IRC log of rif on 2006-11-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

01:07:35 [sandro]
sandro has joined #rif
14:06:47 [msintek]
msintek has joined #rif
14:07:02 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #rif
14:07:37 [sandro]
sandro has joined #rif
14:08:16 [csma]
csma has joined #rif
14:08:26 [PaulVincent]
PaulV is scribe
14:08:30 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
14:08:35 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
14:08:35 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2006/11/05-rif-irc#T14-08-35
14:08:40 [sandro]
scribeNick: PaulVincent
14:09:02 [PaulVincent]
Continuing UC&R discussion
14:09:13 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #rif
14:11:17 [cgi-irc]
Item 10: extensible format for rules - discussion - proposed - for upward compatibility of dialects
14:13:34 [PaulV]
PaulV has joined #rif
14:14:15 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #rif
14:14:24 [PaulV]
Discussion on bwd compatibility
14:14:43 [PaulV]
Christian: suggested need for fwd compatibility
14:14:55 [PaulV]
John: need to define dialect first
14:15:17 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has changed the topic to: 5 Nov RIF F2F4 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F4
14:15:35 [mdean]
mdean has joined #rif
14:16:20 [PaulV]
John: May need to add new dialects as well as extend existing ones...
14:16:29 [sandro]
MikeDean and BenjaminGrosof are teaching a tutorial today
14:16:33 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
14:16:34 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
14:16:55 [PaulV]
Christian: ... but RIF extensions / dialects may or may not be standardised
14:18:39 [PaulV]
DaveR: Need to consider fwd/bwd compatibility for tech design of RIF
14:23:35 [PaulV]
Proposed wording: It must be extensible to add new dialects of RIF. It must be possible to extend the standard RIF dialects.
14:25:14 [PaulV]
ACTION: on Alex to list (clarify) issues raised by this requirement
14:25:14 [rifbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - on
14:26:11 [sandro]
ACTION: Alex to list (clarify) issues raised by the extensibility requirement
14:26:11 [rifbot]
Created ACTION-170 - List (clarify) issues raised by the extensibility requirement [on Alex Kozlenkov - due 2006-11-12].
14:26:18 [PaulV]
Alan: topic on merging rulesets: <<RIF processing should include the ability to merge rulesets>>
14:29:08 [PaulV]
Christian: is this a requirement on RIF vs a requirement to avoid precluding merging
14:31:13 [sandro]
"RIF must support effective merging of rule sets"
14:33:06 [PaulV]
Laura: Merging may require metadata to support effective merging
14:34:57 [sandro]
s/Laura/Leora
14:35:22 [PaulV]
GaryH: merging is a fn of the rule engine / system
14:36:05 [sandro]
"RIF should not impair the ability to merge rule sets"
14:36:19 [PaulV]
Leora: ... but the choices for rule consolidation may require additional metadata etc from the rule sources
14:38:06 [sandro]
Option1: RIF should not prevclude the abulity to merge rule sets
14:38:22 [sandro]
Option 2: RIF should support the ability to merge rule sets
14:39:04 [sandro]
RIF should admit the ability to merge rule sets
14:39:13 [sandro]
RIF should facilitate the ability to merge rule sets
14:42:06 [LeoraMorgenstern]
LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
14:42:41 [sandro]
PaulV: RIF should support the necessary constructs to support merging of rule sets
14:42:52 [sandro]
facilitate
14:43:13 [sandro]
Hassan: RIF should facilitate the merging of rule sets
14:45:31 [sandro]
RESOLVED: RIF should support the ability to merge rule sets
14:46:14 [PaulV]
Proposal - RIF will support the identification and processing of rulesets
14:46:45 [PaulV]
Christian: but this mentions processing ...
14:48:39 [sandro]
RESOLVED: RIF will support the identification of rule sets.
14:50:05 [PaulV]
------- DaveR: overview of breakout on Syntax
14:51:18 [PaulV]
PROPOSED: RIF will use URIs (IRIs) in the style of RDF and OWL to identify at least predicates, functions, datatypes, constants, rules, rulesets.
14:51:54 [JosD]
JosD has joined #rif
14:52:42 [sandro]
DaveR presenting http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Nov/0017.html
14:53:32 [PaulV]
PROPOSAL2:
14:54:33 [sandro]
JosDB: But namespace prefixes aren't preserved
14:54:49 [sandro]
Peter: "accidental capture"
14:55:09 [sandro]
Peter: I don't see that as a problem. That's a stupid-translator thing.
14:56:03 [PaulV]
PROPOSAL2: Translators to and and from languages which do not use URIs as names will need to use namespace prefixes or other name-mapping system
14:57:51 [sandro]
mkifer: does this preclude local names for constants?
