SV_MEETING_TITLE -- 26 Sep 2006

'26 Sept RIF agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Sep/0069.html'

<csma> Scribe: Mala Mehrotra

<csma> Scribenick: MalaMehrotra

<Allen> Hi

<Francois> I hear you clearly.

<Deborah_Nichols> sound good to me - deborah

<LeoraMorgenstern> Regarding the minutes:

<LeoraMorgenstern> some attendees are missing

csma: Next meeting is next wwek . Propose postpone accepting last week's minutes

<LeoraMorgenstern> Okay, will post on mailing list

<sandro> (Mohamed Zergaoui, INNOVIMAX)

csma: Amendments to agenda? None

<cgi-irc> Scribe: cgi-irc = PVincent

csma: Sandro will record the actions and close them.

F2F4

csma: Agenda - F2F4

peter: Putting in registration information on the web

<sandro> MalaMehrotra, a like like "topic: something" will make "something" a new heading in the minutes.

csma: Post regrets if not ab;le to attend

<AxelPolleres> Please send fax number also by mail.

csma: F2F5 - Michael asked about it last time. WHo should host it
... January probable date for F2F5. Tech Plenirary in Jan at MIT. collocate with that. Sandro's action item.

<sandro> ACTION: Sandro investigate whether we can get a large enough room for a F2F5 at the mini-tech-plenary at MIT in January. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action01]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-121 - Investigate whether we can get a large enough room for a F2F5 at the mini-tech-plenary at MIT in January. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2006-10-03].

<MoZ> Sorry, I will be a little late (another telcon finishing)

<sandro> ChrisW: Maybe we'll have F2F6 at http://www2007.org/, so F2F5 should be in Europe.

<AxelPolleres> http://www2007.org/

Chris Welty - WWW Conference in Banff in May. Next

Mike Kifer: F2F6 in Banff.

csma: F2F5 end of January.

Mike: Too short between F2F5 and F2F6. Normally 5 months?

<AxelPolleres> I'd personally prefer mid feb

csma: Closer to 3 months between F2F

<sandro> Sandro: Charter says "Face-to-face meetings will be held every two to four months."

like 3-4 months is presecribed by WWW

csma: More like end of January- Feb.

Sandro: Can someone look into organizing details for F2F6 in Banff

Csma: Find who to organize F2F6 in Banff

<sandro> ACTION Christian to investigate F2F6 being colocated with WWW2007 in Banff

Csma: Next Action - Liason

<sandro> ACTION: Christian to investigate F2F6 being colocated with WWW2007 in Banff [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action02]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-122 - Investigate F2F6 being colocated with WWW2007 in Banff [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2006-10-03].

Mike Kifer: RuleML conference after ISWC - stay 2 more days. OWL-Ed workshop also collocated both on time and place.

<AxelPolleres> http://2006.ruleml.org/

<AxelPolleres> http://owl-workshop.man.ac.uk/OWLWorkshop06.html

Mike: Sept 30. deadline. Business Rules conference in Washington in the week of ISWC.

csma: Action Item 100. Axel will be the editor.

<johnhall> nothing on SBVR

csma: PVincent - will you join PRR as well?

<cgi-irc> Sorry I'm muted!

<cgi-irc> PaulV: TIBCO will rejoin PRR when rejoin OMG

csma: Next is UCR

<sandro> PaulV, can you try "/nick Paul" ?

<sandro> that worked, Paul.

<Paul> Thx :)

<sandro> action-38 continued

<sandro> action-41 continued

csma: Action on Chris contd. for relationship of OWL and RDF. Action 38 is continued.

<sandro> action-72 continued -- csma will try to talk Dan in person this week

Sandro: send email to say some action items are done - will be desirable

Deborah did send email will discuss when her turn comes.

<sandro> action-99 done

<sandro> action-105 -- John says he'll finish it today

<sandro> action-115 redundtant with Frank's -- a mistake.

csma: Issues

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/open

<sandro> issue-3

<csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Sep/0067.html

Frank: Interoperability and extensibility supported. Extensibility was dropped. XML syntax supports extensibility within its model. XML extensibility strategy being reported on. by Frank

<sandro> Frank: XML has an extensibility strategy -- not universally used (eg SOAP "must understand") -- based on ignoring structures you don't understand.

