14:59:13 RRSAgent has joined #rif 14:59:13 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-irc 14:59:19 +Sandro 14:59:30 +PaulaP 14:59:37 ChrisW has changed the topic to: RIF Agenda 29 Aug: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Aug/0028.html 14:59:41 +Deborah_Nichols 14:59:44 zakim, ??P18 is me 14:59:44 +csma; got it 15:00:05 +??P26 15:00:10 zakim, ??P26 is me 15:00:10 +AlexKozlenkov; got it 15:00:19 zakim, mute me 15:00:19 AlexKozlenkov should now be muted 15:00:34 +[IPcaller] 15:00:39 +Donald_Chapin (was [IPcaller]) 15:00:45 +[IBM] 15:00:52 zakim, mute me 15:00:52 Donald_Chapin should now be muted 15:00:57 hello 15:01:00 zakim, unmute me 15:01:00 AlexKozlenkov should no longer be muted 15:01:18 AxelPolleres has joined #rif 15:01:21 +??P29 15:01:28 +??P31 15:01:40 -??P31 15:01:55 zakim, who is talking? 15:02:01 +??P32 15:02:05 +Axel_Polleres 15:02:07 zakim, ??P32 is me 15:02:07 +pfps; got it 15:02:07 zakim ??P29 is me 15:02:12 zakim, mute 10 15:02:12 sorry, ChrisW, I do not see a party named '10' 15:02:13 ChrisW, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Hassan_Ait-Kaci (14%), AlexKozlenkov (46%), [IBM] (18%), ??P29 (42%), ??P32 (2%) 15:02:27 johnhall has joined #rif 15:02:31 zakim, who is on the phone 15:02:31 I don't understand 'who is on the phone', ChrisW 15:02:33 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:02:33 On the phone I see Hassan_Ait-Kaci, csma (muted), FrankMcCabe, Sandro (muted), PaulaP (muted), Deborah_Nichols (muted), AlexKozlenkov, Donald_Chapin (muted), [IBM], ??P29, pfps, 15:02:34 DaveReynolds has joined #rif 15:02:36 ... Axel_Polleres (muted) 15:02:37 Allen has joined #rif 15:02:41 zakim, who is talking? 15:02:46 +??P33 15:02:47 +Dave_Reynolds (was ??P33) 15:02:50 zakim, mute ??P29 15:02:50 ??P29 should now be muted 15:02:53 ChrisW, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Hassan_Ait-Kaci (9%) 15:03:05 zakim P29 is me 15:03:12 chris: tells alex how to scribe 15:03:23 zakim, ??P29 is Harold 15:03:23 +Harold; got it 15:03:30 +Allen_Ginsberg 15:03:40 +[IPcaller] 15:03:47 zakim, mute me 15:03:47 Allen_Ginsberg should now be muted 15:03:50 zakim, ipcaller is me 15:03:50 +johnhall; got it 15:03:59 zakim, mute me 15:03:59 johnhall should now be muted 15:04:08 scribenick: AlexKozlenkov 15:05:25 chris: next meeting next Tuesday 15:05:28 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Aug/0021.html 15:05:48 zakim, mute me 15:05:48 Harold was already muted, Harold 15:05:57 JeffP has joined #rif 15:06:02 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Aug/0021.html 15:06:05 chris: the 8/8 meeting posted after SAid's amendments 15:06:36 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Aug/0025.html 15:06:38 chris: no objections to accept 8/8 15:07:30 axel: Wiki page for clarifying negation 15:07:55 ok, I do it 15:07:56 +??P1 15:08:13 +??P3 15:08:16 action: axel to make a wiki page for negation 15:08:29 Zakim, ? is mz 15:08:29 sorry, MoZ, I do not recognize a party named '?' 15:08:31 it was entered without colon, thus not recognized. 15:08:33 Zakim, ? is me 15:08:34 sorry, MoZ, I do not recognize a party named '?' 15:08:37 chris: last week serious IRC problems 15:08:40 zakim, ??P1 is me 15:08:40 +JeffP; got it 15:08:44 zakim, unmute me 15:08:44 csma should no longer be muted 15:08:46 Zakim, ??P3 is me 15:08:48 +MoZ; got it 15:08:53 chris: accepted August 22 minutes 15:09:04 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 15:09:22 -Sandro 15:10:00 chris: liason activities--no outstanding actions 15:10:25 chris: PRR to be discussed this week? 15:10:47 Christian: Fair Isaac have nominated somebody to represent here 15:11:10 Christian: should be registered but I cannot see him 15:11:21 chris: still need a PRR liason 15:11:23 + +1.503.317.aaaa 15:11:37 zakim, aaaa is me 15:11:37 +GaryHallmark; got it 15:11:55 Zakim, unmute me 15:11:55 Donald_Chapin should no longer be