14:58:20 [PaulV]
Christian: Locals do not need URIs
14:59:04 [sandro]
mkifer: some constants should not be exposed.
15:01:40 [sandro]
peter: make it "identifiers of"
15:02:02 [sandro]
mkifer: not precluding the idea of local names.
15:03:29 [JosD]
JosD has joined #rif
15:03:31 [sandro]
text "globally named" inserted
15:04:16 [Hassan]
Hassan has joined #rif
15:04:22 [Hassan]
An Introduction to XML and Web Technologies (Paperback)
15:04:22 [Hassan]
by Anders Moller, Michael Schwartzbach
15:05:25 [Hassan]
Sorry, I meant to post: http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/~goguen/projs/inst.html
15:05:39 [sandro]
Names should be global or local. If global, use URIs.
15:05:52 [PaulV]
DaveR: Local names are a separate discussion
15:06:11 [Hassan]
"Institutions" are a formal means to manage "signatures" (i.e., local, global naming)
15:08:19 [sandro]
RESOLVED: RIF will use URIs ... as per e-mail modifed with "globally named", and projected on Dave's slide
15:09:10 [sandro]
proposal 2 -- RIF will provide metadata vocabulary for recording mapping.
15:09:13 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
15:09:24 [sandro]
"extensible"
15:14:18 [sandro]
PaulV: so there can be a JSR which says how to use JSR-94 with RIF and say what these bindings are
15:15:33 [PaulV]
Gary: relationship to Java rule engines working against Java objects
15:15:51 [sandro]
Dave writes: This metadata annotation meschanism should be extensibike to allow groups outside RIF to agree on such annotations
15:16:05 [sandro]
Peter: not sure what that means, ....
15:16:12 [sandro]
Dave withdraws it
15:17:22 [sandro]
Gary: So when I get a ruleset with annotations linking stuff to Java fields, I need to understand it
15:17:35 [sandro]
Dave: No, it's not semantically significant
15:17:47 [sandro]
Chris: Well, it is significant if you're Java.
15:18:20 [sandro]
PaulV: we need to elaborate this against use cases...
15:18:39 [sandro]
PaulV: I agree with Gary, it would be much nicer to have java objects referenced in rules, instead of mapping from URIs.
15:19:10 [sandro]
Christian: I don't agree. If we interchange directly the names of java classes, that restricts use.
15:19:34 [sandro]
PaulV: True, but that assumes an extranet use of RIF
15:19:52 [sandro]
PaulV: I'd just like us to explore this, in terms of examples.
15:20:01 [sandro]
Chris: What document might this go in.
15:20:37 [sandro]
Dave: This is not text for a document. It's a WG resolution, to let us move forward into the details.
15:21:39 [sandro]
Dave: Some document will present the vocabular and explain this.
15:21:54 [sandro]
RESOLVED: NAMING-BREAKOUT-PROPSAL-2
15:22:06 [sandro]
WorkItem: local names
15:22:30 [sandro]
Proposed Issue about round tripping.
15:22:41 [Harold]
How should we map constants from an example like this? Legacy Rulebase 1: invaded(GaiusJuliusCaesar,Britain). Legacy Rulebase 2: crossed(GaiusJuliusCaesar,Rubicon). Suggestion: An 'object-detection' mechanism (outside the scope of RIF) could make a 'global name' assumption for the symbol GaiusJuliusCaesar of both rulebases and map them to a single IRI in RIF (such as to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar).
15:22:53 [sandro]
Chris: What would the closing criteria be?
15:23:19 [sandro]
Dave: Is requirements on the round-tripping.
15:24:04 [PaulV]
Sandro: semantic rounttripping / performance roundtripping / syntactic sugar roundtripping... are all possible requmts
15:25:46 [sandro]
Issue: Which rule features (semantic, syntactic, performance, ...) survive round-tripping?
15:26:28 [sandro]
Allen: this is a requirement on the translators, or on the spec
15:27:40 [PaulV]
Chris: need an action on a chair to Debra on roundtripping...
15:28:17 [sandro]
ACTION: Sandro talk to Deborah about getting this issue on the issues list
15:28:17 [rifbot]
Created ACTION-171 - Talk to Deborah about getting this issue on the issues list [on Sandro Hawke - due 2006-11-12].
15:46:22 [JosD]
JosD has joined #rif
16:00:13 [Allen]
Allen has joined #rif
16:00:37 [sandro]
Peter, any chance we can get a projector cable for the room next door, if we have another breakout there?
