<Harold> zakim [NRCC] is me

<sandro> like this: ACTION: Allen to fly to the moon

<Allen> OK

<ChrisW> scribenick: Allen_Ginsberg

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F3#minutes

<Allen> Chris: f2f3 minutes now on wiki

<Allen> Chris: too soon to approve

<Allen> Will approve next week

<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Aug/0041.html

<Allen> last week telecon minutes posted

<Allen> Approve?

<Allen> Does not have regrets or attendance

<Allen> David will send email to Alex to please update attendance - regrets

<Allen> No updates to agenda

<Donald_Chapin> nothing new

<Allen> Liason?

<Allen> UCR

UCR

<sandro> Allen: UC1 is clearly about exchanging both facts and rules. Maybe Sven's question was about an earlier version or something.

<sandro> Allen: (addressing Sven's review of UCR)

<sandro> ChrisW: I haven't finished putting in the action updates from last week.

<ChrisW> ACTION: allen to post the previous work on links between reqs and [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/05-rif-minutes.html#action01]

<ChrisW> UC

<rifbot> Created ACTION-98 - Post the previous work on links between reqs and [on Allen Ginsberg - due 2006-09-12].

<sandro> ACTION-98 CLOSED

<sandro> Looking at: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/products to see overview of topics

<LeoraMorgenstern> what document is Chris reading from?

<LeoraMorgenstern> URL?

<sandro> Chris is probably looking at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/open

<LeoraMorgenstern> Okay, thanks.

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Use_Cases

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

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/3

<sandro> "Which CSFs (other than Alignment) does the XML syntax requirement support? "

<sandro> CSFs are http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Goals

<sandro> look at 9-circle diagram near top of that page

<sandro> csma: The idea is to show that XML is important for more than just W3C.

<sandro> csma: ie it supports widescale adoption in other ways, too.

<sandro> ChrisW: + low cost of implementation

<sandro> ChrisW: + Extensibility

<sandro> ChrisW: what about Interoperability?

<sandro> csma: That's interop between rules

<sandro> FrankMcCabe: link between XML and extensibility is pretty weal

<sandro> sandro: I don't know if it's weak yet -- I don't know how we're doing extensibility

<DaveReynolds> -1 on XML having strong support for the extesibility CSF

<sandro> csma: I think XML is a CSF itself -- it makes RIF *mentally* easier to adopt

<GaryHallmark> xml syntax supports low cost implementation because you can reuse standard language tools

<sandro> FrankMcCabe: That is -- "low cost of adoption"

<sandro> csma: Implementation is one part of adoption

<sandro> sandro: low cost of software development (adoption by vendors); low cost of deployment (adoption by end-users).

<sandro> FrankMcCabe: you could interpret "implementation" more generally

<ChrisW> ACTION: Frank to draft solution to Issue # [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/05-rif-minutes.html#action02]

<rifbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Frank

<ChrisW> ACTION: Francis to draft solution to Issue 3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/05-rif-minutes.html#action03]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-99 - Draft solution to Issue 3 [on Francis McCabe - due 2006-09-12].

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/4

<sandro> ChrisW: How about Frank looks at all the issues around linking Reqs o Goals and CSFS, issue 3, 4, 13

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Document_issues?highlight=%28ucr%29%7C%28issues%29

<sandro> ammend action 99 to cover issues 4 and 13 as well

<ChrisW> ACTION: Allen to deal with ISSUE-5 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/05-rif-minutes.html#action04]

<sandro> rifbot not happy about the database being offline either.

<ChrisW> NOTE that rifbot stopped before ACTION 4

<Allen> I'm scribing again

<PaulaP> Axel sent regrets

<Allen> Action review for RIFRAF

<Allen> Hassan's Action?

<Allen> Hassan and Christian will talk

<Allen> continued

<Allen> Alex and Axel not here

<Allen> End of action review

<Allen> Issues

<Allen> Taxonomy/ontology tools for building RIFRAF artifacts?

<Hassan> Great idea - but we need to agree on terms

<Allen> Should we use OWL?

<FrankMcCabe> we should use RIF

<Allen> Or RDF/RDFS

<Allen> Frank: excellant idea.

<Allen> Hassan +1

<Allen> Hassan: but does OWL have expressiveness?

<Allen> Sandro: seems like it could be good enough

<Allen> Hassan: agrees, but does everyone else agree?

<Allen> Chris: even if something in RIFRAF is beyond OWL, doesn't mean it doesn't go in RIFRAF

<Zakim> csma, you wanted to ask about the link between UC and reqs

<Allen> Dave: what does owl encoding buy us?

<FrankMcCabe> OWL would enhance precision

<Allen> Dave: if it is only for people why do it?

<Allen> Chris: will need to include text annotation. Problem is we are beyond capabilities of questionaire tech is doing this.

<Allen> Dave: this is less work than fixing questionaire?

