<csma> Don, can you scribe today?

zakim unmute me

<ChrisWelty> scribenick: donald_chapin

<ChrisWelty> thanks

<Hassan> +1

<FrankMcCabe> i should be there

+1

<pfps> +1

<AxelPolleres> -1

<MarkusK> -1

<DaveReynolds> -1

<LeoraMorgenstern> +1 for being here next week?

<LeoraMorgenstern> or being away?

<PhilippeB> +1

<LeoraMorgenstern> +1

<mdean> +1

<DavidHirtle> +1

<ChrisWelty> oops

<scribe> ACTION: Will have a meeting next and Sandro will chair [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/25-rif-minutes.html#action01]

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

<PaulaP> +1

No objections from minutes - accpet July 11 minutes

<ChrisWelty> RESOVLED: Accept minutes of July 11 telecon

<ChrisWelty> RESOLVED: Accept minutes of July 11 telecon

<Darko> +Darko

<johnhall> not yet

<johnhall> yes

AACTION John will add rejects to July 18 minutes and resubmit

<ChrisWelty> ^rejects^regrets^

<ChrisWelty> ACTION John will add regrets to July 18 minutes and resubmit

<JeffP> ACTION: John will add regrets to July 18 minutes and resubmit [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/25-rif-minutes.html#action02]

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

<PaulaP> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/

<PaulaP> it is a new WG

Everyone should look at the charter of GRDDLL-WG to see if they have an interest in it.

no

<GiorgosStoilos> where is +Yannis?

Use Cases & Requirements

<PaulaP> this was postponed

<PaulaP> ok with me

<PaulaP> :)

Close Action 39

Action 59 closed, but discussion is going on about standardizing the Semantic Web Layer Cake diagram - no decision

<scribe> continued

Topic RIFRAF

Action 61 done

Action 73 done

Discusiion on Questionaire:

Axel - Can Francois reformulation the questions 3.1 & 3.2 about decidability - agree that there is a problem

<csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jul/0040.html

<PaulaP> +1 for the third suggestion of Francois

Chris w - 3.1 not confusing, 3.2 doesn't see problem, the new question is a good one

Christian - propse add a discriminator on which kind of data format that the language is able to consume

<PaulaP> no, it is not

<ChrisWelty> DaveR's message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jul/0041.html

<ChrisWelty> RIFRAF questionaire: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/38457/RAFQuestionnaire/

Questionaire is strictly incremental. If you need a new discriminator, simply ask for it to be added. Once it is there new languages can use it.

<MarkusK> +1 for Francois' remark on 3.1. Decidability of a rule language in the sense of Computer Science really is not what we mean here. Decidability should refer to some inference problem or similar reasoning/computation task.

<AxelPolleres> ok

Data format consumed can be multiple

<AxelPolleres> ok!

<FrankMcCabe> +q

<AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to add to questionnaire question whether the language has means to [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/25-rif-minutes.html#action03]

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

<AxelPolleres> access data in Web formats such as HTML, XML, RDF, OWL data.

ACTION Alex Add the data format discriminator

<JosDeRoo> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/38457/RAFQuestionnaire/

<Harold> Initially, we referred to Decidability of the QUERY problem of a rule language.

<AxelPolleres> it should bve about decidability of "entailment" of facts, probably.

<MarkusK> can you hear me?

<MarkusK> sorry, cant get it workin

<MarkusK> I will write on IRC

<Harold> E.g., Datalog has a decidable QUERY problem. Hornlog doesn't.

<MarkusK> 3.1 just is a formal issue

<MarkusK> that should be easy to fix

<MarkusK> just say what "decidability" refers to

<MarkusK> "decidability of a language" means deciding whether something belongs to the language.

<AxelPolleres> I suggest that francois and markus both propose reformulations for 3.1 and 3.2

<MarkusK> I will send an email regarding 3.1

<MarkusK> I have nothing to say about 3.2 so far ...