16:01:12 [sandro]
RRSAgent, make record public
16:02:22 [kifer_]
kifer_ has joined #rif
16:02:43 [AllenG]
AllenG has joined #rif
16:03:44 [GiorgosStoilos]
GiorgosStoilos has joined #rif
16:03:51 [kifer_]
kifer_ has joined #rif
16:04:12 [kifer_]
Scribenik: MichaelKifer
16:04:16 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #rif
16:04:54 [sandro]
ScribeNick: kifer_
16:05:58 [sandro]
Alex: why the "a" in "All standard RIF dialects havbe a precise syntax and semantics"
16:06:22 [kifer_]
<chris> (recaping the decisions): CORE will be positive horn
16:06:35 [sandro]
(proposal)
16:06:52 [kifer_]
Code and dialects will have precise semantics
16:07:09 [sandro]
RESOLVED: RIF will provide a framework for defining RIF dialects
16:07:17 [GaryHallmark]
s/Code/Core
16:07:25 [kifer_]
RIF will provide a framework for defining RIF dialects (resolved)
16:07:55 [sandro]
csma: I support this proposal because I was convinced that this was doable and anything else would be a research project
16:08:05 [GaryHallmark]
s/havbe/have
16:08:28 [kifer_]
<scma> agrees with the resolutions not because he prefers this way, but because it would be a research project otherwise
16:08:41 [sandro]
Chris: With any resolution, we can reconsider it if there is new evidence
16:08:54 [sandro]
Chris: "is slotted syntax positive Horn"
16:09:59 [sandro]
Chris: The resolution about Horn does not preclude discussions about slotted, datatypes, disjunction in the body -- we can still have discussion about whether those are positive Horn.
16:10:13 [kifer_]
<Chris> CORE is positive Horn from now on - no further discussion about that. What is still open are things like slotted syntax, data types, disjunctions in the body, conjunctions in the head.
16:10:14 [sandro]
Chris: So "negation in core" will not longer be a subject for discussion.
16:10:45 [sandro]
RESOLVED: The RIF CORE will be positve Horn.
16:11:07 [sandro]
Christian: Now I will begin a research project to overturn this resolution! [joking]
16:11:32 [ag]
ag has joined #rif
16:11:36 [sandro]
Chris: We need negation in Phase 1 to be useful.
16:11:46 [sandro]
Chris: and should be easy
16:12:05 [kifer_]
Chris: negation is easy to do in the context of dialects.
16:12:18 [sandro]
Chris: we know how to extend positive horn with NAF and First-Order Negation.
16:12:45 [kifer_]
Scribenik: kifer_
16:14:07 [MarkusK]
MarkusK has joined #rif
16:15:02 [sandro]
Sandro: So this means the Rec, a year from now, will include at least two dialects, probably three --- Core, Core+NAF, Core+CNeg
16:15:11 [sandro]
Paul: What's the motivation?
16:15:48 [sandro]
Christian: Examples of rulesets seem to always include negation.
16:16:24 [kifer_]
csma: negation is important for practical applications
16:17:41 [kifer_]
Gary: core by itself is not very useful
16:18:09 [kifer_]
chris: whoever wants a particular dialect must work on it
16:21:23 [kifer_]
daveR: are we sanctioning an open season on adding new dialects?
16:22:01 [kifer_]
chris: each new dialect must be checked agains the requirement of "limited # of dialects"
16:23:42 [sandro]
Sandro: We can overlap work -- working on dialects on Phase 1
16:24:11 [sandro]
Sandro: we can build new dialects in phase 1 without having to get them through to Recommendation.
16:30:46 [kifer_]
all: discussion of whether some dialects should be in the phase1 rec
16:31:28 [sandro]
PROPOSED: WG will define RIF dialects in Phase 1, eg including negation, not necessarily in a Rec.
16:32:24 [kifer_]
csma (with ilog hat): not necessary to have dialects in the rec, but reasonable drafts of some dialects are needed
16:35:04 [Harold]
The Positive Condition Language can be regarded as a Subcore that can be used as the building block for both Positive Horn Rules and for Positive Production Rules (which also need actions / state change). An extended Condition Language with Negation can then become the building block for both a dialect of an extended Horn Rules with Negation and a dialect of Production Rules with Negation. This 'lego' block approach allows the reuse of dialects. Here, both the
16:36:03 [Harold]
Positive Condition Language and the Condition Language with Negation are used twice.
16:36:08 [sandro]
PROPOSED: WG will define useful RIF dialects in Phase 1, eg including negation, not necessarily in a Rec.
16:36:28 [sandro]
RESOLVED: WG will define useful RIF dialects in Phase 1, eg including negation, not necessarily in a Rec.
