15:34:20 RRSAgent has joined #rif 15:34:20 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/01/02-rif-irc 15:42:13 zakim, this will be rif 15:42:13 ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 18 minutes 15:42:31 Meeting: RIF Telecon 02 Jan 07 15:42:49 Chair: Chris Welty 15:43:03 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jan/0000.html 15:43:19 ChrisW has changed the topic to: 02 Jan Telecon Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jan/0000.html 15:44:01 agenda+ Admin 15:44:06 agenda+ F2F 15:44:10 agenda+ Liason 15:44:16 agenda+ Technical Design 15:44:21 agenda+ UCR 15:44:27 agenda+ RIFRAF 15:44:30 agenda+ AOB 15:44:51 rrsagent, make minutes 15:44:51 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/01/02-rif-minutes.html ChrisW 15:45:22 rrsagent, make logs public 15:48:44 csma has joined #rif 15:52:23 Hassan has joined #rif 15:53:19 Harold has joined #rif 15:55:05 Hi Chris, I just saw your email. 15:55:28 Further down in my email, I wrote:HB> Indeed, using the Prolog-like notation s/a for an s of arity a, 15:55:49 HB> s/n{1->t_1, …, i->t_i, …, n->t_n} doesn’t unify s/i{1->t_1, …, i->t_i} 15:55:58 HB> and with this ‘locally-closed-slot’ semantics imposed by s/n and s/i 15:56:07 HB> s/n(t_1, …, t_i, …, t_n) would no longer unify s/i(t_1, …, t_i). 15:56:14 FrankMcCabe has joined #rif 15:56:18 hmmm - i missed it somehow 15:56:19 SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started 15:56:22 ok 15:56:26 +Hassan_Ait-Kaci 15:56:26 thanks for pointing it out 15:56:40 zakim, what is the code 15:56:40 I don't understand 'what is the code', FrankMcCabe 15:56:43 zakim, what is the code? 15:56:43 the conference code is 74394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), FrankMcCabe 15:56:50 so then you are ok with positional->keyword mapping + signatures 15:57:17 +??P1 15:57:36 zakim, P1 is me 15:57:36 sorry, FrankMcCabe, I do not recognize a party named 'P1' 15:57:41 zakim, ??P1 is me 15:57:41 +FrankMcCabe; got it 15:58:33 +Christian 15:58:41 zakim, christian is me 15:58:41 +csma; got it 15:58:44 zakim, who is on the phone 15:58:44 I don't understand 'who is on the phone', FrankMcCabe 15:58:47 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:58:47 On the phone I see Hassan_Ait-Kaci, FrankMcCabe, csma 15:59:14 Deborah_Nichols has joined #rif 15:59:48 +Deborah_Nichols 15:59:52 LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif 16:00:10 sandro has joined #rif 16:00:13 DaveReynolds has joined #rif 16:00:37 MichaelKifer has joined #rif 16:00:38 +??P5 16:00:47 zakim, ??p5 is me 16:00:47 +ChrisW; got it 16:00:50 +Dave_Reynolds (was Guest P6 74394) 16:00:51 mdean has joined #rif 16:00:52 +Dave_Reynolds 16:00:56 +Sandro 16:01:30 Agenda is: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jan/0000.html 16:01:49 Allen has joined #rif 16:02:11 hold on 16:02:23 zakim, who is on the phone? 16:02:23 On the phone I see Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), FrankMcCabe, csma, Deborah_Nichols, ChrisW, Dave_Reynolds, Sandro 16:02:33 +Allen_Ginsberg 16:02:50 scribenick: Deborah_Nichols 16:02:58 zakim, mute me 16:02:58 Allen_Ginsberg should now be muted 16:03:00 Scribe: Deborah Nichols 16:03:02 RRSAgent, make record public 16:03:07 RRSAgent, make minutes 16:03:07 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/01/02-rif-minutes.html sandro 16:03:08 zakim, next item 16:03:08 agendum 1. "Admin" taken up [from ChrisW] 16:03:32 I'm not on the phone yet (some connection problems) 16:03:43 but just wanted to say that I have just sent out the draft minutes 16:03:49 for the December 19 meeting 16:04:00 ok leora 16:04:49 zakim, mute me 16:04:49 csma should now be muted 16:04:51 +Leora_Morgenstern 16:05:12 zakim, please mute me 16:05:12 Leora_Morgenstern should now be muted 16:05:26 ack leora 16:05:27 yes, we did 16:05:29 zakim, unmute me 16:05:29 Leora_Morgenstern was not muted, LeoraMorgenstern 16:06:28 Minutes of 12/26 meeting will be approved next week. 16:06:56 All admin actions are continued. 16:07:10 zakim, who is on the phone? 16:07:10 On the phone I see Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), FrankMcCabe, csma (muted), Deborah_Nichols, ChrisW, Dave_Reynolds, Sandro, Allen_Ginsberg (muted), Leora_Morgenstern 16:07:19 No additions to the agenda. 