muted 15:12:02 q+ 15:12:09 Alex: JBoss guys to join RIF, possible liason for PRR 15:12:14 q- 15:12:20 ack donald 15:12:40 Donald: successful Beijing meeting on PRR 15:12:51 s/PRR/SBVR/ 15:13:14 donald: ISO SBVR process successfully continued 15:13:15 zakim, unmute me 15:13:15 Donald_Chapin was not muted, Donald_Chapin 15:13:26 zakim, unmute me 15:13:26 Allen_Ginsberg should no longer be muted 15:13:32 zakim, mute me 15:13:32 Donald_Chapin should now be muted 15:13:33 zakim, mute donald 15:13:33 Donald_Chapin was already muted, ChrisW 15:13:39 chros: to discuss use cases now 15:13:48 +Mala_Mehrotra 15:13:48 s/chros/chris 15:14:34 alan: improve consistency 15:14:44 +Sandro 15:14:52 allen: issues 9 and 10 addressed 15:14:59 s/alan/allen 15:15:18 allen: could be changed back easily 15:15:34 MalaMehrotra has joined #rif 15:15:42 allen: the look of the boxes not really a problem, not able to duplicate issue 11 15:16:07 allen: could not see display problems 15:16:21 -Dave_Reynolds 15:16:23 allen: working draft is OK in any browsers 15:16:53 sandro: the official one is fixed 15:17:04 allen: item 7 a more substantial one 15:17:21 +??P9 15:17:26 allen: do this as a group, a separate teleconference perhaps 15:17:48 chris: we need to discuss issue 7 15:18:06 chris: issue 9 and 10 are done 15:18:24 chris: issue 11, we must keep track 15:18:33 zakim, unmute me 15:18:33 csma should no longer be muted 15:18:40 q+ 15:18:48 sandro: if nobody objects, the issue will be closed 15:19:11 q- 15:19:26 chris: editing and formatting 9 and 10, next week will be closed after people have a chance to comment 15:19:31 chris: issue 11 15:19:46 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 15:19:51 chris: sandro, leave as an open issue 15:19:55 sandro: sure 15:20:18 chris: move it to a persistent action? 15:20:24 sandro: not sure 15:20:35 debra: agree with that 15:21:12 chris: editors are working on the wikipage and the process is painful for generating a working draft 15:21:45 chris: we should remeber as a group that a new draft is generated 15:22:34 sandro: everybody looks at the draft before it is published 15:22:46 sandro: small changes can be made directly 15:22:57 Sandro has already an action on that (action ID 58) 15:23:23 chris: close issue 11 15:23:41 action: deboragh close issue 11 15:23:42 ACTION: Deborah to close action item 11 (to be moved to action 58) 15:23:55 can we remove that? 15:23:56 zakim, unmute me 15:23:56 csma was not muted, csma 15:24:54 issue 7 is a review by Sven Groppe 15:24:54 chris: issue 7 15:25:05 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/7 15:25:09 chris: summarizing his views 15:25:26 chris: stylistic changes that I do not agree with 15:25:57 uggestion 1: start with the discussion of RIF and enumerate requiremens rather than UC 15:26:08 chris: anyone agrees with this? 15:26:19 chris: I'd rather keep the docuemnt as is 15:26:36 s/docuemnt/document 15:26:55 sandro: let him have a look at the last draft 15:27:15 christian: he prefers to have UC linked to Requirements 15:27:37 q+ 15:27:49 MichaelKifer has joined #rif 15:27:50 q? 15:27:55 ack hassan 15:28:14 Hassan: it would not hurt to have a summary before each UC 15:28:27 Hassan: requirements are now present 15:28:50 Hassan: if we addd links to requirements from UC, this would answer Sven's concerns 15:29:00 chris, eventually, we will have these links 15:29:04 q- 15:29:31 q+ 15:29:38 +1 15:29:49 q+ 15:29:54 christian: do not need to have examples of translation 15:30:08 q+ 15:30:09 christian: UC should make it clear that a translation is needed 15:30:27 chris: current UC's do that? 15:30:32 christian: not all 15:31:46 christian: use cases should not be about only about the use of rules but more focused on interchange 15:31:58 q? 15:32:07 ack csma 15:32:13 ack axel 15:32:37 axel: we could go back to UC's and add concrete languages? 