16:36:48 [kifer_]
RESOLVED: Phase 1 will include drafts of some useful dialects
16:39:36 [kifer_]
afternoon breakouts:
16:39:44 [kifer_]
1. abstract syntax and semantics
16:40:15 [kifer_]
2. Extensibility of syntax
16:40:56 [kifer_]
rifraf - can work on OWL ontology of rifraf or start outlining dialects
16:41:11 [kifer_]
4. Test cases
16:42:36 [kifer_]
s/rifraf/3. RIFRAF/
17:00:14 [JosD]
JosD has joined #rif
17:43:08 [sandro]
sandro has joined #rif
17:56:11 [JosD]
JosD has joined #rif
18:11:42 [mdean]
mdean has joined #rif
18:32:50 [JosD]
JosD has joined #rif
19:14:07 [JosD]
JosD has joined #rif
19:33:59 [MarkusK]
MarkusK has joined #rif
19:34:09 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #rif
19:36:13 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
19:37:19 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has left #rif
19:37:28 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
19:37:47 [MarkusK]
MarkusK has left #rif
19:37:48 [GaryHallmark]
nothing happens?
19:37:51 [MarkusK]
MarkusK has joined #RIF
19:38:13 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #rif
19:38:40 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
19:38:44 [msintek]
msintek has joined #rif
19:38:46 [Hassan]
Hassan has joined #rif
19:38:58 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
19:39:29 [msintek]
ScribeNick: msintek
19:39:52 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
19:39:52 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2006/11/05-rif-irc#T19-39-52
19:41:33 [msintek]
Topic: next F2F
19:42:38 [msintek]
CMSA: is Innsbruck F2F6?
19:44:31 [msintek]
large objection for additional F2F between MIT and Innsbruck meetings
19:45:50 [msintek]
2nd half of February is preferred for F2F5
19:46:45 [msintek]
3 days more useful than 2?
19:47:37 [GiorgosStoilos]
GiorgosStoilos has joined #rif
19:48:08 [msintek]
voice feeds needed?
19:50:56 [msintek]
Allen needs to know 2 vs 3 days etc.
19:54:20 [msintek]
Allen will specify deadline for decision
19:55:35 [msintek]
weekend probably not possible
19:56:22 [msintek]
Topic: reports from breakout sessions
19:56:28 [sandro]
csma and leora express desire to avoid meetings on weekends
19:58:04 [msintek]
Axel reporting from RIFRAF
19:58:26 [msintek]
starting points: bottom-up vs. top-down
19:59:31 [msintek]
... do both directions
20:00:30 [msintek]
Action: Sandro will provide template
20:00:30 [rifbot]
Created ACTION-172 - Will provide template [on Sandro Hawke - due 2006-11-12].
20:01:46 [sandro]
msintek, please try to keep actions detailed enough to make sense out of context.
20:01:51 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
20:02:50 [sandro]
(i edited 172 on the web to be "Provide template for authoring RIFRAF instance data")
20:03:50 [msintek]
Axel: procedure to collect next interation
20:06:37 [msintek]
... slides contain list of people to work on specific sections
20:08:58 [msintek]
CSMA: deadline: mid december
20:09:40 [msintek]
(Sandro will put actions in the system)
20:11:54 [msintek]
CSMA: what is REWERSE classification
20:13:12 [msintek]
Axel: will make clear how discriminators are related
20:13:32 [sandro]
ACTION: Leora to revise and ontologize RIFRAF, section 1 due 2006-11-30
20:13:32 [rifbot]
Created ACTION-173 - Revise and ontologize RIFRAF, section 1 due 2006-11-30 [on Leora Morgenstern - due 2006-11-12].
20:14:42 [msintek]
CSMA: is there impact on the design of the core?
20:15:13 [msintek]
Axel: in the end, dialects fit in the framework as well
20:16:37 [sandro]
ACTION: Hassan to revise and ontologize RIFRAF, section 2 - due 2006-12-15
20:16:37 [rifbot]
Created ACTION-174 - revise and ontologize RIFRAF, section 2 [on Hassan Ait-Kaci - due 2006-12-15].
20:16:38 [msintek]
Hassan and others: discussion of what will be mapped (dialects as abstract systems etc.)
20:16:46 [sandro]
ACTION: Allen to revise and ontologize RIFRAF, section 3 - due 2006-11-30
20:16:46 [rifbot]
Created ACTION-175 - revise and ontologize RIFRAF, section 3 [on Allen Ginsberg - due 2006-11-30].
20:16:55 [sandro]
ACTION: Sandro to revise and ontologize RIFRAF, section 4 - due 2006-11-30
20:16:55 [sandro]
ACTION: Paula to revise and ontologize RIFRAF, section 5 - due 2006-11-30
20:16:55 [sandro]
ACTION: Axel to propose and ontologize RIFRAF on negation - due 2006-11-30
20:16:55 [sandro]
ACTION: Axel ask Frank if he'll revise and ontologize Section 6 - due 2006-11-30
20:16:55 [rifbot]
Created ACTION-176 - revise and ontologize RIFRAF, section 4 [on Sandro Hawke - due 2006-11-30].