ACTION MarkusK Write email with solution to 3.1 & 3.2 on the questionaire

<JeffP> ACTION: MarkusK Write email with solution to 3.1 & 3.2 on the questionaire [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/25-rif-minutes.html#action04]

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

<AxelPolleres> Can you formulate a question plus options for answers, Frank?

FrankeMcCable Need to add the kinds of 'types' supported as a discriminator

<AxelPolleres> Let's post all these suggestions on the mailinglist under the [RIFRAF] header.

ACTION FrankMcCable will proposed a list of type capbailities as a discriminator

We won't add Dave Reymolds email seond point as a discriminator. If some language needs it they will add it

Dave Reynolds - Questionarie would need some work before it is used outside the Working Group

<Harold> In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006May/0235.html I responded to Axel's 'Syn' comment about types -- I agree, could be spliced in thus: Typed vs. Untyped Variables (Types can reuse class definitions in RDFS and OWL).

Chris W - The RIFRAF should be the place where the explanation of discriminator belongs. People outside the RIF WG should be able to understand the RIFPAF Wiki page.

<AxelPolleres> I set the questionnaire currently only visible to RIF WG members!

Who should have access to the RIFRAF Wiki page?

<AxelPolleres> ... at the moment.

Only RIF WG memebrs can fill out the questionaire

The RIFRAF Wiki page should be public because of our charter

<ChrisWelty> ^wiki page^questionnaire

ACTION Fix questionarie so that it can be duplicated for different languages

<AxelPolleres> :-)

Above action is on Axel (and Sandro)

Christian - Add a box at the end where people can suggest additional discriminators together with their values

<DaveReynolds> +1

<PaulaP> +1

ACTIOIN Axel to add pob to suggest more discriminators

ACTION Axel to add box to suggest more discriminators

<AxelPolleres> ... and drop 1.1.3

<DaveReynolds> Depends how you are going to do the analysis of the form results

TOPIC New Discriminators by Paula

<JosDeRoo> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jul/0039.html

<ChrisWelty> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jul/0027.html

TOPIC Items Moved to RIFRAF from Requirements

Chris W - The 'owners' of the items moved from Requirements ot RIFRAF need to take responsibility for creating any necessary discrinimator for RIFRAF

Christian - move this topic to next week

<ChrisWelty> paula's message from this morning: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jul/0039.html

'Owners' propose new discriminators on email

Christian - Comment on email if your disagree with additions

<AxelPolleres> +1 to gary, shall we split the qeustionnaire then?

<PaulaP> +1 to gary's comment

Chriatian - Need to say not applicable for any question or a comment space for any lack of clarity

Gary - Need a maaping of 'polog-like' languages to production rules

See the ILOG answer for questions on the mapping to Production Rules

Axel - Comments are switched on and can be used to say 'not applicable'

ChrisW - Can't uncheck / unanswer a question

Alex - Could use checkboxes throughout as they can be 'unchecked'

<Darko> it is possible not to answer a question and then you get a notification: (1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

<AxelPolleres> what about a checkbox: "not applicable (pllease specify)"

ACTION Axel add 'no answer' to each question

TOPIC Technical Design

TOPIC Semantics for Proposed RIF Condition Language

Harold - Email today with draft of these semantics which he describes. Michael is working on the Wiki to make this really formal

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

Christian - The semantics page doesn't really state explicitly what the semnatics is

Harold - Current wiki semantics is still very general. Now this is being more concrete on the Wiki - focusing on conjunctions only

Michael - Defining semantics by stating what the models are and what is the abstraction

Christian - Current semantics does not propose one semantic.

Michael - Already agreed that there would be different dialects

<pfps> As a point of interest, I would like to have a pointer to the decision that the RIF will have different dialects.

<FrankMcCabe> there is no one semantics!

Christian - Is it not possible to have one semantics for the conditions and that shared by all the dialects?

