See also: IRC log
<ChrisW> scribenick: saidtabet
First issue to decide: Hold or Cancel next week's meeting?
8 people posted regrets to the meeting wiki page
<Harold> Given how few we are even today..
Anyone on the call who does not expect to be on the call and did not post regrets?
Sandro: Will happily not be there but I can if I need to :-)
<Harold> People not even have time to enter themselves in the Regrets page.
<DavidHirtle> let's make Sandro happy...
<FrankMcCabe> no objection
Objections to canceling next week's?
<igor> no objkectiomn
<sandro> RESOLVED: no meeting next week
Next week's telecon canceled
2 weeks ago minutes: any objections to accepting the minutes?
No objections, minutes accepted
Last week's minutes: any objections to accepting those?
Sandro: there a formatting problem int he table of contents
Debra: I will take care of the format
Sandro: plain text is fine
<ChrisW> ACTION: deborahN to clean up html links in Aug 1 minutes [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/08-rif-minutes.html#action01]
Any Amendements to the agenda?
ChrisW: Sandro: you have an action to change Frank's email address?
Sandro: We are all set, just need to do a little administrative work
CSMA: still outstanding action on F2F3 minutes
ChrisW: news from liaisons?
... Elisa any news on ODM?
no news on ODM
<Elisa> One small item- we will be chartering our finalization task force for the ODM at the Anaheim meeting in September,
<Elisa> so anyone who wants to participate should let me know.
Donald: TC 37 handles terminology (SBVR is based on it). Donald will post a link
Elisa: ODM is in the process of
having a recommendation vote taken. Likely we will be
chartering finalization task force at Anaheim meeting.
... Anyone who wants to help, please touch base
ChrisW: traking of requirements moved to issues tracker (outcome from F2F3 meeting)
discussion: along the lines of starting a wiki page...but this didn't make sense since we have a mechanism for tracking
Sandro: what happened, at the
telecon we decided to use a wiki, then CSMA and Sandro decided
to use the available mechanism
... subjects put on tracker are based on high level items
ChrisW: David Hirtle: there is a wiki page called document_issues (posted above)
Deborah: that's what I have as a reference to work from
<ChrisW> ACTION: deborahN to move wiki page issues to tracker [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/08-rif-minutes.html#action02]
ChrisW: reviewing remaining action items
DavidHirtle: IE browser issue (also off in Firefox)....issue continued
Donald ACTION: clarify with CSMA UCR working draft issue
<Donald_Chapin> When he comes back - continued
ChrisW: anything else to discuss on use cases and requirements?
Chrisw: moving on to RIFRAF
<MarkusK> it has been written
Frank: action continued
ChrisW: main thing to discuss: Paula's proposed discriminators (message posted above)
Describing Event Condition Action rules (ECA)
accept this set of discriminators as requirements for RIF? Phase 1?
no problem accepting them for RIFRAF....not for RIF (esp. Phase 1)
<Donald_Chapin> ISO Technical Committee (TC37) for Terminology Standards (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/stdsdevelopment/tc/tclist/TechnicalCommitteeDetailPage.TechnicalCommitteeDetail?COMMID=1459) (http://www.iso.org/tc37) -- New two way active liaison with the OMG
any comments, questions?
ChrisW: Frank you are allright with this?
Donald: small concern: quite a number of things moved from req to RIFRAF...concerned about things getting lost duringt he process
<FrankMcCabe> sorry I got dropped off.
ChrisW: RIFRAF as a formal way to define all variations in rule systems
Sandro: Donald's point: 2 parts for moving req to RIFRAF: first become discriminators and then use survey to validate that. We have not yet gathered the data for that decision
ChrisW: Frank are you ok?
... anyone else?
Hassan: these discriminators make sense. They are just as good as what is right now in th questionnaire for the other rules. Focus on event handling more specifically than actions. Theya re good in my view
Gary: I endorsed them last week and I still like them
ChrisW: propose to accept these
discriminators for RIFRAF. Any objections?
... no objections.
... would like to discuss next steps: status of these set of discriminators
... quite a bit orthogonal to RIF. Shall we consider them for phase 1?
... or is this phase 2?
Hassan: Before that, perhaps
filling a questionnaire for a few languages will give us a
... in ILOG's rule language, we have event handling called 'chronicles'. I subscribe to this as a representative of ILOG but this is not the main representative compared to the 'CA' part of 'ECA'
... 'CA' rules are a higher priority
Gary: agrees with Hassan's comment.
ChrisW: where do you stand with having requirements for phase 1 or accept this as phase 2?
Gary: would like to see some of this as phase 1
ChrisW: for now, phase 1 is Horn. Do you feel that we need more than what is there with respect to Prod Rules needs?
<ChrisW> try q+
Frank: strongly suspect some of
these to be phase 1
... dealing/responding to events requires some of these for phase 1
... to ChrisW: anything in Phase 2 would have to be expressed in terms of phase 1.
ChrisW: never intended to say
... RIFRAF intended to give us the framework for extensions
... any other comments?
... a requirement based on these set of discriminators sems to be phase 2. It will be assumed as the dfault unless we have strong argument to make this phase 1. We need a good reason to support something like that
Hassan: mondain comments on the questionnaire:
there are some typos: in 2.2...
ChrisW: suggest to put these on an email. Hassan agreed
Jeff: minor point about Prod Rules: wondering if some experts here on Prod Rules can proide some explanations and more detailed info on the wiki page
ChrisW: next step towards that is
getting these discriminators to the RIFRAF and then make some
requirements out of that. Each requirement will be described
... on the technical design, there was some recent message posted by Harold and one by Hassan. I encourage everyone to read them. Technical design work continues.
... Frank you had an ACTION:
Frank: this is transformed into the issue on types. I will be generating a series of discriminators.
ChrisW: Action on PPFS...not due until end of month
Harold's ACTION: done. Linked requirements in UC&R doc wih assumptions. This could be extended.
Any other coments on technical proposal?
Any other business?
<sandro> +1 adjourn
ChrisW: hearing none, I propose we adjourn.
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) Found ScribeNick: saidtabet Inferring Scribes: saidtabet WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found. WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: Allen Allen_Ginsberg CSMA Chrisw DavidHirtle David_Hirtle Deborah Deborah_Nichols Debra Donald Donald_Chapin Elisa Elisa_Kendall Frank FrankMcCabe Gary GaryHallmark Gary_Hallmark Harold Hassan Hassan_Ait-Kaci IBM IPcaller Jeff JeffP Jeff_Pan LeoraMorgenstern Leora_Morgenstern Mala_Mehrotra MarkusK Mike_Dean MoZ NRCC P16 P17 PFPS PhilippeB Philippe_Bonnard SaidTabet Sandro discussion igor mdean 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: 8 Aug 2006 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2006/08/08-rif-minutes.html People with action items: deborahn 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[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]