Frank: XML does support extensibility. There is a link between supporting XML for extensibility and CSF.

Csma: Perhaps people did not understand it..
... Propose resolution at the next meeting.
... Issue 4:also posted by Frank

<csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Sep/0068.html

Frank: com[pliance model and interoperability CSF diagram - was dropped in

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

Frank: Don't know why it was dropped in last F2F?

sandro: doesn't know why

<DavidHirtle> I think it was just due to lack of time for discussion/consensus

<DavidHirtle> (before the last draft)

sandro: Most people did not understand the concept - that is why it was dropped -- as far as I can remember

frank: have a simple compliance model means varying the model to adapt to the specification of interoperability

<sandro> Frank: Compliance Model is higher/meta level than Default Behavior

frank: compliance model is at the meta level - RIF spec is a document. To be compliant look at the various features. Complain model gives you what you need to be compliant for interoperability

<DavidHirtle> +1 to ChrisW

<DavidHirtle> we can resolve these issues now

Chris: No one was speaking up on this last time. In that accept it and move on.

csma: Issue 3:Propose to accept Frank's solution

<DavidHirtle> Frank's solution: the XML syntax req supports both the interoperability and the extensibility CSFs

Dave Reynolds: Not sure about the proposal.

<sandro> DaveReynolds: I think RDF/XML supports extensibility where XML does not -- XML tools do not generally automatically support extensibilkity.

csma: we are chartered to see if XML supports extesibility , not look at some other language

<sandro> Frank: XML's approach to extensibility is probably not strong enough for RIF -- RDF/XML's might or might not be.

Frank: XML or RDF model strong enough for RIF

Dave: Geberic XML tools do not allow extensibility

<sandro> Frank: XML tools *do* allow arbitrary content to go through -- DaveReynolds is wrong.

<sandro> csma: please move this to e-mail.

<DavidHirtle> Proposed: the Compliance Model requirement supports the Interoperability CSF

<csma> However, the reason that a compliance model supports interoperability

<csma> is that a formal understanding of what it means to comply to the RIF

<csma> is *essential* to the succesful use of RIF, and hence to

<csma> interoperability. The alternative to a formal compliance model is an

<csma> informal one: i.e., that defined by what popular tools support.

<sandro> +1 this text

<sandro> RESOLVED that the compliance model supports interoperability, for this reason.

<sandro> RESOLVED: that the compliance model requirement supports interoperability CSF, for this reason.

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/5

<sandro> skip issue 5 -- actions pending

csma: Skip issue 5 and move to issue 6

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/6

<DavidHirtle> it was closed in a previous telecon, right?

<DavidHirtle> oh, nevermind -- that was the previous one

csma: Explain issue 6.2

<Deborah_Nichols> csma: Action 114 on Chris W addressed issue 6.2

Chris W. Implementability and using std. components. difference is that semantics of RIF should be such that it shouldn't allow people to solve currently insolved problems

Chris W/ Design should make people use what is out there - components

<sandro> csma: Implementability means: implementaiton requires no new science

ChrisW. one rqmt for implementability pushes for - no new developemnt solution to be looked at

<sandro> csma: while "standard components" means implement can re-use existing software modules, eg XML for parsers.

ChrisW. Other one on component encourages use of what is already out there.

<sandro> this is about ISSUE-6

Csma: Dave R. Are you convinced by Chris's rqmt?

<sandro> DaveReynolds: I am convinced by this; the question is who is going to fix the text

Dave R. No Objection for Chris's suggestion.

Chris W. will clarify this

<sandro> ACTION: Chris to propose new text clarifying ISSUE-6 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action03]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-123 - Propose new text clarifying ISSUE-6 [on Chris Menzel - due 2006-10-03].

<sandro> ACTION: ChrisW to propose new text clarifying ISSUE-6 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action04]

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

csma: Issue 7 - Deborah sent email on that

<sandro> ACTION: Chris Welty to propose new text clarifying ISSUE-6 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action05]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-124 - Welty to propose new text clarifying ISSUE-6 [on Chris Menzel - due 2006-10-03].

<csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Sep/0061.html

<sandro> ACTION: Welty to propose new text clarifying ISSUE-6 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action06]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-125 - Propose new text clarifying ISSUE-6 [on Christopher Welty - due 2006-10-03].

Deborah: Has summarized the issue in an email
... Criticism on the use cases - some things not resolved. So revisited it.

<DavidHirtle> -1 to moving the use cases

-- Is there a general agreemnent on length of use cases. Move it with more description with RIf

-- use cases should be illustration in the features fro RIF. Focus use cases to be focussed more. #3 under 7 - should we do any more work to focus the use case rqmt.

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

David: Derive rqmts from the use cases?

Csma: He menat not just a pointer from use case to rqmt but some explanation is needed

<FrankMcCabe> gotto go ... see y'all next week

Dave: this requirement sounds backward. Looks liek each use case willneed to be turned out

<sandro> Ciao, FrankMcCabe.

Deborah: UC were motivational to begin with and they could point to more than oone rqmt. SO w/o restructuring do the linking to rqmt.

csma: work we haven't done anything on this front yet.

Leora: UC were at a high level of descriptions. If there was some more detailed level of description then the rqmts would be much clearer.

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

-- post the rqmts list

<sandro> As published: http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-ucr/#Requirements

-- embedded meta-data for eg. hard to link the UC and R add more meat to them by being more concrete.

sandro: Each UC should be manifested a test case

CSMA: 3 different sources of rqmt - UC, RL to be covered, from the charter of the wg.

Leora: shorten the rqmt. MAke the UC more solid. In order to illustrate the link more solidly

<sandro> +1 to putting real rules, in real rule languages in at least some of the use cases.

<sandro> (maybe off in a different, Test Cases document.)

Allen: Some of the R are non-functional - cannot pont to it like security, implemenatbility, semantic coverage, etc.

<LeoraMorgenstern> Mala, I am not arguing, per se, for shortening the requirements: Rather, I am arguing for making at least some use cases more concrete, while recognizing the need not to add length to the already over-long use cases.

-- soon is an issue too. Come up with links for meta data is doable.

<sandro> ACTION: Allen to write intro text for UCR, explaining how there are different sources of requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action07]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-126 - Write intro text for UCR, explaining how there are different sources of requirements [on Allen Ginsberg - due 2006-10-03].

csma: Allen to distinguish different types of R. for the UC. Analyze the R - then we will see for which R we can be more specific. Propose to people to write a draft fro their UC?
... Any other proposla on how to proceed for this? For now, take UC one by one.

<LeoraMorgenstern> ok, that's reasonable

CW: Leora take a shot at the medical UC and go withthe writing and then have other people take that as a guide if they like it.

<LeoraMorgenstern> (I somehow managed to disconnect myself from the call, but am still on the IRC)

<LeoraMorgenstern> I'm here but off the phone

<LeoraMorgenstern> Anyway, yes, I'll do what Chris asked

<LeoraMorgenstern> Let me get back onthe call

<csma> Will you work on the medical UC?

<sandro> Sandro: is this about adding more details -- like real rules -- or about linking to requirements ?

Leora: Will do. Adding more concrete stuff to the rules.

Sandro: Do second part without first?

<sandro> Chris: I think we should leave out specific rules at this point, but if you can address the second half -- maybe at a little detail, but focus showing how it connnects to requirements.

CW: Laeave UC without real rules. Make the UC more specific. Add text to add R not covered. Avoid adding specific Rules.

<sandro> LeoraMorgenstern: I'll probably write the rules, and then cut them out.

<sandro> +1 concreteness

Leora: easier to do with specific rules/ WIll edit it out for the WG though and hold it for the test cases document.

<sandro> Sandro: hold on to the concrete rules for the test cases document.

<sandro> LeoraMorgenstern: it's easier for me to add specific rules, but I understand that you don't want the concrete rules in the UCR.

csma: By analyzing teh R you can see if teh UC needs to be made more specific.

