14:32:27 RRSAgent has joined #rif 14:32:27 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/10/17-rif-irc 14:32:39 zakim, this will be rif 14:32:39 ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 28 minutes 14:37:02 Meeting: RIF Telecon 10 Oct 06 14:37:02 Chair: Chris Welty 14:37:02 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Oct/0056.html 14:37:02 Scribe: Mike Dean 14:37:14 agenda+ Admin' 14:37:23 agenda+ F2F 14:37:29 agenda+ Liason 14:37:38 agenda+ Technical Design 14:37:51 agenda+ RIF-RAF 14:37:58 agenda+ UCR 14:38:03 agenda+ AOB 14:38:11 zakim, next agendum 14:38:11 agendum 1. "Admin'" taken up [from ChrisW] 14:38:51 rrsagent, make minutes 14:38:51 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/10/17-rif-minutes.html ChrisW 14:39:09 rrsagent, make logs public 14:42:56 zakim, save agenda 14:43:02 ok, ChrisW, the agenda has been written to http://www.w3.org/2006/10/17-rif-agenda.rdf 14:43:32 Meeting: RIF Telecon 17 Oct 06 14:46:36 mdean has joined #rif 14:48:50 ScribeNick: mdean 14:48:50 Regrets: IgorMozetic MinsuJang MichaelSintek JeffPan 14:48:56 Hi, Mike 14:50:25 hi chris 14:52:47 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Oct/0056.html 14:53:09 Francois has joined #rif 14:53:41 zakim is all set up mike, with agenda, you can move to the next item with "next agendum" 14:53:55 zakim, list agenda 14:53:55 I see 7 items remaining on the agenda: 14:53:56 1. Admin' [from ChrisW] 14:53:57 2. F2F [from ChrisW] 14:53:58 3. Liason [from ChrisW] 14:53:59 4. Technical Design [from ChrisW] 14:54:00 5. RIF-RAF [from ChrisW] 14:54:01 6. UCR [from ChrisW] 14:54:03 7. AOB [from ChrisW] 14:54:12 ...and we are already on item 1 14:54:34 looks good - i assume sandro will track the details on the action item status 14:54:51 ChrisW has changed the topic to: 17 Oct RIF agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Oct/0056.html 14:54:56 yes, he or csma 14:55:30 SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started 14:55:37 +Mike_Dean 14:57:01 DaveReynolds has joined #rif 14:57:07 Harold has joined #rif 14:57:20 patranja has joined #rif 14:57:35 FrankMcCabe has joined #rif 14:57:44 josb has joined #rif 14:57:50 +??P7 14:57:52 +Dave_Reynolds (was ??P7) 14:58:20 Allen has joined #rif 14:58:27 +[NRCC] 14:58:28 +[IPcaller] 14:58:28 +??P10 14:58:32 zakim, ipcaller is me 14:58:32 +FrankMcCabe; got it 14:58:41 zakim, [NRCC] is me 14:58:41 +Harold; got it 14:58:41 zakim, ??P10 is me. 14:58:42 +Francois; got it 14:58:51 zakim, mute me. 14:58:51 Francois should now be muted 14:58:53 +josb 14:59:03 +[IBM] 14:59:06 Hassan has joined #rif 14:59:11 zakim, ibm is temporarily me 14:59:11 +ChrisW; got it 14:59:39 LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif 14:59:52 DavidHirtle has joined #rif 14:59:54 +Allen_Ginsberg 15:00:06 +PaulaP 15:00:07 zakim, mute me 15:00:07 Allen_Ginsberg should now be muted 15:00:14 +??P34 15:00:20 +[IPcaller] 15:00:43 cgi-irc has joined #rif 15:00:49 Zakim, ??P34 is Hassan 15:00:49 +Hassan; got it 15:00:51 +Leora_Morgenstern 15:01:12 zakim, please mute me 15:01:13 Leora_Morgenstern should now be muted 15:01:49 MarkusK has joined #rif 15:02:07 StellaMitchell has joined #rif 15:03:01 +[IBM] 15:03:08 zakim, [ibm] is temporarily me 15:03:19 +StellaMitchell; got it 15:03:32 johnhall has joined #rif 15:03:43 meeting started 15:03:46 AxelPolleres has joined #rif 15:04:32 last week's minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Oct/att-0011/03-rif-minutes.html 15:04:35 Chair: think about whether we should have telecon on oct 31 right before F2F 4 15:04:39 +Axel_Polleres 15:04:59 +[IPcaller] 15:05:03 csma has joined #rif 15:05:07 RESOLVED: minutes approved 15:05:08 zakim, ipcaller is me 15:05:13 +johnhall; got it 15:05:21 zakim,mute me 15:05:25 johnhall should now be muted 15:05:51 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Oct/att-0028/10-rif-minutes.html 15:06:09 AlexKozlenkov has joined #rif 15:06:15 csma are you coming to the telecon 15:06:27 corrected URL posted 15:06:43 MichaelKifer has joined #rif 15:06:44 no objections to approving 10 October minutes 15:06:55 no amendments to agenda 15:07:00 zakim, next agendum 15:07:00 agendum 2. "F2F" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:07:14 +??P61 15:07:15 peter not on telecon 15:07:20 zakim, ??P61 is me 15:07:20 +AlexKozlenkov; got it 15:07:21 +Sandro 15:07:27 zakim, mute me 15:07:29 AlexKozlenkov should now be muted 15:08:08 +[IPcaller] 15:08:21 +Thierry 15:08:28 mdean: ISWC2006 bus schedule now available at http://iswc2006.semanticweb.org/bus_sch.doc 15:09:04 mdean: mostly for main conference - doesn't necessarily help for f2f 4 15:09:36 sandro: room available for f2f5 at MIT - week of January 25 15:09:43 + +44.186.561.aaaa 15:09:57 zakim, aaaa is me 15:09:57 +MichaelKifer; got it 15:10:00 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:10:00 On the phone I see Mike_Dean, Dave_Reynolds, Harold, FrankMcCabe, Francois (muted), josb (muted), ChrisW, Allen_Ginsberg (muted), PaulaP (muted), Hassan (muted), DavidHirtle, 15:10:04 ... Leora_Morgenstern (muted), StellaMitchell (muted), Axel_Polleres (muted), johnhall (muted), AlexKozlenkov (muted), Sandro, cgi-irc, Thierry, MichaelKifer 15:10:07 +Gary_Hallmark 15:10:07 zakim, mute me 15:10:09 MichaelKifer should now be muted 15:10:10 Chair: only proposal for F2F5 15:10:10 MalaMehrotra has joined #rif 15:10:14 MoZ has joined #rif 15:10:22 zakim, this is PaulVincent 15:10:22 sorry, cgi-irc, I do not see a conference named 'PaulVincent' in progress or scheduled at this time 15:10:35 Chair: nobody has volunteered to host F2F6 at WWW2006 in Banff 15:10:41 We have made the proposal to colocate with ESWC in Innsbruck, yes. 15:10:46 +Mala_Mehrotra 15:11:09 Chair: DERI proposal to host F2F6 in conjunction with ESWC in Innsbruck 15:11:14 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 15:11:19 eswc2007 is june 3-7, 2007 15:11:41 +[IPcaller] 15:11:55 Chair: decide on F2F5 by November 4 15:12:08 Chair: don't need to decide on F2F6 this far in advance 15:12:12 Nothing for SBVR 15:12:14 zakim, next agendum 15:12:14 agendum 3. "Liason" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:12:19 -Thierry 15:12:22 PRR: no news 15:12:42 zakim, next agendum 15:12:42 agendum 3 was just opened, mdean 15:12:59 Chair: action review 15:13:52 action 119 and 197 done 15:14:07 Christian action continued 15:14:15 It is ACTION-87 (not 197) 15:14:23 zakim,unmute me 15:14:23 Allen_Ginsberg should no longer be muted 15:14:24 http://www.jdrew.org/oojdrew/demo_new.html 15:14:30 JosD has joined #rif 15:14:30 action 140 done - added to Wiki 15:14:43 +Thierry 15:14:44 s/action/Harold: action/ 15:14:48 +Gerd_Wagner 15:15:02 GerdWagner has joined #rif 15:15:51 action 141 open - got permission to release, translating make to ant, should post this week 15:16:10 -Sandro 15:16:25 zakim, unmute me 15:16:25 csma should no longer be muted 15:16:28 q+ 15:16:34 action 142 continued 15:17:17 Christian: perhaps work on simplified version that doesn't require weaving? 15:17:47 +??P62 15:18:16 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:18:16 On the phone I see Mike_Dean, Dave_Reynolds, Harold, FrankMcCabe, Francois (muted), josb (muted), ChrisW, Allen_Ginsberg, PaulaP (muted), Hassan, DavidHirtle, Leora_Morgenstern 15:18:19 ... (muted), StellaMitchell (muted), Axel_Polleres (muted), johnhall (muted), AlexKozlenkov (muted), PaulVincent, MichaelKifer (muted), Gary_Hallmark, Mala_Mehrotra, MarkusK 15:18:21 Hassan: interesting, but not most important given limited availability 15:18:21 ... (muted), csma, Gerd_Wagner, ??P62 15:18:50 zakim, p62 is josD 15:18:50 sorry, ChrisW, I do not recognize a party named 'p62' 15:18:57 zakim, ??p62 is josD 15:18:57 +josD; got it 15:19:14 hello? 