14:15:38 RRSAgent has joined #rif 14:15:38 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/11/04-rif-irc 14:16:12 johnhall has joined #rif 14:18:20 pascalhitzler has joined #RIF 14:19:12 DaveReynolds raised question of whether issue 12 would be addressed somewhere during the discussions 14:20:52 Topic: Requirements 14:21:15 http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-ucr/#Requirements 14:21:59 csam: objective is to agree on definition of requirements, their origin (UC, charter, other), and their justification 14:22:08 s /csam/csma/ 14:24:29 csma: aim only to identify work items for breakout sessions 14:24:46 josb has joined #rif 14:25:01 AxelPolleres has joined #rif 14:25:09 4.1.1. Compliance model 14:25:17 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Requirements 14:25:25 GiorgosStoilos has joined #rif 14:25:28 RRSAgent, poiinter? 14:25:28 I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'poiinter' 14:25:34 RRSAgent, pointer? 14:25:34 See http://www.w3.org/2006/11/04-rif-irc#T14-25-34 14:26:02 "RIF must define a compliance model that will identify required/optional features." 14:26:26 no objections 14:26:28 4.1.2. Default behavior 14:26:36 "RIF must specify at the appropriate level of detail the default behavior that is expected from a RIF compliant application that does not have the capability to process all or part of the rules described in a RIF document, or it must provide a way to specify such default behavior." 14:26:57 from charter 14:27:37 csma: origin of requirements should be mentioned in the UCR document 14:29:15 sandro: UCR needs to provide justifications by use cases 14:30:06 csma: what about non-functional requirements that appear in charter? May not be justified by UCs. 14:30:26 ChrisW has joined #rif 14:30:54 chris: some requirements might not have concrete use cases, still they are important 14:31:14 ChrisW has changed the topic to: 4 Nov RIF F2F4 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F4 14:31:20 johnhall has joined #rif 14:31:48 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:31:48 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/11/04-rif-minutes.html ChrisW 14:31:50 csma: Question for breakout: Should all requirements be connntected to use cases? What exceptions are allowed? 14:31:57 no objections to 4.1.2. 14:32:04 4.1.3. Different intended semantics 14:32:12 "RIF must cover rule languages having different intended semantics." 14:32:24 csma: direct origin of requirement unclear 14:32:31 scribenick: MarkusK 14:33:14 csma: does this need further clarification? 14:34:40 Breakout: issue 12, http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/12 14:35:07 aharth has joined #rif 14:35:26 4.1.4. Embedded comments 14:35:31 no objections 14:35:37 4.1.5. Embedded metadata 14:35:57 "RIF must support metadata such as author and rule name." 14:36:28 possible discussion on term "metadata" 14:36:34 4.1.6. Implementability 14:36:40 "RIF must be implementable using well understood techniques." 14:36:59 Topic: Requirements review 14:37:03 csma: some clarification might be needed. Why did we add that? 14:37:13 Chair: Christian de Sainte-Marie 14:37:38 ivan: I think it is sufficiently clear 14:37:47 Meeting: RIF F2F4 Day 1 Session 1 14:37:57 4.1.7. Limited number of dialects 14:38:04 "RIF must have a limited number of standard dialects and/or a common core." 14:38:09 Scribe: Markus 14:38:52 csma: two different requirements: common core, limited number of dialects 14:39:12 sandro: the core is required by the charter 14:39:30 ivan: clarification needed on "limited number of dialects" 14:39:58 hassan: term "dialect" is unclear as well 14:40:14 Breakout: discuss meaning of "limited number of dialects" 14:40:51 4.1.8. OWL data 14:40:58 "RIF must cover OWL knowledge bases as data where compatible with Phase 1 semantics." 14:41:29 csma: note: requirements only for Phase 1, hence "Phase 1 semantics" 14:41:56 from UCs and charter 14:41:57 RRSAgent, pointer? 14:41:57 See http://www.w3.org/2006/11/04-rif-irc#T14-41-57 14:41:59 no objections 14:42:05 4.1.9. RDF data 14:42:11 "RIF must cover RDF triples as data where compatible with Phase 1 semantics." 