15:32:56 axel: it could be solved in this way 15:33:04 q+ 15:33:13 chris: 1st f2f decided that specific languages will not be mentioned 15:34:17 hassan: debated before, agree that the languages not required 15:34:22 +1 to Hassan not to have concrete language 15:34:37 axel: mention an example? 15:34:46 q+ 15:34:55 axel: if we do not want this, so be it 15:35:18 axel: finally, it would be nice to have UC and requirements to be connected 15:35:25 chris: this is the work to be done 15:35:41 axel: still give an example of languages 15:35:41 ack hassan 15:35:49 ack allen 15:36:14 Is that clear that RIF is itself a rule language? 15:36:35 Good question, Chris! 15:36:43 allen: on interchange, interchange between RIF and language is also an interchange 15:36:43 s/an example/example languages where this use case can apply concretly (without referring to the concrete syntax) 15:37:38 allen: RIF<->language is also an interchange 15:38:30 chris: the interchange should be specific, the wholistic view is not enough 15:38:37 q? 15:38:42 ack csma 15:38:48 actually, the original use caes were a lot more specific, we abstracted them on purpose. 15:39:07 christian: to be more specific, I tried to extract the processing from UC and failed 15:39:50 christian: that is a problem with UC non-specificity 15:39:58 so, I suggest let's stick with it. However, it is true that we need more concrete examples later on (when it comes to implementations, etc.) 15:40:00 Allen, you perhaps meant the term 'interchange' might already be used for one-way translation from some existing language (eg. Prolog) into the RIF (without translation out, maybe running it in RIF instead)? 15:40:12 chris: can christian make a more concrete statement about particular UC's 15:40:29 christian: it looks that the processing model is missing 15:40:45 Harold, I meant that the term could be used to cover that case too 15:40:53 action: csma to post an example of processing model in use cases 15:40:57 ACTION: csma to post an example of an UC not being clear enough about the processing model 15:41:05 q? 15:41:53 chris: another item from Sven's review: annotation of UC's to phase 1 or 2 15:42:04 chris: any comments on that? 15:42:35 csma: point 6 of review is now clear 15:42:38 -MoZ 15:42:56 s/csma/Chris/ 15:43:20 chris: point 7: only exchange of the facts or rules for UC 1.1 15:43:26 q+ about which way point 6 was clarified 15:43:44 chris: negotiating cross-rule contracts across platforms 15:43:58 q+ to ask which way point 6 was clarified 15:44:00 chris: is it clear in the UC whether the rules or facts are interchanged 15:44:07 chris: seems reasonable 15:44:13 q? 15:44:40 chris: it needs to be answered 15:44:56 chris: allen will have a look 15:45:16 csma: about point 6, which way it has been clarified? 15:45:45 chris: RIF is about interchange 15:46:04 q+ 15:46:16 chris: the UCR document is now better, so it has been clarified in the abstract of the 2nd WD 15:46:16 ack csma 15:46:16 csma, you wanted to ask which way point 6 was clarified 15:46:17 ack csma 15:46:20 Do we regard facts as special rules (having 'empty-conjunction' = 'true' bodies)? Or, do we treat (ground) facts specially (eg. to access databases)? 15:46:20 ack hassan 15:46:58 chris: point 8: reorganize the document for separating UC and requirements, it will become clearer 15:47:22 deborah: add that tp the issue description 15:47:27 s/tp/to 15:47:48 chris: there will overlap between UC and requirements but the separation will be more clear 15:47:53 ACTION: Deborah to summarise the discussion to issue 7 description 15:48:20 chris: rule extensions to OWL, will be done when requirements are linked 15:48:27 chris: add conclusions 15:48:44 chris: references to resources for real-worlkd examples 15:48:53 c/worldk/world 15:49:02 s/worldk/world 15:49:25 chris: concrete languages or test cases 15:49:37 chris: test cases, we will have that, rule systems, no 15:49:46 q? 15:50:09 +1 to express as response the intention to add concrete testcases to each use case later on. 15:50:16 -Harold 15:50:24 hassan: eventually, we are converging to the XML dialect that will be an intersection of a few languages 15:50:47 chris: it is needed but not in the UC 15:52:05 chris: the test cases is a separate document 15:52:44 chris: we start off with UC and requirements and that is how RIF is progressing 15:52:44 q? 15:52:54 well, we should of course back-check whether the testcases cover the use cases and vice-versa, right? 