20:16:55 [rifbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - Paula
20:16:56 [rifbot]
Created ACTION-177 - propose and ontologize RIFRAF on negation [on Axel Polleres - due 2006-11-30].
20:17:00 [rifbot]
Created ACTION-178 - ask Frank if he\'ll revise and ontologize Section 6 [on Axel Polleres - due 2006-11-30].
20:17:25 [sandro]
ACTION: Paula-Lavinia to revise and ontologize RIFRAF, section 5 - due 2006-11-30
20:17:25 [rifbot]
Created ACTION-179 - revise and ontologize RIFRAF, section 5 [on Paula-Lavinia Patranjan - due 2006-11-30].
20:17:28 [msintek]
Harold will be asked to review ontology
20:18:18 [msintek]
Dave: reporting back from the "whatever" :-) group
20:18:24 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
20:19:05 [msintek]
(i.e., group on dialects ....)
20:19:38 [msintek]
... rule components: core = variable decl, antecedent, consequent
20:19:51 [msintek]
... dialects might add further
20:20:11 [msintek]
... dialects: starter set = lp, pr, fol
20:20:23 [msintek]
... is FOL in scope
20:20:51 [msintek]
... lp purity (prolog sub-dialect of lp?)
20:21:09 [msintek]
... led to disc. on ordering
20:21:30 [msintek]
... which was discussed a lot
20:22:08 [msintek]
... by default, synt. ordering not preserved; ordering construct will be provided
20:22:22 [PaulaP]
PaulaP has joined #rif
20:22:30 [msintek]
... needed for dialects with order-dep. semantics
20:23:22 [sandro]
Paul: Why not order?
20:24:01 [sandro]
Dave: Because merging is much harder with ordering.
20:24:46 [sandro]
Dave: being unordering is a nice property for distributed things.
20:25:18 [sandro]
[ This is not written as a proposal, yet ]
20:25:27 [msintek]
Dave: syntax extensions
20:25:57 [msintek]
... all rif standard dialects should use a common rif syntax, extending only where necessary
20:27:04 [msintek]
... syntax extension mechanisms: XML substitution groups / RDF
20:27:50 [msintek]
... is RDF permissable as XML syntax?
20:28:08 [msintek]
... charter just says "normative xml syntax"
20:28:18 [msintek]
... csma interprets this as xml schema
20:28:54 [msintek]
... dave: rdf metadata opens door to use rdf
20:30:00 [msintek]
... has to be decided
20:31:15 [msintek]
Issue: decide on XML Schema vs. RDF/XML as concrete syntax conforming to charter
20:32:22 [msintek]
Dave: extensions: need notion of common libraries (e.g., mathematical operators)=
20:33:48 [sandro]
(clarified that SOME mathematical operators might be in core.)
20:34:25 [msintek]
csma: are there other views on this?
20:34:35 [msintek]
Peter: common syntax: not rdf?
20:35:01 [msintek]
Sandro: how do you introduce new operators?
20:35:48 [msintek]
... played with XML Schema: addition seems to be very difficult
20:36:16 [msintek]
CSMA: in some cases doable with subst. groups
20:37:39 [msintek]
Sandro: RelaxNG probably ok
20:38:59 [msintek]
CSMA: essence is that for new dialects one builds on a common syntax: goal: even if dialects are developed in parallel this will not end in chaos
20:39:32 [sandro]
s/ok/ok for RIF to use, if we really want/
20:42:16 [msintek]
Alex: importance of keeping the provenance when merging rule sets
20:42:37 [msintek]
BREAK!
20:42:39 [msintek]
msintek has left #rif
20:44:47 [msintek]
msintek has joined #rif
20:49:38 [PaulaP]
PaulaP has joined #rif
20:50:06 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
21:01:02 [PaulaP]
test
21:04:40 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #rif
21:04:53 [PaulaP]
Reporting from the session on technical design - semantics
21:05:32 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has left #rif
21:05:54 [PaulaP]
and abstract syntax
21:06:25 [PaulaP]
Christian: we should also discuss plans for the next spec and WD
21:06:40 [PaulaP]
Harold: focus on work by Hassan
21:07:09 [PaulaP]
Harold: slots and constraints as main building blocks
21:08:14 [PaulaP]
Harold: ideas to generalize existing proposal towards CLP
21:08:49 [PaulaP]
Harold: a generalized slotted syntax is presented
21:09:42 [PaulaP]
Harold: Herbrand atoms can be enriched by slotted atoms
21:10:53 [PaulaP]
...and Herbrand terms by slotted terms
21:11:53 [PaulaP]
Harold: the slides will be also available, so no need to write details
21:12:07 [PaulaP]
...in the session's minutes
21:13:31 [PaulaP]
Christian: what about the quantification part? Is it also covered?
