma: action 39 continued
... action 35 closed
... action 55 closed

<AxelPolleres> continued!

<AxelPolleres> sorry, that was for the nexrt one!

csma: action 52 closed

<AxelPolleres> ;-)

<AxelPolleres> yes.

csma: action 53 continued

<DavidHirtle> done

<DavidHirtle> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Document_issues

<josb> Notification of the publication of the 2nd WD of the UCR document has been sent to DAWG

csma: action 56 closed
... issues against UCR document should be recorded as issues

<scribe> ACTION: Sandro rename use and requirements into one category [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/11-rif-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

csma: We need to prioritize issues
... discuss this next meeting

<scribe> ACTION: csma put organization of issues on next agenda [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/11-rif-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

csma: RIFRAF actions

Michael: Cannot remember action 44
... Cannot remember action 43

HaroldB: How do languages supprt built-ins?
... There wa some confusion about the status of the last powerpoint slides

cma: Yes.

RIFRAF

csma: Many of the requirements were moved to the RIFRAF
... Do we have the proper criteria in the RIFRAF
... E.g. RIF should support production rules, first order, normative rules, combined language rule sets

<EvanWallace> +1 to not putting RIF requirements in RIFRAF

csma: RIFRAF contains discriminators not requirements

<DaveReynolds> RIFRAF gives a framework in which to define the space of coverage which we require RIF to cover

csma: We need enough discriminators to cover the field

<AlexKozlenkov> Absolutely, Phase 2 requirements should not simply disappear

csma: Group languages into related groups and derive requirements from the groups

haroldb: does space mean that not everything needs to be covered

daver: framework to allow us to decsribe space of languages. Some will be covered, some not

csma: The choices for covered languages depend on the criteria themselves
... We might not see e.g. production rules emerge without the right discriminators e.g. actions on conclusions
... How do we enusre coverage of discriminators

<AlexKozlenkov> There is currently not enough detail for production or reaction rules.

<csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Critical_Factors_Analysis

There are coverage requirements in the CFA analysis

<PaulaP> ok

<PaulaP> I'll try :)

<scribe> ACTION: PaulaP to analyse RIFRAF discriminators cover CFA [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/11-rif-minutes.html#action08]

<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

csma: We need the space of rule languages populated. We have 5 or 6 at the moment but need more
... Suggest a questionnaire to help populate the RIFRAF

+1

<sandro> =1

<sandro> +1

<AxelPolleres> I think I can take it over, if you formulate the concrete responsibility again.

<scribe> ACTION: Axel & sandro to prepare a questionnaire and organize it and keep track [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/11-rif-minutes.html#action09]

<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

csma: The questionnaire allows people to complete an entry in the RIFRAF for a rule language oftheir choice
... If there are new criteria then the q may need to be modified and edited also
... the group thanks Axel

<AxelPolleres> sorry, still continued/

csma: action 20 continued
... action 22 continued
... we need a strawman semantics for RIFRAF

harold: We are working on this at the moment
... we have an update on semantics wrt positive conditions, e.g. model theoretic semantics
... now moving to horn logic and conditions

michael: it is possible to give a semantics inc conditions. parameterized by the language
... esp. model theoretic semantic based language

csma: can it be extended to negative conditions and built-ins?

michael: should be ok.
... am planning to enhance wiki

<csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/A.1_Basis%3A_Positive_Conditions

csma: Did pfps look at the positive conditions section above?

pfps: this is a cut and paste of previous extensibility document

michael: parameterized by the model semantics of the language

pfps: My issue was that there was no contraint on mappings in and out of the RIFRAF

michael: to be done

pfps: Need requirements on mappings <-> RIFRAF

michael: yes

pfps: Need requirements on mappings <-> RIF
... needs to be moved from email discussion to the document

<Harold> pfps, can u go to A.1 Basis: Positive Conditions", click "Info", then "Diff", you'll see the changes afer the copy and paste.

<scribe> ACTION: michael to update semantics for positive conditions taking account of email discussion on contraints on RIF mappings [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/11-rif-minutes.html#action10]

<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

csma: Mapping between existing rule languages and existing semantics

pfps: There are big gaps in the mapping at the moment.
... possible to have degenerate compliance

michael: Issue is pfps wants a unified luaguage for a super-language which is inherently small (without PRs, LP, etc)

pfps: I am not asking for that (I think)

<scribe> ACTION: pfps will describe loophole he sees in the semantics [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/11-rif-minutes.html#action11]

<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

harold: Next step is to proceed to horn clauses
... We might be able to make progress in 2 weeks
... look at existing toc to see current approach

csma: better to lead the discussion by email

<scribe> ACTION: harold, michael to email ideas about extending semantics to cover horn logic [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/11-rif-minutes.html#action12]

<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

csma: We need more volunteers to see how existing semantics and syntactic mappings are useful

alex There are many rule languages that belong to the PR categories. Existing semantic analysis not helpful to those languages

<PaulaP> I can also try to find time to map the cond lang to Xcerpt/XChange

<scribe> ACTION: alex will look at condition part of a sample PR language to see if semantic mapping is feasable, easy etc. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/11-rif-minutes.html#action13]

<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

<scribe> ACTION: paulaP will look at condition part Xcerpt/XChange see if semantic mapping is feasable, easy etc. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/11-rif-minutes.html#action14]

<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

<LeoraMorgenstern> I will

<LeoraMorgenstern> Which language?

<LeoraMorgenstern> any version of prolog?

<LeoraMorgenstern> No, no preferenc

<LeoraMorgenstern> Okay

<scribe> ACTION: Leora will look at condition part of prolog to see if semantic mapping is feasable, easy etc. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/11-rif-minutes.html#action15]

<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

<scribe> ACTION: Frank will look at condition part of Go! to see if semantic mapping is feasable, easy etc. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/11-rif-minutes.html#action16]

<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

<AlexKozlenkov> go!

<LeoraMorgenstern> Okay, so you don't need me to do a version of Prolog, then.

The issue wrt prolog is the meta language

<PaulaP> +1

csma: Propose to adjourn

<AlexKozlenkov> OK, bye folks

<JeffP> bye

<PaulaP> bye

<Elisa> exit

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/cma/csma/
Succeeded: s/Notification to DAWG has been sent/Notification of the publication of the 2nd WD of the UCR document has been sent to DAWG/
Succeeded: s/alexP/Axel/
Found ScribeNick: FrankMcCabe
Inferring Scribes: FrankMcCabe

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: AlexK AlexKozlenkov Allen Allen_Ginsberg AxelPolleres Axel_Polleres CSMA DERI DaveReynolds Dave_Reynolds DavidHirtle David_Hirtle Elisa Elisa_Kendall EvanWallace Evan_Wallace FrankMcCabe Fujitsu GaryHallmark Gary_Hallmark GiorgosStoilos Guest Harold HaroldB IBM IPcaller IVML IanH JeffP Keep LeoraMorgenstern Leora_Morgenstern Michael MichaelKifer MoZ MoZ_ NRCC P13 P18 P20 P28 P32 P34 P8 P9 PaulaP SaidTabet StellaMitchell aaaa cma daveH daver igor johnhall josb pfps sandro scribenick trackbot 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: 11 Jul 2006
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2006/07/11-rif-minutes.html
People with action items: alex alexk alexkozlenkov at axel commercial condition contact csma frank go harold leora look michael of part paulap pfps prolog rules sandro vendors will

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.