15:53:28 csma: should we leave one week for the group to consider an issue? 15:53:48 chris: some issues could be shorter or longer 15:53:55 csma: OK 15:54:21 chris: that finishes Allen's issues 15:54:37 chris: heartbeat requirements fot the next WD 15:54:49 chris: October 10, the next WD 15:55:24 +1 with csma 15:55:54 chris: a new draft of UCR not a problem? 15:56:02 allen: does not seem as big job 15:56:13 q? 15:56:17 chris: the major part is associating UC and requirements 15:56:44 q+ to muse about adding results of RIFRAF survey 15:56:47 allen: is the link supposed to be complete? 15:57:16 chris: every UC should motivate a requirement 15:57:24 chris: is the opposite true? 15:57:31 For the record, what I said that Hassan supported is that we should have the 1st WD of the tech spec as our objective for the next heartbeat 15:57:34 sandro: it would be good 15:57:39 +[IPcaller] 15:57:44 ack sandro 15:57:44 sandro, you wanted to muse about adding results of RIFRAF survey 15:57:50 zakim, IPcaller is me 15:57:50 +MichaelKifer; got it 15:57:51 sandro: use of XML, one example 15:57:59 zakim, mute me 15:57:59 MichaelKifer should now be muted 15:58:04 q? 15:58:17 sandro: add results of RIFRAF questionnaire to the next UCR document 15:58:32 sandro: just a suggestion 15:58:37 q+ 15:59:24 csma: the feedback will be useful but in UCR? 15:59:37 ack hassan 15:59:45 hassan: UCR is separate 16:00:26 hassan: the classification work and technical design will use these results 16:01:02 Sandro, I was disconnected from my Skype access to the W3C bridge, and the conference code seems no longer to be valid. 16:01:26 csma: answers should not be in the UCR document 16:01:27 That's odd, Harold. Can you do the Admin Assistance code? 16:01:28 Also *0 did not get me someone. 16:01:29 hassan: agree 16:01:33 Ah. 16:01:53 csma: the feedback will be useful, however, so it will be useful to publish that separately 16:01:57 Zakim, what conference is this? 16:01:57 this is SW_RIF()11:00AM conference code 74394 16:02:00 csma: where? 16:02:20 I used this. 16:02:26 chris: RIFRAF will be separate 16:02:33 +Sandro.a 16:02:37 -Sandro.a 16:02:50 Very odd, Harold -- it just worked for me on a second line. 16:03:02 OK, I'll try again. 16:03:21 hassan: produce an ontology of the RIFRAF 16:03:41 sandro: a non-normative result, not part of the standard 16:03:46 +[IPcaller] 16:04:05 Sandr, it works again, thanks! 16:04:12 q? 16:04:20 csma: the answers should not be normative, not event a result 16:04:28 s/event/even 16:04:47 zakim, [IPcaller] is me 16:04:47 +Harold; got it 16:04:49 csma: requirements is the main thing 16:05:21 chris: the extensibility mechanism will be linked to that classification 16:05:26 zakim, mute me 16:05:26 Harold should now be muted 16:05:36 csma: got your point 16:05:38 q? 16:07:11 sandro: the results of the classification may be part of the rectrack, it is easier to remove than add 16:07:54 chris: certainly if we are publishing, we need editirs for RIFRAF 16:08:03 s/editirs/editors 16:08:04 action: on chairs to think aboutr RIFRAF editor 16:08:49 Depending that you concretize the role of the RIFRAF ocument more... I could be a volunteer. 