21:13:41 [PaulaP]
Chris: it is not in this proposal
21:14:11 [PaulaP]
Christian: the quantification part contains also constraints on the variables and their types
21:14:37 [PaulaP]
Chris: it is a placeholder for possible extensions
21:15:33 [PaulaP]
Christian: Does this mean that we have now 4 parts in a rule?
21:15:46 [PaulaP]
Harold: yes
21:16:59 [PaulaP]
Sandro: What means canonical here?
21:17:17 [PaulaP]
Chris: it is a normative one actually here
21:18:00 [PaulaP]
Christian: to be rephrased - if a model theory exists it should be normative
21:18:20 [PaulaP]
Chris: go back and start with the syntactic part so as to take decisions
21:18:26 [sandro]
Suggested and probably approved: If there is a model theory, it is normative. If there is no model theory, but a proof therory, it is normative. If there is niehter, but an operational semantics, it is normative.
21:19:27 [PaulaP]
Hassan: slotted terms are more general than Herbrand terms
21:19:56 [PaulaP]
...and have a bsic data model based on constraints
21:20:13 [PaulaP]
s/bsic/basic
21:20:57 [PaulaP]
Alex: It is required to make constraints explicit?
21:21:14 [PaulaP]
Chris: the non-constraint part is positional
21:21:35 [PaulaP]
Hassan: we could also propose a kind of black-box approach for constraints
21:21:53 [PaulaP]
Christian: we have two levels of shorthands
21:22:19 [PaulaP]
Sandro: I'm very happy with this design
21:22:41 [PaulaP]
Dave: it seems you have orthogonal things here
21:22:57 [PaulaP]
Hassan: the abstraction mechanism is based on constraints
21:23:24 [PaulaP]
Chris: it is in the charter to support slotted terms
21:23:38 [PaulaP]
Jos: is this the reason also for introducing constraints?
21:23:46 [PaulaP]
Jeff: but why in the core?
21:23:58 [sandro]
The design I'm seeing that I like is that by definition p(x,y,z) = p{1->x, 2->y, 3->z}.
21:24:01 [PaulaP]
Hassan: the core gives just the abstraction mechanism
21:24:49 [sandro]
I wonder if we need a URI for "1". :-) :-) (and yet very serious.)
21:24:58 [PaulaP]
Jos: constraints in the core are of very limited nature
21:25:54 [PaulaP]
Jeff: can you provide references for the fact that datatypes can also be based on the proposed mechanism?
21:26:04 [PaulaP]
Hassan: yes, of course
21:26:22 [PaulaP]
Jeff: I need to read these documents first
21:26:49 [PaulaP]
Jos: need also to take a look at examples and use cases
21:27:06 [PaulaP]
Christian: you do not define formula in this approach
21:27:17 [PaulaP]
Alex: do you need a constraint solver?
21:27:28 [PaulaP]
Hassan: no, you don't
21:28:06 [PaulaP]
Chris: e.g. typing constraints can be mapped to something that understands such kinds of constraints
21:28:20 [PaulaP]
Michael K: typing is another issue
21:28:58 [PaulaP]
Alex: what is the difference between typing constraints and these presented in the proposal?
21:29:16 [PaulaP]
Alex: what about OWL?
21:29:33 [PaulaP]
Michael K: we talk here about another types of constraints
21:29:45 [PaulaP]
Hassan: typing can be also dynamic
21:30:00 [PaulaP]
...for example to narrow search
21:30:34 [PaulaP]
Christian: we need to have an abstract syntax for the RIF core
21:30:56 [PaulaP]
...and the semantics so as to understand this proposal
21:31:26 [PaulaP]
Hassan: this is simply an abstraction mechanism for specifying specific things
21:31:46 [PaulaP]
Harold: we have conjunction formulas
21:31:58 [LeoraMorgenstern]
LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
21:32:06 [PaulaP]
...in this proposal that are based on very simple constraints
21:32:19 [PaulaP]
...we need just simple constraints in the core
21:32:33 [PaulaP]
Sandro: clarify what kind of decision we need here
21:33:05 [PaulaP]
...is there any reason for objecting to this proposal?
21:33:18 [PaulaP]
Jos: I need to see details
21:33:35 [PaulaP]
Alex: practical significance of introducing constraints
21:33:54 [PaulaP]
Chris: it can't be worse than the existing proposal
21:34:25 [PaulaP]
Alex: we need some nice examples for representing data models with constraints
21:35:08 [PaulaP]
Michael K: are you asking about documents on why CLP is useful?
21:35:12 [PaulaP]
Alex: no
21:35:53 [PaulaP]
Christian: can you provide examples of rules where you would like to see a translation using constraints?
21:36:01 [PaulaP]
...would that help?
21:36:28 [PaulaP]
Chris: constraints are completely optional
21:36:49 [PaulaP]
Sandro: but if I receive a constraints I have to handle it!!
