SV_MEETING_TITLE -- 29 Aug 2006

<csma> hello

<Harold> zakim ??P29 is me

<Harold> zakim P29 is me

<ChrisW> chris: tells alex how to scribe

<csma> scribenick: AlexKozlenkov

chris: next meeting next Tuesday

<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Aug/0021.html

chris: the 8/8 meeting posted after SAid's amendments

<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Aug/0025.html

chris: no objections to accept 8/8

axel: Wiki page for clarifying negation

<csma> ok, I do it

<ChrisW> ACTION: axel to make a wiki page for negation [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action01]

<AxelPolleres> it was entered without colon, thus not recognized.

chris: last week serious IRC problems
... accepted August 22 minutes
... liason activities--no outstanding actions
... PRR to be discussed this week?

Christian: Fair Isaac have nominated somebody to represent here
... should be registered but I cannot see him

chris: still need a PRR liason

Alex: JBoss guys to join RIF, possible liason for PRR

Donald: successful Beijing meeting on SBVR
... ISO SBVR process successfully continued

chris: to discuss use cases now

allen: improve consistency
... issues 9 and 10 addressed
... could be changed back easily
... the look of the boxes not really a problem, not able to duplicate issue 11
... could not see display problems
... working draft is OK in any browsers

sandro: the official one is fixed

allen: item 7 a more substantial one
... do this as a group, a separate teleconference perhaps

chris: we need to discuss issue 7
... issue 9 and 10 are done
... issue 11, we must keep track

sandro: if nobody objects, the issue will be closed

chris: editing and formatting 9 and 10, next week will be closed after people have a chance to comment
... issue 11
... sandro, leave as an open issue

sandro: sure

chris: move it to a persistent action?

sandro: not sure

debra: agree with that

chris: editors are working on the wikipage and the process is painful for generating a working draft
... we should remeber as a group that a new draft is generated

sandro: everybody looks at the draft before it is published
... small changes can be made directly

<csma> Sandro has already an action on that (action ID 58)

chris: close issue 11

<scribe> ACTION: deboragh close issue 11 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action02]

<csma> ACTION: Deborah to close action item 11 (to be moved to action 58) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action03]

can we remove that?

<ChrisW> issue 7 is a review by Sven Groppe

chris: issue 7

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/7

chris: summarizing his views
... stylistic changes that I do not agree with

uggestion 1: start with the discussion of RIF and enumerate requiremens rather than UC

chris: anyone agrees with this?
... I'd rather keep the document as is

sandro: let him have a look at the last draft

christian: he prefers to have UC linked to Requirements

Hassan: it would not hurt to have a summary before each UC
... requirements are now present
... if we addd links to requirements from UC, this would answer Sven's concerns

chris, eventually, we will have these links

<Hassan> +1

christian: do not need to have examples of translation
... UC should make it clear that a translation is needed

chris: current UC's do that?

christian: not all
... use cases should not be about only about the use of rules but more focused on interchange

axel: we could go back to UC's and add concrete languages?
... it could be solved in this way

chris: 1st f2f decided that specific languages will not be mentioned

hassan: debated before, agree that the languages not required

<csma> +1 to Hassan not to have concrete language

axel: mention an example?
... if we do not want this, so be it
... finally, it would be nice to have UC and requirements to be connected

chris: this is the work to be done

axel: still give example languages where this use case can apply concretly (without referring to the concrete syntax) of languages

<csma> Is that clear that RIF is itself a rule language?

<Hassan> Good question, Chris!

allen: on interchange, interchange between RIF and language is also an interchange
... RIF<->language is also an interchange

chris: the interchange should be specific, the wholistic view is not enough

<AxelPolleres> actually, the original use caes were a lot more specific, we abstracted them on purpose.

christian: to be more specific, I tried to extract the processing from UC and failed
... that is a problem with UC non-specificity

<AxelPolleres> 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.)

<Harold> 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)?

chris: can christian make a more concrete statement about particular UC's

christian: it looks that the processing model is missing

<Allen> Harold, I meant that the term could be used to cover that case too

<ChrisW> ACTION: csma to post an example of processing model in use cases [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action04]

<csma> ACTION: csma to post an example of an UC not being clear enough about the processing model [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action05]

chris: another item from Sven's review: annotation of UC's to phase 1 or 2
... any comments on that?
... point 6 of review is now clear
... point 7: only exchange of the facts or rules for UC 1.1
... negotiating cross-rule contracts across platforms
... is it clear in the UC whether the rules or facts are interchanged
... seems reasonable
... it needs to be answered
... allen will have a look

csma: about point 6, which way it has been clarified?

chris: RIF is about interchange
... the UCR document is now better, so it has been clarified in the abstract of the 2nd WD

<Zakim> csma, you wanted to ask which way point 6 was clarified

<Harold> Do we regard facts as special rules (having 'empty-conjunction' = 'true' bodies)? Or, do we treat (ground) facts specially (eg. to access databases)?