<Harold> Positive condition semantics is at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/A.1_Basis%3A_Positive_Conditions

<sandro> sadly, pfps, I don't think the minutes of the most recent F2F ever got done and approved, although they got very close. :-(

<Harold> ... Given a condition formula phi(X1,...,Xn) with free variables X1, ..., Xn and an interpretation M, define M(phi(X1,...,Xn)) as the set of all bindings (a1/X1,...,an/Xn) such that M |= phi(a1,...,an), where a1,...,an are elements in the domain of M. ...

<pfps> Hmm. That is not a very happy situation. Were they not supposed to be done quite some time ago.

Michael - Different semantics simply exist for the differen dialects, so a single semantic for the condition language is not possible

<pfps> Given that there does not appear to be a recorded decision that there are going to be different RIF dialects, then it would probably be better not to treat it has having being decided.

FrankMcCable - Thinks it is unrealistic that, except for possiblly a very small core, to have a single semantics. It could even be counterproductive to doso.

<ChrisWelty> The decision was that there would not be "too many" dialects

<ChrisWelty> that does not preclude that there will be one

<AxelPolleres> para-consistent logicsare nothing new... can you send a pointer on this?

<Harold> In the Roadmap discussion, we had basically three dialects: FOL, LP (Naf), and Production Rules.

<MarkusK> +1 to send a pointer; there are so many approaches towards para-consistency ...

<AxelPolleres> there are many different approaches to the issue of para-consistency, right?

<FrankMcCabe> Carl hewitt's paper: http://www.pcs.usp.br/~coin-aamas06/10_commitment-43_16pages.pdf

<Harold> Paraconsistency is a kind of scope-localized para-consistency, so nicely fits to our scopes

<FrankMcCabe> I am not completely sure that this is the correct pointer

ACTION Peter - Proposed a single dialect semanitcs - a kind of first order logic semantics by Aug 29 - Condition Language only

ACTION Harold make explicit the assumptions behind the semantics he and Michael are documenting

<Harold> I meant above: Paraconsistency is a kind of scope-localized consistency, so nicely fits to our scopes.

ACTION - Christian will propose a single semantics for the Condition Language

<pfps> paraconsistency does not necessarily have anything to do with locality

<PaulaP> bye

<JeffP> +1

<FrankMcCabe> right. Its my understanding that it refers to the shortest proof of inconsistency. Any shorter proofs are OK

<Darko> -Darko

ChrisW - Everyone should record regreats on Wiki if they are not attending Aug 15th meting

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/on Alex/on Axel (and Sandro)/
Succeeded: s/ass/add/
Succeeded: s/Alex/Axel/
Found ScribeNick: donald_chapin
Inferring Scribes: donald_chapin

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Default Present: Hassan_Ait-Kaci, csma, MarkusK, ChrisWelty, +1.650.857.aaaa, FrankMcCabe, Mike_Dean, David_Hirtle, Philippe_Bonnard, pfps, Sandro, Dave_Reynolds, Leora_Morgenstern, Donald_Chapin, Axel_Polleres, StellaMitchell, Jos_De_Roo, +43.512.507.9aabb, PaulaP, +1.441.224.aacc, jeffp, josb, johnhall, igor, Harold, GiorgosStoilos?, Gary_Hallmark, MichaelKifer
Present: Hassan_Ait-Kaci csma MarkusK ChrisWelty +1.650.857.aaaa FrankMcCabe Mike_Dean David_Hirtle Philippe_Bonnard pfps Sandro Dave_Reynolds Leora_Morgenstern Donald_Chapin Axel_Polleres StellaMitchell Jos_De_Roo +43.512.507.9aabb PaulaP +1.441.224.aacc jeffp josb johnhall igor Harold GiorgosStoilos? Gary_Hallmark MichaelKifer

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: 25 Jul 2006
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2006/07/25-rif-minutes.html
People with action items: axel email john markusk solution will with write

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


WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report