14:42:40 dave: no a priori reason to limit Phase 1 RDF or OWL compatibility to OWL DL. 14:42:49 4.1.10. Rule language coverage 14:42:56 "RIF must cover the set of languages identified in the Rulesystem Arrangement Framework. See the Coverage section." 14:43:04 csma: might need rephrasing 14:43:34 csma: covered "features" are more important than "languages" 14:43:43 Breakout: discuss this requirement 14:44:03 csma: this is an umbrella requirement for the single languages' requirements 14:44:12 4.1.11. Semantic precision 14:44:20 "RIF must have a clear and precise (unambiguous) semantics to reduce the potential for error in the exchange of rules." 14:45:21 "It depends what you mean by 'clear and precise semantics'" is a wonderful phrase 14:45:30 csma: discussion needed on meaning of "clear and precise" 14:45:43 csma: better discuss ofter discussing technical spec 14:46:11 hassan: clarification needed on what semantics is needed. Meta-semantics of RIF? 14:46:25 csma: yes, but discussion needed to fully clarify this 14:46:33 4.1.12. Semantic tagging 14:46:40 "RIF must have a standard way to specify the intended semantics (or semantics style) of the interchanged rule set in a RIF document." 14:47:14 term "semantic style" needs some clarification 14:47:39 ivan: some clarification needed, but glossary might suffice for this 14:48:21 hassan: "semantic style" refers to different kinds of semantics such as e.g. model theoretic semantics 14:48:29 4.1.13. Standard components 14:48:35 "RIF implementations must be able to use standard support technologies such as XML parsers and other parser generators." 14:49:12 s/model theoretic semantics/model theoretic semantics, proof theoretic semantics/ 14:49:12 csma: we might want to reorder the requirements to clarify their interrelation 14:50:07 4.1.14. Translators 14:50:11 Re Rule language coverage, what about: RIF must cover the set of languages selected via the Rulesystem Arrangement Framework. See the Coverage section. 14:50:15 "RIF must not require rule systems to be changed; it must be implementable via translators." 14:50:31 Breakout: discuss 4.1.14 14:50:40 4.1.15. XML syntax 14:50:49 "RIF must have an XML syntax as its primary normative syntax." 14:50:55 4.1.16. XML types 14:51:03 "RIF must permit XML information types (where appropriate) to be expressed using XML Schema. See the charter on Datatype support." 14:51:10 dave: this was changed already 14:53:08 issue was that primitive xsd types should go into phase 1, while structured types are for phase 2 14:53:54 csma: correct version now is: 14:53:59 "RIF must support an appropriate set of scalar datatypes and associated operations as defined in XML Schema part 2 and associated specifications. See the charter on Datatype support." 14:54:08 from http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Requirements 14:54:34 other requirements might have been updated in this document as well 14:55:33 csma: no discussion of Phase 2 requirements now 14:56:07 sandro: note that this rephrasing on XML schema drops the requirement, in the Charter, to support LISTS in phase 1. 14:56:31 csma: requirements from the charter 14:56:46 csma: mission covered by earlier requirements 14:58:37 csma: compatibility requirements with XML data, and RDF (where RIF overlaps with RDF); covered 14:58:49 Re Limited number of dialects, what about Sandro's proposal: RIF must have a limited number of standard dialects based on a common core. (Both alternatives allowing the 'or' would hardly be acceptable: 1. No common core, 2. More than one core.) 14:59:10 csma: compatibility with use of SPARQL to query datasets 14:59:39 Harold, my understanding is that question is out of order for this session -- this session is just to review and assign work items to the UCR breakouts. 15:00:00 csma: currently not covered, discussion needed to get requirement on that 15:00:58 csma: conformance 15:01:02 no comments 15:01:16 csma: "load and query", implications on requirements? 15:01:55 csma: do UCs in phase 1 support this? 15:01:55 Yeah, just wanted to have your proposal (and my justification) be kept it in mind for that breakout. 