<sandro> ACTION? Leora to propose revision to the medical use case, adding links to requrements, with some supporting arguments

CW: misunderstood the example being proposed by CSMA

<sandro> ACTION: Leora to propose revision to the medical use case, adding links to requrements, with some supporting arguments [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action08]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-127 - Propose revision to the medical use case, adding links to requrements, with some supporting arguments [on Leora Morgenstern - due 2006-10-03].

<sandro> csma/ChrisW: adding links to all requirements, with some supporting arguments --- should be done for all requirements/usecases.

csma: May not want to be done for UCs. Do for one first. If supporting arguments not convincing then revise some of the UCs.

<sandro> csma/ChrisW: step 2 -- if that's not convincing, then we need to revise requirements.

csma: Who wants to do for #2? Francois?

<Francois> I could ask Paula to do it when she is back.

csma: Should it ne done by someone who did not write the UC?

<Francois> I repeat: I could ask Paula to do it when she is back.

csma: Dave-R? R for UC2?

<sandro> DaveReynolds: No, I'm not convinced by it, so I can't really do it.

Dave: I am not right person for this UC as I am not convinced about it.

<Francois> +q

Francois: Paula could be considered for this.

csma: some one who did not wriet it is desirable.

<Francois> zakm, mute me.

-- action for Paula. Linkl UC2 to R.

CW: cannot give action to Paula if she is not here.

<Francois> paula is not on vacation, she is giving a talk.

csma: Give Francois the actuon to talk to Paula.

<Francois> I take the action.

<pfps> gtg.

csma: Paul volunteered for next one.

<Francois> very fine.

<sandro> ACTION: Francois to talk to Paula about linking UC2 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action09]

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

<sandro> ACTION: Francois to talk to Paula about linking UC2 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action10]

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

<csma> paul, do you take the action for UC 3?

<Francois> rifbot: I am here!

<sandro> ACTION: Bry to talk to Paula about linking UC2 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action11]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-128 - Talk to Paula about linking UC2 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [on Franï¿½ois Bry - due 2006-10-03].

<Paul> Paul is here: can take UC 3 but not my domain :)

<sandro> ACTION: Paul to talk to Paula about linking UC3 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action12]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-129 - Talk to Paula about linking UC3 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [on Paul Vincent - due 2006-10-03].

<AxelPolleres> I take use case 10, but I also have to leave.

<sandro> ACTION: Axel to link UC10 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action13]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-130 - Link UC10 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [on Axel Polleres - due 2006-10-03].

csma.UC4 volunteer.

<AxelPolleres> well, i thought that i am the author of 10???? ;-)

Leora: Why am I taking one on medical support if idea is not the author for the UC?

csma. No idea is also to show the way for linking.

<AxelPolleres> let the authors give a try, and then revise byt others... makes most sense imo. anyway need to go, i will see in the minutes

Allen: Am I a good candidate for mine?

csma: Allen volunteered for UC3

<Paul> Agrreed

csma: Paul to do UC4? Agreed

<sandro> ACTION: Paul to link UC4 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action14]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-131 - Link UC4 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [on Paul Vincent - due 2006-10-03].

John hall: UC5

<sandro> ACTION: John to link UC5 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action15]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-132 - Link UC5 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [on John Hall - due 2006-10-03].

csma: Leora tool 6.

sandro: who got 1?

Deborah: Chris John did 1?

<csma> I am still online?

<johnhall> Sorry, I have to go - OMG is calling

<Deborah_Nichols> cmsa, you are still online

sandro: not sure who proposed the OWL one originally? Any OWl fans for that?

<sandro> Harold - BPEL

<sandro> Gary - OWL

<sandro> GiorgosStoilos, #8 Vocab Mapping

sandro: #8 - Gorgos

<sandro> ADJOURN

<sandro> ACTION: Gary to link UC7 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action16]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-133 - Link UC7 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [on Gary Hallmark - due 2006-10-03].

<sandro> ACTION: Stoilos to link UC8 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action17]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-134 - Link UC8 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [on Giorgos Stoilos - due 2006-10-03].

<sandro> ACTION: Harold to link UC9 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action18]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-135 - Link UC9 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [on Harold Boley - due 2006-10-03].

- DRAFT -

SV_MEETING_TITLE

26 Sep 2006

Attendees

Contents

'26 Sept RIF agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Sep/0069.html'

F2F4

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output