<ChrisW> scribenick: saidtabet

First issue to decide: Hold or Cancel next week's meeting?

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/2006-08-15_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

No objections

<sandro> RESOLVED: no meeting next week

Next week's telecon canceled

<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Aug/0002.html

2 weeks ago minutes: any objections to accepting the minutes?

No objections, minutes accepted

<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Aug/0003.html

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

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?

no

Chrisw: moving on to RIFRAF

<MarkusK> yes

<MarkusK> it has been written

<MarkusK> yes

Frank: action continued

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

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 better idea.
... 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?

+q

<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 that
... 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 somewhere
... 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?

<Hassan> +1

<sandro> +1 adjourn

ChrisW: hearing none, I propose we adjourn.

Meeting Adjourned

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