15:02:15 alen: requirement is present in the medical UC, should be added 15:02:33 s /alen/allen/ 15:02:48 csma: 1. sematics specified in terms of queries 15:02:48 csma: 2. merged rulesets 15:03:12 csma: "the syntax must support named arguments" is mentioned in charter, but not reflected in requirements 15:03:50 csma: phase 1 semantics 15:04:31 csma: rulesets mentioned, but currently no requirement 15:05:14 csma: some further requirements might not need explicit mentioning (e.g. support for "facts as well as rules" 15:05:22 csma: datatype support 15:05:46 csma: current requirements are somewhat less detailed, compare with requirements again 15:06:24 csma: work item is to check whether requirements from UCs are covered as well 15:07:03 harold: Re "SHOULD consider RDF as meta-data" -- can we strengthen the "should"? 15:07:27 csma: "should" comes from charter, further discussion for breakouts 15:08:00 allen: discussion on coverage http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/22 15:08:15 csma: already on work items 15:09:31 csma: break! 15:10:54 pfps_ has joined #rif 15:12:02 pfps_ has joined #rif 15:12:09 DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif 15:12:47 ivan_ has joined #rif 15:15:50 mdean has joined #rif 15:22:48 pfps_ has joined #rif 15:22:54 DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif 15:28:49 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:28:49 sorry, pfps, I don't know what conference this is 15:28:50 On IRC I see DaveReynolds, pfps, GiorgosStoilos, RRSAgent, Zakim, JeffP, msintek, sandro, rifbot 15:31:33 mdean has joined #rif 15:33:23 Hassan has joined #rif 15:33:40 scribeNick: Hassan 15:33:53 RRSAgent, pointer? 15:33:53 See http://www.w3.org/2006/11/04-rif-irc#T15-33-53 15:33:57 csma has joined #rif 15:34:20 Work on RIF Technical Design 15:34:46 ChrisW: Currently we have 4 proposals - should boil down to one? 15:35:35 Current (1) Harold Boley's CORE condition language 15:35:47 GiorgosStoilos has joined #rif 15:36:12 (2) Hassan's CLP reformulation of a core formalism (as a Logical Framework) 15:36:46 (3) CSMA's proposal based on informal test cases? 15:38:08 (4) Dave Reynolds' proposal to use RDF - syntax level, possibly compatible with (1)-(3) 15:38:58 s/Harold Boley/Harold Boley et al./ 15:39:21 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 15:39:30 Harold has joined #rif 15:39:52 CSMA: not yet another semantics, but use *partial* semantics 15:41:07 CSMA: not incompatible with the others as well 15:41:27 csma: "partial semantics" == "constraints on semantics" 15:42:20 Leora: I don't understand "partial semantics" 15:42:20 cgi-irc has joined #rif 15:42:38 PaulaP has joined #rif 15:43:01 CSMA: "partial semamntics" means "incomplete specification that may be extended" 15:43:27 Christian's Core with a 'partial semantics' would be compatible with the Condition Languages semantics in the sense that Conditions are 'partial rules'. 15:43:49 a/semamntics/semantics/ 15:44:48 Harold: limited to conditions that are common to different styles of rules 15:45:29 CSMA: I do not know what the right constraints are but say, Modus Ponens ... 15:47:13 CSMA: find some way of making sense with some rules even though the full set of assumptions is not met 15:48:14 Harold: OK - we agree (in our proposal) and tried to formalize that but had to backtrack to what we have now 15:49:26 harold: taxonomy of actions: 1. introspective (KB change), 2. bounded by programming environment, 3. real world actions 15:50:16 CSMA: I would like to do things another way: if we characterized some level of syntax and some semantics then interchange can be still achieved even though there is no complete agreement 15:51:23 Sandro: what CSMA is saying (IMO) is that we should be able to interchange among different styles of rules (say Prolog and Production) 15:51:32 +1 to interchange of rules between producton rule and horn 15:51:46 Deborah_Nichols has joined #rif 15:52:30 Peter: everyone agrees if limited to Horn - 15:53:11 johnhall has joined #rif 15:53:28 peter: pure postive horn and PR should give same result 15:54:09 Hassan: let us not confuse Logc and Model Theory (Proof theory e.g., SOS, Natural Semantics, ...) 15:54:26 s/Logc/Logic/ 15:54:30 Hassan, do you mean "operational semantics" in the sense of "rewrite-rule semantics"? 15:54:37 PROPOSED: For positive Horn rules, RIF will use the direct and obvious mapping between production rule systems and logic programming systems. 