15:19:28 zakim, next agendum 15:19:28 agendum 4. "Technical Design" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:19:46 Chair: lots of discussion on email list regarding syntax of core proposal 15:19:47 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/CORE 15:20:17 Chair: can't navigate from one Wiki page to next page 15:20:30 ACTION (Harold): add next/previous links 15:21:10 +Sandro 15:21:16 Chair: condition vs. core language 15:21:34 Chair: try out core (Horn) language, not just condition language 15:21:44 Harold: entire table of contents is core 15:22:09 Chair: laid out like core is an extension of condition - will provide more concrete update proposal 15:22:44 ACTION (ChrisW): provide more concrete update proposal for core and condition layout 15:22:50 Zakim, unmute me 15:22:50 Axel_Polleres should no longer be muted 15:23:43 zakim, unmute me 15:23:43 csma should no longer be muted 15:23:46 FrankMcCabe: for example 4, important that we require explicit quantification of variables (for all or exists) 15:23:58 q+ 15:24:12 csma: explicit quantification of free variables in condition 15:24:46 zakim, unmute me 15:24:46 MichaelKifer should no longer be muted 15:25:03 +1 with explicit scopes for variables. 15:25:21 Harold: condition language has existential quantifiers - universals not explicit 15:25:31 q+ 15:26:11 sandro has joined #rif 15:26:18 Chair: language ultimately needs to be extended - should allow quantification at rule level, with possible syntactic restrictions 15:26:19 zakim, mute me 15:26:19 johnhall was already muted, johnhall 15:26:22 q? 15:26:31 q? 15:26:40 MichaelKifer: tasked to provide small minimal language 15:26:54 MichaelKifer: agree that eventually has to be extended with explicit quantification 15:27:10 FrankMcCabe: explicit quantification should be required 15:27:19 q? 15:27:31 ack csma 15:27:45 Chair: expect that software will generate RIF - not losing anything if all translators are explicit about quantification 15:27:56 MichaelKifer: human readable syntax may be used directly 15:28:03 csma: strongly disagree 15:28:19 +1 MKifer it's nice to avoid gratuitious verbosity 15:28:35 MichaelKifer: don't deliberately cripple the language 15:28:40 q+ 15:28:41 I agree with Chris - an implicit default quantification of unquantified variables can always be derived from a sugared syntax 15:28:51 MichaelKifer: lots of logic languages don't have explicit quantifiers 15:29:11 q? 15:29:15 ack MichaelKifer 15:29:28 q? 15:29:32 Chair: make sense to make quantification explicit 15:30:00 Harold: simple connection with human readable syntax could be lost - also need set syntax - agree it should be explicit 15:30:01 q+ 15:30:04 s/make/makes 15:30:14 q? 15:30:17 +q 15:30:24 Chair: don't make design decisions based on human readability 15:30:27 q+ 15:30:36 q? 15:30:53 Chair: design goal to enable translation software 15:30:56 q? 15:31:07 ack csma 15:31:11 ack csma 15:31:40 +q 15:31:43 q+ 15:31:49 csma: third part of rule ... 15:32:45 zakim, mute me 15:32:45 MichaelKifer should now be muted 15:32:56 q+ 15:33:35 ack hassan 15:33:47 zakim, mute me 15:33:47 csma should now be muted 15:34:17 Hassan: discussion worries me - similar to action 87 15:34:27 Hassan: are we creating ASTs for rule language? 