21:37:04 [PaulaP]
Chris: constraints can be empty
21:37:50 [PaulaP]
Christian: the instantiation of the constraint part in the core is true?
21:38:37 [PaulaP]
Hassan: if you need to represent data models, you can have the constraints as a kind of built-in
21:39:30 [PaulaP]
Christian: would it help is Hassan provides concrete examples?
21:39:43 [PaulaP]
s/is/if
21:40:10 [PaulaP]
Jeff: we need to be clear what this extension brings
21:40:36 [PaulaP]
Chris: I don't understand what you don't understand
21:41:07 [PaulaP]
Peter: if the constraint is empty you don't get the core!
21:41:47 [PaulaP]
Chris: we have a set of constraints that map Herbrand terms to slotted terms
21:41:59 [PaulaP]
Chris: no, actually not
21:42:20 [sandro]
Chris: THE ONLY CONSTRAINTS YOU CAN WRITE, IN THE CORE, ARE THE ONES IN GREEN
21:42:35 [PaulaP]
Chris: we may have also other kinds of constraints
21:42:39 [PaulaP]
...later on
21:43:28 [PaulaP]
...restricted set of constraints for the core
21:43:46 [JosD]
JosD has joined #rif
21:43:53 [PaulaP]
Jos: I'm fine with this clarification
21:44:13 [PaulaP]
Jeff: I need something written
21:44:32 [PaulaP]
Axel: can you also map back to Herbrand terms?
21:45:08 [PaulaP]
Michael K: this is just theoretical
21:45:37 [PaulaP]
Hassan: yes, for Axel's question
21:46:02 [PaulaP]
Christian: what is the condition for this proposal to be accepted or not?
21:46:24 [PaulaP]
Jeff: I need to see something in the wiki
21:46:44 [PaulaP]
Alex: together with references from the literature
21:46:56 [PaulaP]
...and also mention some benefits
21:47:20 [PaulaP]
Hassan: we have now slotted terms
21:47:51 [PaulaP]
Michael K: other kinds of constraints may be part of the core
21:48:59 [PaulaP]
ACTION: Harold to edit a wiki page for the proposal on extending the existing work with constraints
21:48:59 [rifbot]
Created ACTION-180 - Edit a wiki page for the proposal on extending the existing work with constraints [on Harold Boley - due 2006-11-12].
21:50:31 [PaulaP]
Chris: objections to the semantic hierarchy slide?
21:50:55 [PaulaP]
Christian: the normative semantics will be the model theory
21:51:31 [sandro]
Chris: The WG will follow this, and we will recommend it to others.
21:51:32 [PaulaP]
Sandro: what if somebody declares the proof theory for a dialect as being the normative semantics?
21:51:47 [PaulaP]
Chris: they are not RIF-compatible
21:53:01 [PaulaP]
Gary: why not in the case of multiple existing theories just say which one is normative?
21:53:15 [PaulaP]
Dave: +1 to Gary's point
21:53:41 [PaulaP]
Peter: this is wrong
21:54:40 [PaulaP]
...the dialect for production rules will come just with operational semantics
21:54:50 [sandro]
Sandro PROPOSED: In the RIF-WG, model theories will be normative; in their absense it will be proof theories; in the absense of both it will be operation semantics.
21:54:54 [PaulaP]
Sandro: suggest another wording
21:55:28 [PaulaP]
Jos: you didn't say anything about dialects
21:55:58 [PaulaP]
Peter: a formal specification is a formal specification for something
21:56:15 [sandro]
PROPOSED: For standard RIF dialects, model theories will be normative; in their absense it will be proof theories; in the absense of both it will be operation semantics.
21:57:14 [PaulaP]
Christian: if you want the operational semantics as normative, then you simply don't give a model and a proof theory
21:57:55 [PaulaP]
Peter: but we could reject such a dialect if we think that such a model or proof theory for this dialect exists
21:58:30 [PaulaP]
Gary: if they are 3, programmers will read just the operational semantics
21:59:00 [PaulaP]
Sandro: the semantics hierarchy gives us guidance
21:59:14 [PaulaP]
...to how to approach this issues
21:59:44 [sandro]
RESOLVED: For standard RIF dialects, model theories will be normative; in their absense it will be proof theories; in the absense of both it will be operation semantics.
21:59:47 [PaulaP]
Christian: objections to the last phrasing?
21:59:58 [PaulaP]
no objections
22:00:28 [PaulaP]
Peter: we dopped the first part of the Harold's slide
22:00:41 [sandro]
RESOLVED: RIF Core will be based on current model theory with suitable extensions
22:00:42 [PaulaP]
s/dopped/dropped
22:01:18 [PaulaP]
Christian: back to the constraints issues
22:02:39 [PaulaP]
Christian: I think we can discuss other issues now
22:03:59 [GiorgosStoilos]
GiorgosStoilos has joined #rif
22:04:14 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #rif
22:04:46 [JeffP]
csma: when will the rifraf doc be available?