15:54:59 +1 15:55:15 +1 to sandro's proposal 15:56:24 MichaelKifer: Sandro's proposal is already covered by ours 15:56:25 Paula, what is your and Francois opinion on this now? 15:56:35 ivan has joined #rif 15:56:42 AxelPolleres has joined #rif 15:57:01 pascalhitzler has joined #RIF 15:57:42 Harold, I'm not sure I understand Christian's proposal 15:57:47 JosB: need only agree on the core shared - extensions may and will have different semantics 15:57:55 Jos: the extension can have different semantics, they just need to reduce to the original semantics on the original inputs 15:58:23 mkifer: Sandro, your proposal is like a law of nature 15:58:30 Paula, I meant about Sandro's proposal of mapping at least between subsets of Production rules and Horn? 15:58:41 JosB: therefore no need for "partial" semantics - compatibility should not be based only onf models, but also on other criteria (operational) 15:59:20 s/onf/on/ 15:59:54 Harold, I think Michael Kifer is right...it is obvious if the mapping is not 'problematic', that is in the case that the subset is a common one 16:00:40 pascalhitzler1405 has joined #RIF 16:01:25 ChrisW: can CSMA's prop be rephrased as using "partial" semantics in the sense that non core features could be expressed more "operationally" 16:02:04 CSMA: allow multiple interpretations as given 16:02:38 Peter: Why not be fully formal? 16:03:29 Peter: there are formal semantics out there which say that a number of outcomes are all permissible 16:04:28 Christian, do you want to formalize the following: "A rule with multiple intended interpretations should be captured as a single RIF rule"? 16:04:45 DaveReynolds: I like what CSMA is trying to get at: 2 things can be done (1) find test cases with multiple interpretations and (2) example on how to cover this test case 16:05:05 CSMA: need a task force for this 16:05:23 (Instead one could capture it with - a conjunction of - several RIF rules.) 16:05:40 Ivan: I would like to understand why is it so important in term of a real UC? 16:06:19 Chris: the use case is any interchange between LP and PR systems 16:06:35 Ivan: not a technical issue - why is this important? 16:07:50 JeffP has joined #rif 16:08:59 MarkusK has joined #rif 16:09:20 Hassan: a rule may have multiple semantics (abstract, concrete, ...) 16:09:33 Christian, such 'richness' of interpretations adds to the power of natural languages, but may not be the way to go for formal languages. 16:09:44 Hassan's proposal: 16:09:51 Three levels: 16:10:09 * Change the level of abstraction: CLP 16:10:24 1. "abstract data model from rule" 16:10:37 * Model theory can only capture immutable truths. 70% have no logical truth. 16:10:45 2. lots of impure logical features 16:11:15 (truths are good, but how to get there is better.) 16:12:24 Hassan: stay OPERATIONAL and FORMAL, not just MODEL THEORETIC 16:12:31 * Use Hereditary Harrop Formulas to capture local quantification (with variables). 16:12:50 Leora: When you say Operational, do you mean Proof Theoretic? 16:12:53 Leora: What does 'operational' mean here? 16:13:15 I'm just taking extra notes, Harold. 16:13:20 Don't worry about me. 16:13:33 Hassan: Only (formal) proof theory. 16:13:49 Alex: What about actions? Communication acts? 16:14:06 Hassan: Yes, there are references in the write-up. 16:14:48 Axel: Shall rule sets then declare what the operation semantics for computing consequences would be? 16:14:56 johnhall has joined #rif 16:15:30 Hassan: RIFRAF should span the space for the operational semantics: a *meta* rule language, which is nice 16:15:38 Hassan: a meta rule language -- a way to write down the proof theory of your rule language. 16:15:40 (abstract syntax trees) 16:16:07 Michael: Stable and Well-founded semantics are still not covered. 16:16:14 mikifer: proof theory doesn't cover important things like stable model semantics 16:16:25 Hassan: RIght, it cannot capture everything. 16:16:50 Allen: Does this go towards fixpoint semantics (op. sem.)? 16:17:07 Hassan: Fixpoint only one possiblity. 