16:07:28 +Harold_Boley 16:07:28 zakim, next item 16:07:28 agendum 2. "F2F" taken up [from ChrisW] 16:07:59 no 16:08:06 Sandro has an open action to set up the registration. 16:08:11 zakim, next item 16:08:11 agendum 2 was just opened, Deborah_Nichols 16:08:18 zakim, close item 2 16:08:18 agendum 2, F2F, closed 16:08:20 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 16:08:21 3. Liason [from ChrisW] 16:08:30 +Gary_Hallmark 16:09:19 from Chris: ISO Common Logic has hit the final deadline for comments, and the document is in its final form. 16:09:26 zakim, close item 3 16:09:26 agendum 3, Liason, closed 16:09:27 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 16:09:28 4. Technical Design [from ChrisW] 16:09:31 zakim, next item 16:09:31 agendum 4. "Technical Design" taken up [from ChrisW] 16:10:27 We will not come to a resolution today. 16:11:21 First discussion point: there will be elements of any RIF dialect that will be shared, so it makes sense to have a library -- pieces of the specification -- of components that can be used across dialects, e.g., that a rule has a head and body, or constraints. 16:11:55 We need to create a specification of what a dialect is, etc., to help those who are designing their own dialects. 16:12:16 So we propose a RIF-Arch (Architecture) document to do that. 16:12:30 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Arch 16:12:56 q+ 16:13:02 ack csma 16:13:22 URL to a preliminary document containing examples of the kinds of things that RIF-Arch should cover: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Arch 16:13:24 +Michael_Kifer 16:13:35 zakim, mute me 16:13:35 Michael_Kifer should now be muted 16:14:44 csma: Should also define syntactic as well as semantic components, e.g., what are the normative definitions for, e.g., conjunction, etc. 16:14:50 q+ 16:14:57 ack me 16:15:51 Dave Reynolds: Would cmsa include in syntactic elements things like functions, operators, etc.? 16:16:14 Yes, those things would be available for reuse by dialect creators. 16:16:57 ChrisW: In designing RIF Core, we recognize that there are elements in the Core that can be reused. 16:17:29 +Mike_Dean 16:18:08 csma: If you create a dialect that extends the Core, then you can reuse components from the Core as well as adding your own. 16:18:27 Dave: Are you talking about a starter library or a registry? 16:18:35 +q 16:18:53 -q 16:18:55 csma: When we define Core, it will be as part of a library. 16:18:59 I think of it more like a registry 16:19:03 seriously. 16:19:13 ChrisW: The Arch document will not be the sum total of the dialects. 16:19:41 Sandro: But my understanding is that the document would be the union of all the standard dialects. 16:19:48 q? 16:20:16 frank, it is q+/q- 16:20:51 Harold: Proposes we might automate the transition from a modular version of a dialect to a flat version. 16:22:05 zakim, unmute me 16:22:05 csma should no longer be muted 16:22:16 Harold: You might want one Arch document where you can find all the features in one place. 16:22:33 -Gary_Hallmark 16:23:02 s/of a dialect/composed of dialects 16:23:23 +q 16:23:53 csma: Might not be easy or possible to construct such a list of features from the modular components, because the style might be different in each document. 16:24:29 csma: Might be necessary to separately enter the features of a new dialect into the Arch document. 16:25:15 Sandro: Prefers a pointer mechansim, rather than copying text; then add additional explanation if needed in Arch document. 16:25:41 MoZ has joined #rif 16:25:54 q+ 16:26:38 Harold: It seems we are talking about a system of dialects that may be siblings, and there may be inconsistencies. So really there's a network of features. 16:26:52 ack frankmc 16:28:02 Frank: At first thought csma was referring to something called "Architectural Principles" (in architecture circles). Such AP documents are not an enumeration of actual features but a statement of general principles for developing features. 16:28:57 Frank: It seems to be just busywork to copy over one's dialect's features into a separate document. 16:29:31 Sandro: If multiple documents use the same 'negation', then it should be defined the same way in one place. 16:29:35 +Gary_Hallmark 16:29:38 Frank: Why not simply in the dialect? 