15:34:36 s/action 87/ACTION-87/ 15:34:45 Hassan: what people will use is XML vocabulary for RIF 15:35:53 Hassan: RIF Condition Language (RCL) won't be target of translators 15:36:00 ack gerd 15:36:15 zakim, unmute me 15:36:15 csma should no longer be muted 15:36:36 Gerd: what about going beyond Horn 15:36:39 ack frank 15:36:51 Chair: explicit quantification, with syntactic restrictions for Horn 15:37:00 q+ to ask if the question here is whether quantifiers may be omitted for brevity, or if there's some other question..... 15:37:29 We can add a similar formulation as for when we allow to shortcut facts. 15:37:39 FrankMcCabe: relation symbol is unnecessarily simplistic - some languages support structures, variables, or objects 15:37:57 ... even RDF supports this 15:38:17 zakim, unmute me 15:38:17 MichaelKifer should no longer be muted 15:38:20 q+ 15:38:28 ... rel should be expression 15:39:06 zakim, mute me 15:39:06 csma should now be muted 15:39:07 MichaelKifer: minimal language - could have defined something like HiLog or CL with structured terms and objects within predicates 15:39:18 ... nucleus language that can be extended 15:39:33 FrankMcCabe: not extensible 15:40:11 q+ 15:40:43 MichaelKifer: oversight - proposal separates relational functional symbols and constants - new proposal just uses constant (including relation symbol) 15:40:48 q+ 15:41:38 FrankMcCabe: does first XML element identify relation? 15:41:41 MichaelKifer: yes 15:42:05 ACTION (MichaelKifer): send updated proposal to list 15:43:05 FrankMcCabe: first XML child seems clumsly, but should work 15:43:38 ack harold 15:43:40 q- 15:43:43 Harold: constants could handle more advanced cases 15:44:25 sandro: apparent consensus that conceptually, variables should be quantified, but XML may allow abbreviations 15:44:39 ack sandro 15:44:39 sandro, you wanted to ask if the question here is whether quantifiers may be omitted for brevity, or if there's some other question..... 15:44:53 MichaelKifer: not opposed to make it explicit in serialization 15:45:00 s/make/making/ 15:45:13 ... people will likely use RIF as KR language 15:45:16 q+ 15:45:27 ... fine with mandatory XML quantifiers 15:45:32 ack michael 15:45:39 q- 15:45:41 zakim, unmute me. 15:45:41 Francois should no longer be muted 15:45:46 ack francois 15:45:47 MichaelKifer: I am fine with manditory quantifiers in the XML serialization, but I want them to be omitable in the human-readable serialization. 15:45:48 zakim, mute me 15:45:48 MichaelKifer should now be muted 15:46:14 -Mala_Mehrotra 15:46:33 Francois: function symbols demonstrate need for different styles of dialects - perhaps specify with default options 15:46:49 +1 with Francois 15:47:32 ack axel 15:47:33 zakim, mute me. 15:47:33 Francois should now be muted 15:48:01 Axel: is PC data sufficient or should we allow URIs for relation and constant identifiers 15:48:03 -1 on implicit design aspects of RIF supporting role as new rule language [which is not a requirement / CSF, AFAIK] 15:48:04 15:48:18 Harold: like webizing of relation names - likely to use attribute 15:48:18 q+ 15:48:35 ... in bipartitioned part of proposal 15:48:53 Chair: why partitioned part? what's being sorted? 15:49:12 Harold: partitioned distinguishes between int and string 15:49:22 ... could also accommodate webizing 15:49:24 instead of foo 15:49:28 we should have 15:49:34 15:49:44 because that plays better with namespaces 15:49:58 But Frank - does it really matter at this spoint? 