22:04:59 [JeffP]
axel: mid Dec
22:05:22 [JeffP]
.. editor draf (internal) by mid Jan 2007
22:05:47 [JeffP]
s/draf/draft
22:06:59 [JeffP]
csma: do we have a work plan on UCR?
22:08:52 [Jeff]
Jeff has joined #rif
22:09:14 [sandro]
leora goes over what the UCR editors and contributors need to do
22:09:17 [Jeff]
csma: work plan for UCR?
22:09:44 [Jeff]
allen: can be done by end of Nov 2006
22:10:00 [sandro]
LeoraMorgenstern, can you cut/paste that into e-mail to rif as something like Work Plan for UCR ?
22:10:39 [Jeff]
Action: Allen to edit sub-section on benefits based on earlier email
22:10:39 [rifbot]
Created ACTION-181 - Edit sub-section on benefits based on earlier email [on Allen Ginsberg - due 2006-11-12].
22:11:42 [Jeff]
leora: shall we need some steps in between?
22:12:27 [Jeff]
csma: shall we give Allen some time after Nov 30?
22:12:42 [Jeff]
allen: Dec 5, 2006 would be fine
22:13:54 [Jeff]
allen: there are some issues related to use cases which haven't been resolved
22:14:15 [Jeff]
csma: we can get them discussed next telecon
22:14:47 [Jeff]
csma: John's new texts on the use case are there
22:15:09 [Jeff]
Topic: Tech Spec wrap-up
22:16:08 [Jeff]
csma: do we want to publish the Nov 15 draft as a public one?
22:16:24 [Jeff]
... or shall we wait for the XML syntax too?
22:16:48 [Jeff]
csma: I think we should include
22:17:37 [MichaelKifer]
MichaelKifer has joined #rif
22:17:37 [Jeff]
... otherwise it is not concrete enough for comments
22:18:58 [Jeff]
peter: we need some way of describing the core using some current technique
22:20:05 [Jeff]
harold: I did some experiment on XML Schema
22:20:27 [Jeff]
... we can now validate against the current core now
22:21:02 [Jeff]
csma: we should have as&s by the end of the month
22:21:31 [Jeff]
sandro: relax ng might be a better option
22:22:03 [Jeff]
gary: some tool can translate relax ng ionto xml schema
22:22:15 [Jeff]
dave: is it a complete translation?
22:22:26 [Jeff]
gary: haven't tried that before
22:22:51 [Harold]
Content models written as DTDs can be automatically transformed into either XML Schemas or Relax NG schemas.
22:22:55 [sandro]
ACTION: Sandro propose way to get to an XML syntax specification from the abstract syntax
22:22:55 [rifbot]
Created ACTION-182 - Propose way to get to an XML syntax specification from the abstract syntax [on Sandro Hawke - due 2006-11-12].
22:23:39 [Jeff]
sandro: by the end of the week (for the above action)
22:24:08 [Jeff]
... will talk to Harold later this week
22:24:58 [Jeff]
harold: there are many different ways to do the same ways in xml schema, while in dtd there is only one way
22:25:20 [Jeff]
s/the same ways/the same thing
22:25:59 [Jeff]
csma: this means we can have the first editors' draft about as&s by the end of Nov
22:27:42 [Jeff]
csma: more concrete descriptions for the new proposal should be provided before the WG can come up with a decision
22:28:21 [Jeff]
... any action someone want to volunteer to clarify the new proposal?
22:29:11 [Jeff]
csma: AOB?
22:31:01 [Jeff]
hassan: I can show some demo on the parser generator JAC
22:31:15 [Jeff]
csma: anyone interested in it?
22:31:26 [Jeff]
(many people raised their hands)
22:35:28 [Jeff]
(hassan starts the demo)
22:41:08 [csma]
csma has joined #rif
22:46:15 [Jeff]
s/JAC/JACC
22:59:30 [Jeff]
hassan: the limitations include it does not support attributes yet
23:00:23 [Jeff]
csma: thanks Hassan
23:00:58 [Jeff]
hassan: JACC is freely available
23:01:23 [Jeff]
... and I am working on Java Web Start now
23:01:56 [Jeff]
michael: any decision on ftf5?
23:02:29 [Jeff]
csma: Allen will provide the dates asap
23:03:23 [Jeff]
allen: maybe one week is enough
23:03:43 [Jeff]
csma: next telecon would be next week, rather this one
23:04:32 [Jeff]
Chris: lets thank peter for the organisations and hosts
23:05:34 [Jeff]
... adjourn
23:05:48 [msintek]
msintek has left #rif