16:29:58 +Gerd_Wagner 16:30:01 Frank: Proposes we postpone the problem till we're actually facing it.. 16:30:10 GerdWagner has joined #rif 16:30:21 Sandro: We can list the components in the actual dialects or in an archicture spec. 16:30:45 q? 16:30:54 zakim, mute me 16:30:54 Gerd_Wagner should now be muted 16:31:02 csma: The difference between those options is in the way the components are described. In an arch spec, there can be a consistent description. 16:31:14 q+ 16:32:27 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/BottomUpClassification 16:32:29 ack hassan 16:33:09 Frank: Is this a matter of enforcing some single style -- but participants have different styles. 16:33:33 Hassan: Sees the proposal as primarily to be able to share components. 16:35:07 q+ 16:35:17 Dave: Makes sense to me to have a starter library. But to have a registry of all components of all dialects goes beyond that. 16:35:56 Dave: Esp. if it requires all components to be normatively described to be registered in a central architecture document. 16:36:09 csma: I think both Sandro and I meant this as a starter library. 16:36:57 cmsa: Designers of new dialects then add their new components to the starter library. 16:37:19 Dave: But the latter sounds like a universal registry of all dialect components. 16:37:35 q+ to say I'm now leaning against a registry or starter library 16:37:50 csma: What would be the problem with designers of new features adding their components to the arch document? 16:39:06 Dave: Two potential problems: When you have too many new features, then reuse goes down, and/or it may be a burden on the designer to register. 16:39:27 Why would adding a dialect be a problem? It would tenbd to defeat *interchange* (granted) so the reuse is an *encouragement* to interchange! 16:39:56 s/tenbd/tend 16:40:03 csma: We don't forbid people to develop their own components. But we want to provide a place for people to look for reusable components. 16:40:38 ChrisW: 2 choices: 1. specify the document in separate documents; 2. specify the dialects in one document together. Or both. 16:41:21 Sandro: But that doesn't cover orthogonal dialects. Those fit better into a component library than into a specification document; e.g., roundtripping components. 16:41:46 q? 16:41:53 ack csma 16:42:05 ack sandro 16:42:05 sandro, you wanted to say I'm now leaning against a registry or starter library 16:42:10 ChrisW: Original proposal was a specification document, didn't cover a component library. 16:42:50 New subtopic: Slots and Constraints 16:43:24 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 16:43:33 ChrisW: Summary. At f2f, Hassan sent a message to unify the keyword based approach with positional approach, by mapping positional arguments into slotted or keyword arguments. 16:44:07 ...Harold found a problem with this because you can get strange unifications. Harold proposed reverse mapping from keyword to positional. 16:44:21 ...But people found problems with that due to strange non-unifications. 16:44:56 zakim, unmute me 16:44:56 Michael_Kifer should no longer be muted 16:45:02 ...New proposal was to add signatures to the keyword-to-positional mapping approach. And Harold is okay with that. 16:46:14 Michael: There's a problem with this proposal because it is completely syntactic. It's not clear that it captures relational notation, and it definitely doesn't capture F-logic. Michael is working on a document to show this and to explain what the issues are, which should be ready tonight. 16:47:27 q+ 16:47:31 Michael: Briefly, in all cases, slots are functions; but, what additional semantics are attached to functions? At least three possibilities: slot notation, psi-notation, and ?? In all cases, those are functions, but from different things to different things, so they are semantically not equal. 16:48:27 Michael: Maybe we should not include 'slot' in the core, and let it be developed in the dialects. He is opposed to providing a syntactic component that can be given different semantics. 16:48:44 Three: relational, psi-terms, and one from F-logic. 16:48:56 q? 16:49:13 q+ 16:49:22 And in additional, there may be multiple kinds of statements you want to make with slots, as in F-logic. 16:49:31 s/additional/addition 16:49:51 ChrisW: What do you understand by "slot", Michael? 