15:50:17 Chair: language based sorts - perhaps different use of term 15:50:27 It matters when we need to actually exchange the AST 15:50:29 yes. this was one of the biggest issues with parsing RDF properly 15:51:33 +Mala_Mehrotra 15:51:36 I share ChrisW's bafflement regarding the importance of issues regarding URI/IRI vs. symbols - whatever the vocabulary is will do! 15:51:43 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:51:43 On the phone I see Mike_Dean, Dave_Reynolds, Harold, FrankMcCabe, Francois (muted), josb (muted), ChrisW, Allen_Ginsberg, PaulaP (muted), Hassan, DavidHirtle, Leora_Morgenstern 15:51:47 ... (muted), StellaMitchell (muted), Axel_Polleres, johnhall (muted), AlexKozlenkov (muted), PaulVincent, MichaelKifer (muted), Gary_Hallmark, MarkusK (muted), csma (muted), 15:51:50 ... Gerd_Wagner, josD (muted), Sandro, Mala_Mehrotra 15:51:53 What would hamper us from just reusing the rdf:resource and rdf:datatype as in RDF and wouldn't this solve the problem? 15:51:54 FrankMcCabe: better to use attributes than PCDATA 15:52:03 ... also allows entities and namespaces 15:52:05 ... in the XML syntax. 15:52:06 zakim, unmute me 15:52:06 MichaelKifer should no longer be muted 15:52:13 ... nothing to do with sorts 15:52:29 GerdWagner has joined #rif 15:52:30 q+ 15:53:02 MichaelKifer: URIs are just another primitive datatype 15:53:03 MichaelKifer: a URI is yet another datatype - under old proposal, names of relations were not in the domain of constants - now handled as primitive datatypes 15:53:25 this is *NOT* a type issue but a namespace issue! 15:53:34 +1 to Frank 15:53:35 q+ 15:53:37 ... will explain in updated proposals 15:53:43 s/proposals/proposal/ 15:53:44 q+ to say that URIs have two different roles here -- as data values and as names 15:53:59 q? 15:54:02 Chair: postpone further discussion until we see proposal 15:54:06 ack frank 15:54:12 zakim, mute me 15:54:12 MichaelKifer should now be muted 15:54:30 rofl 15:54:31 +1 Gerd! 15:54:38 Gerd: perhaps more appropriate to focus now on abstract syntax 15:54:51 Chair: guided discussion to XML syntax 15:54:55 ack gerd 15:55:08 Axel: will send email to Michael and Harold 15:55:18 ack axel 15:55:47 sandro: another half of question on URIs 15:56:00 ... URI as xsd:datatype (string with restricted syntax) 15:56:12 zakim, unmute me 15:56:12 MichaelKifer should no longer be muted 15:56:18 ... not as important as use of URI naming in RDF and OWL 15:57:34 MichaelKifer: URI datatypes won't help with naming - new proposal will eliminate distinction between relation functions and constants 15:57:57 ... can later add URI sort to identify relations, etc. 15:58:04 zakim, mute me 15:58:04 MichaelKifer should now be muted 15:58:04 q? 15:58:10 ack sandro 15:58:10 sandro, you wanted to say that URIs have two different roles here -- as data values and as names 15:58:10 q- 15:58:25 Chair: any other points about syntax? 15:58:39 PaulVincent has joined #rif 15:58:48 bye 15:58:57 zakim, unmute me 15:58:57 MichaelKifer should no longer be muted 15:59:00 Gerd: email discussion re which kind of typing support to include in language - or should this be postponed? 15:59:04 -Francois 15:59:18 q+ 15:59:31 MichaelKifer: new proposal talks about primitive types, not complex types that can be constructed - a layer on top of primitive types 15:59:41 Chair: required to support XML datatypes 16:00:02 MichaelKifer: adding more complex datatypes is a can of worms and must be looked at very carefully 16:00:14 q+ 16:00:18 q+ 16:00:23 Chair: OWL explicitly identified XML datatypes supported by language - this is a precedent 16:00:32 q? 16:01:00 MichaelKifer: likely proposals for even more complex data types - e.g. from Gerd and Frank 16:01:07 q- 16:01:16 not all scalar datatypes are scalar! 16:01:18 ack harold 16:01:19 zakim, mute me 16:01:19 MichaelKifer should now be muted 16:01:22 ... suggest delaying anything but primitive datatypes to phase 2 16:01:50 q+ 16:01:59 Harold: data element could carry type attribute for XML Schema datatypes 16:02:13 ... as part of bipartitioned constants 16:02:35