<Allen> Sandro: looks like it is

<Allen> Christian: encoding in owl buys us help in extracting the meaning of the terms

<Allen> Dave: need to analysis questionaire data

<Allen> Hassan: don't think it will be that much work and will be a time saver....Questionaire is losing forest for trees.

<Allen> Hassan: would like to discuss specifications with sandro

<Allen> Chris: might want to ask Axel as well... contunue to pursue this idea

<sandro> general sense: let's go ahead

<Allen> Move on to Technical Design

<Allen> Action Review

<Allen> Peter's action done

<Allen> Any discussion on Peter's versus pre-existing wiki?

<Allen> Christian: if we remove negation aren't they the same?

<Allen> Chris and Harold agree with that

<Allen> Christian: could be used for first draft of technical design

<Allen> Michael: semantics doesn't make sense for naf

<Allen> csma: didn't understand M's email

<Allen> Michael: agreed, but this was clarified in 2nd email.

<Allen> Michael: naf changes what is an intended models

<Allen> Michael: naf makes a global difference

<Harold> We could start with http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/A.1_Basis%3A_Positive_Conditions and extend those to Horn rules in Phase 1.

<Allen> Csma: for phase 1 it makes no difference...

<Allen> Michael: phase 2 naf would require more but compatible with earlier

<Allen> csma: do phase 1 w/o negation

<Allen> JeffP: what about individual vs data values for variables in P's proposal

<Allen> Chris: michael's proposal was different from P's in that way

<Allen> Michael: also need to divide predicates along those lines too then

<Allen> Chris: does M's semantics include that (possibly)

<Allen> M: yes

<Allen> but it was a general framework not a semantics per s

<Allen> Chris: is breaking the universe up this way required for phase 1

<Allen> Harold: for many purposes not necessary, but not a major problem if we need to do it later

<DaveReynolds> +1 to starting with union, RDF would want to bind variables to both kinds

<Allen> could add these separate domains into later refinements

<Allen> Harold: it should not contain this

<Allen> core is union; extensions could be refinements

<Hassan> My phone is dead ... I'call

<Allen> JeffP: these issues can be related in some way, might want to think more carefully

<Hassan> I'm back - sorry!

<Allen> design choices could impact the way we extend to negation

<Allen> Michael: not related. data types uses sorts. negation proceeds same with or without sorts

<Allen> Hassan: agree with M.

<Allen> Chris: question is do we need it in the core?

<Allen> Hassan: this semantics is agnostic to the universe of discourse

<Harold> We could have a uniform 'universe' of constants initially, then split into "i" and "d" constants, then split "d" according to XML Part 2 (Datatypes). Maybe we don't want new kinds of variables for all of these refinements of constants, instead permit certain kinds of 'generic' variables (for some of these distinctions).

<Allen> Chris: only one has been proposed so far and that one makes the distinction. Can we simply that?

<Allen> Hassan: it is silly to have that.

<Allen> Chris: not silly. should it be in core or in extension.

<Allen> JeffP: another way is to distinguish predicates.

<Allen> eg, if you have builtin than its variables have type info

<Allen> Frank: puzzled by peter's intention.

<Allen> Michael: typing variables is problematic. Don't make the distinction in the core.

<Allen> csma: support that. first version should be simple. reaction to core will tell us what to do

<Harold> I agree with Chris and Michael and Christian: Easier not make distinction in first core.

<Allen> Chris: next step - put peter's work in wiki page and connect it to technical design

<Allen> but delete negation and revise interpretation to get rid of distinction

<Allen> Michael: start new wiki page with original?

<Allen> Chris: no.

<Allen> Harold: can help

<Allen> Harold: can M's proposal be the starting point (made compatible with peter's)

<ChrisW> ACTION: harold to start new wiki page on the core language to include Peter's proposal modulo changes we discussed [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/05-rif-minutes.html#action05]

<csma> +1

<JeffP> +1

<PaulaP> bye

<Allen> Chris: adjorn

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: Allen_Ginsberg
WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <Allen_Ginsberg> ...
Inferring Scribes: Allen_Ginsberg

WARNING: 0 scribe lines found (out of 315 total lines.)
Are you sure you specified a correct ScribeNick?


WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: Allen Allen_Ginsberg Chris ChrisW Christian Csma Dave DaveReynolds Dave_Reynolds Donald_Chapin Frank FrankMcCabe GaryHallmark Gary_Hallmark GiorgosStoilos Harold Hassan Hassan_Ait-Kaci IBM IPcaller IVML JeffP JosDeRoo Jos_De_Roo Jos_de_Bruijn LeoraMorgenstern MalaMehrotra Mala_Mehrotra MarkusK Michael MichaelKifer Mike_Dean NRCC P29 P41 PaulaP SaidTabet Said_Tabet StellaMitchell aaaa aabb johnhall josb kifer mdean patranja rifbot sandro 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: 5 Sep 2006
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2006/09/05-rif-minutes.html
People with action items: allen francis frank harold