chris: point 8: reorganize the document for separating UC and requirements, it will become clearer

deborah: add that to the issue description

chris: there will overlap between UC and requirements but the separation will be more clear

<csma> ACTION: Deborah to summarise the discussion to issue 7 description [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action06]

chris: rule extensions to OWL, will be done when requirements are linked
... add conclusions
... references to resources for real-worlkd examples

c/world/world

chris: concrete languages or test cases
... test cases, we will have that, rule systems, no

<AxelPolleres> +1 to express as response the intention to add concrete testcases to each use case later on.

hassan: eventually, we are converging to the XML dialect that will be an intersection of a few languages

chris: it is needed but not in the UC
... the test cases is a separate document
... we start off with UC and requirements and that is how RIF is progressing

<AxelPolleres> well, we should of course back-check whether the testcases cover the use cases and vice-versa, right?

csma: should we leave one week for the group to consider an issue?

chris: some issues could be shorter or longer

csma: OK

chris: that finishes Allen's issues
... heartbeat requirements fot the next WD
... October 10, the next WD

<Hassan> +1 with csma

chris: a new draft of UCR not a problem?

allen: does not seem as big job

chris: the major part is associating UC and requirements

allen: is the link supposed to be complete?

chris: every UC should motivate a requirement
... is the opposite true?

<csma> 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

sandro: it would be good

<Zakim> sandro, you wanted to muse about adding results of RIFRAF survey

sandro: use of XML, one example
... add results of RIFRAF questionnaire to the next UCR document
... just a suggestion

csma: the feedback will be useful but in UCR?

hassan: UCR is separate
... the classification work and technical design will use these results

<Harold> Sandro, I was disconnected from my Skype access to the W3C bridge, and the conference code seems no longer to be valid.

csma: answers should not be in the UCR document

<sandro> That's odd, Harold. Can you do the Admin Assistance code?

<Harold> Also *0 did not get me someone.

hassan: agree

<sandro> Ah.

csma: the feedback will be useful, however, so it will be useful to publish that separately
... where?

<Harold> I used this.

chris: RIFRAF will be separate

<sandro> Very odd, Harold -- it just worked for me on a second line.

<Harold> OK, I'll try again.

hassan: produce an ontology of the RIFRAF

sandro: a non-normative result, not part of the standard

<Harold> Sandr, it works again, thanks!

csma: the answers should not be normative, not even a result
... requirements is the main thing

chris: the extensibility mechanism will be linked to that classification

csma: got your point

sandro: the results of the classification may be part of the rectrack, it is easier to remove than add

chris: certainly if we are publishing, we need editors for RIFRAF

<ChrisW> ACTION: on chairs to think aboutr RIFRAF editor [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action07]

<AxelPolleres> Depending that you concretize the role of the RIFRAF document more... I could be a volunteer.

chris: sandro agree that a separate RIFRAF doc is required

csma: linking UC with requirements should be an issue

chris: what happend
... what happend

oops

allen: no consistency across UC's

<csma> ACTION: allen to post the previous work on links between reqs and UC [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action08]

chris: allen any other issues in UCR?

allen, no

<Zakim> csma, you wanted to propose a path to UCR WD3

csma: we should first agree on all short term issues
... for draft 3, we need to assign priorities

chris: for example, one week to submit the issues in the current WD

<csma> ACTION: chrsi to send email to inform everybody of process toward UCR WD3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action09]

chris: within two weeks, the group agrees which issues will be addressed with the WD3
... outstanding items
... for RIFRAF, outstanding actions

frank: simplify the questionnaire

hassan: the idea is to use a tree to open a branch
... in this case, one does not answer the lower level questions

frank: does the W3C questionnaire technology allow this

axel: no it is not possible

hassan: the logical form could be followed so that semantic distance could be computed

<Harold> 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?

hassan: coould post the way it could be organized

<csma> ACTION: work with Frank to augment type discriminators proposal (ID 88) [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action10]

hassan: we will talk about it next week

frank: the questionnaire needs more structure

ture

chris: Frank and Hassan could work on types, to make it more hierarchical

<csma> ACTION: franck and hassan to work on a hierarchy of type-related discriminators [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action11]

hassan: I started with types but it should be possible for all discriminators

<AxelPolleres> we have to formalize which answers exclude each other and then find an oprimally ordered BDD :-) then we have the ontology! :-)))

<sandro> sandro: does it make sense to do this in OWL now, or soon? is it obvious to anyone how to do that?

<FrankMcCabe> That would be an interesting test case for OWL

<csma> ACTION: record questionnaire answers for JBoss and XUL in an email (action 89) [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action12]

<csma> ACTION: sync questionaire questions back to RAF wiki page (action 90) [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action13]

<csma> ACTION: include Paula's questions to questionnaire (action 91) [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action14]

chris: action review is completed
... next week start talking about technical design

<sandro> +1 adjourn

<csma> +1

<PaulaP> bye

adjourn now

<JeffP> bye

- DRAFT -

SV_MEETING_TITLE

29 Aug 2006

Attendees

Contents

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output