16:09:06 chris: sandro agree that a separate RIFRAF doc is required 16:09:08 s/ocument/document 16:10:06 csma: linking UC with requirements shoudl be an issue 16:10:23 s/shoudl/should 16:10:39 chris: what happend 16:10:39 chris: what happend 16:10:50 oops 16:11:01 q+ to propose a path to UCR WD3 16:11:24 allen: no consistency across UC's 16:11:51 action: allen to post the previous work on links between reqs and UC 16:12:24 chris: allen any other issues in UCR? 16:12:25 q? 16:12:27 allen, no 16:12:27 ack csma 16:12:27 csma, you wanted to propose a path to UCR WD3 16:12:54 csma: we should first agree on all short term issues 16:13:11 csma: for draft 3, we need to assign priorities 16:13:47 csma: for example, one week to submit the issues in the current WD 16:13:52 s/csma/chris 16:14:27 action: chrsi to send email to inform everybody of process toward UCR WD3 16:14:32 chris: within two weeks, the group agrees which issues will be addressed min the WD3 16:14:38 s/min/with 16:15:19 chris: outstanding items 16:15:33 chris: for RIFRAF, outstanding actions 16:17:29 frank: simplify the questionnaire 16:18:16 hassan: the idea is to use a tree to open a branch 16:18:43 hassan: in this case, one does not answer the lowerl level questions 16:18:54 s/lowerl/lower 16:19:16 frank: does the W3C questionnaire technology allow this 16:19:26 axel: no it is not possible 16:20:00 hassan: the logical form could be followed so that semantic distance could be computed 16:20:00 Frank and Hassan, could we have cross-references between RDF(S) and OWL compatibility on one hand and certain kinds of (order-sorted) type systems on the other hand? 16:20:26 hassan: coould post the way it could be organized 16:21:00 ACTION: work with Frank to augment type discriminators proposal (ID 88) [DONE] 16:22:28 hassan: we will talk about it next week 16:22:39 frank: the questionnaire needs more stru 16:22:41 ture 16:22:51 s/stru/structure 16:23:02 q? 16:23:58 chris: Frank and Hassan could work on types, to make it more hierarchical 16:24:31 action: franck and hassan to work on a hierarchy of type-related discriminators 16:24:35 hassan: I started with types but it should be possible for all discriminators 16:24:45 we have to formalize which answers exclude each other and then find an oprimally ordered BDD :-) then we have the ontology! :-))) 16:25:05 sandro: does it make sense to do this in OWL now, or soon? is it obvious to anyone how to do that? 16:25:26 That would be an interesting test case for OWL 16:25:39 action: record questionnaire answers for JBoss and XUL in an email (action 89) [CONTINUED] 16:27:04 action: sync questionaire questions back to RAF wiki page (action 90) [DONE] 16:27:42 action: include Paula's questions to questionnaire (action 91) [CONTINUED] 16:28:06 -Harold 16:28:09 chris: action review is completed 16:28:38 q? 16:28:39 chris: next week start talking about technical design 16:28:42 +1 adjourn 16:28:42 +1 16:28:46 -GaryHallmark 16:28:47 -pfps 16:28:48 -Mala_Mehrotra 16:28:48 bye 16:28:49 adjourn now 16:28:52 -Deborah_Nichols 16:28:54 -PaulaP 16:28:55 -DaveReynolds 16:28:56 -Hassan_Ait-Kaci 16:28:57 -FrankMcCabe 16:28:58 bye 16:28:59 -Sandro 16:29:00 -Allen_Ginsberg 16:29:02 -JeffP 16:29:03 -Axel_Polleres 16:29:05 -johnhall 16:29:06 rrsagent, make minutes 16:29:06 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html ChrisW 16:29:07 -Donald_Chapin 16:29:10 -MichaelKifer 16:29:35 rrsagent, make minutes public 16:29:35 I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', ChrisW. Try /msg RRSAgent help 16:29:43 rrsagent, make record public 16:30:08 sandro!!! 16:30:15 never mind 16:30:19 sandro, never mind 16:30:53 -AlexKozlenkov 16:36:57 -[IBM] 16:36:58 -csma 16:36:59 SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended 16:37:01 Attendees were Hassan_Ait-Kaci, FrankMcCabe, Sandro, PaulaP, Deborah_Nichols, csma, AlexKozlenkov, Donald_Chapin, [IBM], Axel_Polleres, pfps, Dave_Reynolds, Harold, Allen_Ginsberg, 16:37:03 ... johnhall, JeffP, MoZ, +1.503.317.aaaa, GaryHallmark, Mala_Mehrotra, DaveReynolds, MichaelKifer 16:37:32 csma has left #rif 18:35:30 Zakim has left #rif