16:50:57 [need to get from Michael] 16:50:58 ack me 16:51:03 Chris 16:51:23 ChrisW: Acknowledges that Michael and Christian may mean different things by 'slot'. 16:51:59 ^ChrisW^Michael^ 16:52:01 Michael: There is a way to translate from relational into F-logic notation. Not sure about the other way around. Haven't investigated with psi-terms. 16:52:11 ^Christian^Harold 16:52:26 q? 16:53:04 Michael: The question is whether we include multiple definitions of slot in the core or leave them to be developed in dialects. 16:53:16 csma: Is there a problem including one definition of slot in the Core? 16:53:44 Michael: There should be a good reason for selecting only one for the Core. Would not want to leave it as syntax open to multiple interpretations. 16:53:45 ack hassan 16:54:59 Hassan: Don't understand what the problem issue. Proposed CLP to de-sugar anything you want away -- any syntax -- into constraints. This should allow you to write down clearly what the semantics is. 16:55:22 Hassan: Don't understand why we're using a syntactic trick when it isn't needed. 16:55:39 zakim, unmute me 16:55:39 Gerd_Wagner should no longer be muted 16:55:48 q+ 16:56:25 ChrisW: To clarify: Hassan raised 2 points, one to Michael and one to Harold. Michael isn't arguing against using CLP -- Hassan knows that. 2nd point to Harold was, why are we using a 'syntactic trick' when we don't need to? 16:57:34 Hassan: On 2nd point, wants us not to use a syntactic trick - either put a slotted syntax in the Core with a clear specification, or leave it to be defined in dialects outside the Core. 16:59:01 Michael: Your point is that we are defining a syntax in the Core, and a syntax is supposed to have semantics. But due to an ambiguity in the semantics of slot, we need to define at least three different kinds of slot. 16:59:16 Hassan: Why can't we take one syntax and give it three different semantics? 16:59:59 ChrisW: But some dialects may need more than one of the three interpretations of slot -- that would be impossible if the same syntax is used for the three interpretations. 17:00:46 csma: If you agree there can be 3+ types of semantics, then why not have different syntax with the different semantics? 17:02:02 Michael: Are you saying build in 3 different syntax components, or 1 component with 3 interpretations? 17:02:09 csma: The latter. 17:02:18 s/csma/Hassan 17:03:03 csma: But why do you want to have only 1 syntax for 3 different semantics? 17:03:18 ChrisW: The reason you might *not* want to do that is when you want to mix them. 17:03:45 Michael: It's also confusing, as though we are giving one language with three interpretations. Confusing. 17:03:53 Hassan: It 17:04:05 Hassan: It is not a language but a language schema. 17:04:35 ChrisW: Do you agree that if a dialect needs more than one sense of slot, then we need more than one syntax? 17:04:45 Hassan: Would like to see such a use case. 17:05:32 Michael: E.g., RuleML has two kinds of slots. Also, the Flora system, which has only F-logic syntax, some people have requested having also the relational syntax. That is an example from user experience. 17:06:53 Michael: Flora has positional predicates as well, but people wanted also to have slots where positions don't matter. Flora doesn't support that, but its users want it -- that is the use case. 17:08:27 I second Gerd's proposal to survey what sorts of slots we really need in actual would-be RIF languages 17:11:31 Gerd proposes that we should use use cases to identify the most important use of slots, and include that in the Core. 17:12:15 q? 17:12:18 Harold: [offers another proposal for how to cover other interpretations of slot.] 17:12:28 zakim, close item 3 17:12:28 agendum 3, Liason, closed 17:12:29 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 17:12:30 4. Technical Design [from ChrisW] 17:12:39 zakim, close item 4 17:12:39 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, Deborah_Nichols 17:12:46 zakim, unmute me 17:12:46 Gerd_Wagner was not muted, GerdWagner 17:12:56 zakim, clear q 17:12:56 I don't understand 'clear q', Deborah_Nichols 17:13:05 q- gerd 17:13:13 zakim, next item 17:13:13 agendum 5. "UCR" taken up [from ChrisW] 17:13:34 zakim, mute me 17:13:34 Gerd_Wagner should now be muted 17:14:54 Gerd: Christian's statement on issue 12 is stronger than Gerd understands RIF Charter to have committed. 