16:17:42 What I wanted to add: There are not only rules, there are also ruelsets. I remember Uli saying, at one telecon, that the order in which rules are taken into account may change what is inferred; in many practical cases, it does not actually matter: what you would infer in the various cases is equally acceptable (equally preserves the meaning); only the semantics of the specific RL into which the RIF document is translated will decide which one(s) are actually produced. 16:18:08 Andreas: Op.sem vs. proof theory. There are really 3 levels: Model theory, proof-theory, op.sem. (algorithm). 16:18:28 Chris: lets do this offline. 16:19:07 ChrisW: My concern with the current proposal is extensiblity - not clear how to go about it 16:20:10 JosD has joined #rif 16:20:42 ChrisW: Abstract Syntax makes more sense for extensibility 16:21:28 ChrisW: (1) how formal should we be (2) what Abstract Syntax 16:22:21 DaveReynolds: What about the separation of data models? 16:22:31 ChrisW: It is compatible with the rest 16:23:03 ChrisW: Identify "incompatibilities" among proposals... 16:23:14 johnhall has joined #rif 16:23:17 Chris: Separartion of Data Model can be done in any of the proposals 16:23:46 DaveReynolds: What about formal vs. informal semantics? Precise vs. imprecise? 16:24:46 JosB: A proof theory that is sound and complete is compatible by definition with model theory 16:25:17 s/JosB/Axel/ 16:26:08 ChrisW: Other disagreements? 16:26:41 CSMA: partial vs.permissive is a better dimension 16:27:46 I wondered if "precise VS permissive" meant the same as "partial VS complete" and whether the latter was clearer than the former 16:29:27 pascalhitzler has joined #RIF 16:30:04 ChrisW: WHat is the disagreement? 16:30:24 sandro: the disagreement is: "How are we going to specify the semantics" 16:30:29 MarkusK has joined #rif 16:30:33 ChrisW: Given a precise semantics how do we specify it? 16:31:00 ChrisW: These are the issues to discuss 16:31:39 johnhall has joined #rif 16:31:43 ChrisW: No decisions are to me made in the breakout sessions but we must clarify everything we are talking about 16:32:03 ChrisW: Preferably in writing... 16:32:32 ChrisW: BO sessions must be balanced in attendance 16:32:56 2 BOs planned after lunch (1) requirements 16:33:07 (2) technical design 16:33:58 Sandro: the BO should be "How do we specify the semantics?" 16:34:47 CSMA: can we have a 3rd BO on syntax? 16:36:14 ChrisW: SO 3 BO sessions: (1) UCR (2) How to specify Semantics (3) syntactic issues + vocabularies 16:36:39 josb has joined #rif 16:39:56 ChrisW: New sessions: (1) UCR (2) Partial vs. complete semantics (3) syntactic issues + vocabularies 16:42:09 ChrisW: New sessions: (1) UCR 5 people (2) Partial vs. complete semantics 10 peopla (3) syntactic issues + vocabularies 8 people 16:42:51 s/peopla/people/ 16:43:49 ChrisW: 90 mins for BOs and 30 mins plenary for debriefing 16:44:59 ChrisW: Back to discussing URI's and vocabularies 16:45:52 cgi-irc has joined #rif 16:46:34 ChrisW: What about using URIs for everything is RIF 16:47:06 CSMA: Gerd Wagner started this discussion: what elements? 16:50:27 Sandro: this issue is to discuss the shape of RIF constructs as XML elements 16:50:47 Allen has joined #rif 16:51:31 Some members have specific example we can discuss 16:51:40 s/example/examples/ 16:52:24 Ivan: using ternary/binary predicates 16:53:20 ChrisW: each BO group will report back to the whole group: so we need BO session chairs 16:53:51 ChrisW: and scribes ... 16:54:20 Allen Ginsberg will chair the UC&R session 16:55:34 Sandro will chair the syntax session 16:56:02 Chris Welty will chair the Partial vs Complete session 16:56:28 Paul Vincent will chair the UC&R session 16:56:44 Alex will scribe the syntax session 16:57:17 Deborah will scribe the syntax session 16:59:17 MarkusK has joined #rif 17:56:05 sandro has joined #rif 17:59:54 pascalhitzler has joined #RIF 18:02:33 MarkusK has joined #rif 18:03:25 msintek has joined #rif 18:04:19 GiorgosStoilos has joined #rif 18:04:35 msintek has left #rif 18:05:51 josb has joined #rif 18:05:53 msintek has joined #rif 18:06:02 GiorgosStoilos has joined #rif 18:11:22 pfps has joined #rif 18:27:34 Hassan has joined #rif 18:29:35 pfps has joined #rif 18:34:42 JosD has joined #rif 18:37:37 Zakim has left #rif 18:49:34 pfps has joined #rif 19:04:00 pascalhitzler1405 has joined #RIF 19:08:15 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 19:14:40 JosD has joined #rif 19:19:16 pascalhitzler has joined #RIF 19:29:26 josb has joined #rif 19:39:14 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 19:39:42 DaveReynolds has joined #rif 19:39:59 GiorgosStoilos has joined #rif 19:40:05 Harold has joined #rif 19:40:09 Hassan has joined #rif 19:40:12 topic: UCR breakout summary 19:40:28 scribe: GaryHallmark 19:40:36 scribeNick: GaryHallmark 19:41:22 sandro: should we make decisions now? 19:42:50 chrisw: need to make decisions that affect next breakout 19:44:23 please see breakout session notes for details of this session 19:48:10 paulv: several issues about whether ruleset merging affects RIF 19:48:10 mdean has joined #rif 19:49:40 DaveR: should state whether RIF supports merging (don't have to say how) 19:51:58 topic: RIF XML Syntax breakout summary 19:54:33 again see breakout session notes for details of this session 19:56:15 alex: local names (e.g. local var) do not need URIs 19:57:22 josb: namespaces treated as per RDF 19:58:16 sandro: RIF can use URIs like RDF does 20:05:09 http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/IKL/SPEC/SPEC.html 20:08:00 harold: need slotted syntax 20:08:29 alex: roundtripping should be a requirement 20:11:03 ACTION csma to do something about roundtripping, like put it on issues list 20:11:05 ACTION: csma to do something about roundtripping, like put it on issues list 20:11:05 Sorry, couldn't find user - csma 20:11:15 ACTION: Christian to do something about roundtripping, like put it on issues list 20:11:15 Created ACTION-165 - Do something about roundtripping, like put it on issues list [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2006-11-11]. 20:15:46 topic: Technical Design breakout summary 20:16:18 ACTION: Sandro to find out if we can assign a URI to xpath/xquery functions and operators 20:16:19 Created ACTION-166 - Find out if we can assign a URI to xpath/xquery functions and operators [on Sandro Hawke - due 2006-11-11]. 20:17:03 JosD has joined #rif 20:17:13 chrisw: role of CORE is to avoid n**2 translators 20:19:21 ... the CORE semantics should be precise 20:19:35 ... is positive Horn a useful CORE? 20:20:54 ... even positive Horn may be a subset of production rules 20:21:08 ... negation is too contentious for CORE 20:21:30 Sandro: must do at least CORE for phase1 20:21:53 s/may/may not 20:37:59 DaveReynolds has joined #rif 20:39:03 MarkusK has joined #rif 20:40:19 DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif 21:00:05 sandro has joined #rif 21:01:00 mdean has joined #rif 21:01:07 DaveReynolds has joined #rif 21:01:29 pascalhitzler has joined #RIF 21:01:31 josb has joined #rif 21:01:42 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 21:02:08 johnhall has joined #rif 21:02:29 AxelPolleres has joined #rif 21:02:47 PaulaP has joined #rif 21:03:08 cgi-irc has joined #rif 21:03:39 ivan has joined #rif 21:03:40 pfps has joined #rif 21:04:03 Harold has joined #rif 21:10:23 csma has joined #rif 21:12:03 JeffP has joined #rif 21:12:04 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 21:12:39 GiorgosStoilos has joined #rif 21:39:23 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 21:41:58 pfps_ has joined #rif 21:50:14 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 22:09:39 JosD has joined #rif 22:12:19 pfps_ has joined #rif 22:13:26 pfps, did you pick a time for dinner? 22:13:29 josb has joined #rif 22:13:33 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 22:15:09 dinner is "shortly" after 6 22:15:36 AxelPolleres has joined #rif 22:16:08 cgi-irc has joined #rif 22:17:28 PROPOSED: that implementability, semantic precision, standard components, and translators be treated as "general". 22:18:18 RESOLVED: that implementability, semantic precision, standard components, and translators be treated as "general". 22:24:49 ACTION: PaulV to work with Allen on defn of covers 22:24:49 Sorry, couldn't find user - PaulV 22:24:53 ACTION: Paul to work with Allen on defn of covers 22:24:53 Created ACTION-167 - Work with Allen on defn of covers [on Paul Vincent - due 2006-11-11]. 22:24:58 ACTION: Igor to work with Allen on defn of covers 22:24:58 Created ACTION-168 - Work with Allen on defn of covers [on Igor Mozetic - due 2006-11-11]. 22:29:17 RESOLVED: "RIF must cover rule languages with different semantics." 22:29:31