17:15:46 csma: We don't know what the requirements are on a standard semantic web language, so wants not to commit ourselves to that. 17:16:31 Frank: But seems to say that RIF will do no work towards making a standard SW rule language. If that's true, let's make it clear. 17:16:47 ^Frank^Dave 17:16:58 csma: There are things we will do, such as enabling RIF dialects to handle RIF and OWL. 17:17:13 ^Gerd^Dave 17:18:03 csma: His point is not to commit to something till we know what we're committing to. 17:18:14 zakim, mute me 17:18:14 Michael_Kifer should now be muted 17:19:15 q? 17:19:19 Sandro: Sounds like Dave has a notion of what a SW rule language would be. Sandro doesn't really see what it would be. 17:19:37 ChrisW: Agrees with Sandro that there is nothing like a consensus on what SW rule language would be. 17:19:56 q+ 17:20:07 Dave: But you can read csma's proposed wording as though *all* of the dialects would meet some minimum requirement for being a SW RL. 17:20:19 ^RL^rule language 17:22:19 Dave: My concern is that people would make assumptions about what any dialect would do for them, when it wouldn't. 17:22:59 q? 17:23:11 Sandro: Should we qualify the assertion to say that the use of RIF as a SW rule language is a side effect only? 17:23:31 ChrisW: Dave has a very definite idea of what a SW rule language should be and do. 17:24:19 csma: "Also the design goal of each dialect is for rule interchange; some of them may also end up being useful as SW rule languages" -- is that acceptable? 17:24:38 Dave: Prefers the text that says RIF is not doing work on SW rule language. 17:25:02 ChrisW: Doesn't want to preclude RIF from doing work on SW rule language. 17:25:41 zakim,unmute me 17:25:41 Allen_Ginsberg should no longer be muted 17:25:46 csma: Removed "primary" from the design goal of dialects, so as not to imply there was a commitment to developing dialects as SW rule languages. 17:26:06 ChrisW: We will continue discussion on the above point in email and next week. 17:26:34 Next sub-topic: UCR document 17:26:53 action: allen to add new definition of covers to UCR 17:26:54 Created ACTION-205 - Add new definition of covers to UCR [on Allen Ginsberg - due 2007-01-09]. 17:27:13 ack csma 17:27:23 Allen: The coverage issue has been addressed, and then the document is ready to sent out. 17:27:39 Allen: One more item related to Use Case 1 needs to be addressed. 17:28:01 csma will look at that use case. 17:28:15 ChrisW reviewed the UCR action list. 17:28:53 ChrisW: Proposed rule examples were all deferred till we finish the Core. 17:30:32 ^sent^send 17:30:54 -Harold_Boley 17:30:57 -Allen_Ginsberg 17:30:58 -Michael_Kifer 17:30:59 -FrankMcCabe 17:30:59 -Gary_Hallmark 17:31:01 -Dave_Reynolds 17:31:01 zakim, close item 5 17:31:01 agendum 5, UCR, closed 17:31:02 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 17:31:03 6. RIFRAF [from ChrisW] 17:31:04 -Hassan_Ait-Kaci 17:31:06 -Mike_Dean 17:31:09 -Leora_Morgenstern 17:31:10 -GerdWagner 17:31:11 zakim, close item 6 17:31:11 agendum 6, RIFRAF, closed 17:31:12 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 17:31:13 rrsagent, draft minutes 17:31:13 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/01/02-rif-minutes.html ChrisW 17:31:14 7. AOB [from ChrisW] 17:31:21 -Gerd_Wagner 17:31:28 No updates on RIFRAF 17:31:33 zakim, close item 6 17:31:33 agendum 6, RIFRAF, closed 17:31:34 I see 1 item remaining on the agenda: 17:31:35 7. AOB [from ChrisW] 17:31:38 -Sandro 17:31:39 zakim, next item 17:31:40 agendum 7. "AOB" taken up [from ChrisW] 17:31:55 Regrets: FrançoisBry IgorMozetic PaulaLaviniaPatranjan DavidHirtle MohamedZergaoui JosDeBruijn 17:32:01 zakim, close item 7 17:32:01 agendum 7, AOB, closed 17:32:02 I see nothing remaining on the agenda 17:34:07 -Deborah_Nichols 17:38:01 -ChrisW 17:38:02 SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended 17:38:03 Attendees were Hassan_Ait-Kaci, FrankMcCabe, csma, Deborah_Nichols, ChrisW, Dave_Reynolds, Sandro, Allen_Ginsberg, Leora_Morgenstern, Harold_Boley, Gary_Hallmark, Michael_Kifer, 17:38:06 ... Mike_Dean, Gerd_Wagner 17:38:13 rrsagent, draft minutes 17:38:13 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/01/02-rif-minutes.html ChrisW 17:38:30 csma has left #rif 21:30:50 Zakim has left #rif