IRC log of rif on 2007-01-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:40:42 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
15:40:42 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/01/30-rif-irc
15:40:52 [ChrisW]
zakim, this will be rif
15:40:52 [Zakim]
ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 20 minutes
15:41:15 [ChrisW]
Meeting: RIF Telecon 30 Jan 07
15:41:29 [ChrisW]
Chair: Chris Welty
15:43:57 [ChrisW]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jan/0124.html
15:44:15 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has changed the topic to: 16 Jan RIF agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jan/0124.html
15:44:29 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:44:29 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/01/30-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
15:44:39 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Admin
15:44:45 [ChrisW]
agenda+ F2F
15:44:53 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Liason
15:45:01 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Technical Design
15:45:10 [ChrisW]
agenda+ RIFRAF
15:45:14 [ChrisW]
agenda+ UCR
15:45:20 [ChrisW]
agenda+ AOB
15:45:28 [ChrisW]
zakim, clear agenda
15:45:28 [Zakim]
agenda cleared
15:45:34 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Admin
15:45:36 [ChrisW]
agenda+ F2F
15:45:38 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Liason
15:45:40 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Technical Design
15:45:42 [ChrisW]
agenda+ RIFRAF
15:45:45 [ChrisW]
agenda+ UCR
15:45:48 [ChrisW]
agenda+ AOB
15:45:55 [ChrisW]
zakim, list agenda
15:45:55 [Zakim]
I see 7 items remaining on the agenda:
15:45:56 [Zakim]
1. Admin [from ChrisW]
15:45:59 [Zakim]
2. F2F [from ChrisW]
15:46:00 [Zakim]
3. Liason [from ChrisW]
15:46:01 [Zakim]
4. Technical Design [from ChrisW]
15:46:03 [Zakim]
5. RIFRAF [from ChrisW]
15:46:05 [Zakim]
6. UCR [from ChrisW]
15:46:09 [Zakim]
7. AOB [from ChrisW]
15:46:10 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make logs public
15:46:24 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:46:24 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Admin" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:48:04 [csma]
csma has joined #rif
15:53:42 [AlexKozlenkov]
AlexKozlenkov has joined #rif
15:57:46 [DavidHirtle]
DavidHirtle has joined #rif
15:58:25 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
15:58:26 [patranja]
patranja has joined #rif
15:58:32 [Zakim]
+??P4
15:58:43 [LeoraMorgenstern]
LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
15:58:57 [csma]
zakim, ??P4 is me
15:58:57 [Zakim]
+csma; got it
15:59:38 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
16:00:02 [Zakim]
+Leora_Morgenstern
16:00:07 [Deborah_Nichols]
Deborah_Nichols has joined #rif
16:00:24 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #rif
16:00:25 [Zakim]
+[IBM]
16:00:37 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
16:00:44 [ChrisW]
zakim, ibm is temporarily me
16:00:44 [Zakim]
+ChrisW; got it
16:00:48 [Zakim]
+Deborah_Nichols
16:01:06 [Zakim]
+josb
16:01:50 [Zakim]
+[NRCC]
16:02:03 [Zakim]
+[LMU]
16:02:09 [Harold]
zakim, [NRCC] is me
16:02:09 [Zakim]
+Harold; got it
16:02:23 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
16:02:27 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #rif
16:02:31 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:02:35 [Zakim]
On the phone I see csma (muted), Leora_Morgenstern, ChrisW, Deborah_Nichols (muted), josb (muted), Harold, PaulaP (muted)
16:02:51 [johnhall]
johnhall has joined #rif
16:02:58 [Zakim]
+Dave_Reynolds (was Guest P5 74394)
16:02:59 [AllenGinsberg]
AllenGinsberg has joined #rif
16:03:00 [Zakim]
+Dave_Reynolds
16:03:26 [ChrisW]
john hall can you scribe today?
16:03:31 [Zakim]
+??P17
16:03:33 [Zakim]
+Allen_Ginsberg
16:03:40 [Zakim]
+??P26
16:03:41 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #rif
16:03:48 [Zakim]
+Jeff_Pan
16:03:49 [AllenGinsberg]
zakim, mute me
16:03:49 [Zakim]
+??P29
16:03:50 [Zakim]
Allen_Ginsberg should now be muted
16:03:51 [johnhall]
zakim, ??p26 is me
16:03:51 [Zakim]
+johnhall; got it
16:03:54 [AlexKozlenkov]
zakim, ??P26 is me
16:03:54 [Zakim]
I already had ??P26 as johnhall, AlexKozlenkov
16:03:59 [johnhall]
zakim, mute me
16:03:59 [Zakim]
johnhall should now be muted
16:04:04 [AlexKozlenkov]
zakim, ??P29 is me
16:04:04 [Zakim]
+AlexKozlenkov; got it
16:04:11 [AlexKozlenkov]
zakim, mute me
16:04:11 [Zakim]
AlexKozlenkov should now be muted
16:04:11 [johnhall]
yes
16:04:19 [DavidHirtle]
]
16:04:19 [ChrisW]
Scribe: John Hall
16:04:21 [DavidHirtle]
uhoh
16:04:26 [ChrisW]
scribenick: johnhall
16:04:32 [DavidHirtle]
I just raised my hand, but it showed up as johnhall
16:04:35 [Zakim]
+Axel_Polleres
16:04:55 [DavidHirtle]
zakim, johnhall is me
16:04:55 [Zakim]
+DavidHirtle; got it
16:04:56 [johnhall]
zakim, ??p26 is me
16:04:56 [Zakim]
I already had ??P26 as DavidHirtle, johnhall
16:05:13 [DavidHirtle]
okay I'm good now
16:05:23 [johnhall]
I'm not
16:05:23 [Zakim]
+??P31
16:05:34 [csma]
ack john
16:05:36 [Zakim]
+Sandro
16:05:37 [csma]
ack david
16:05:54 [csma]
zakim, mute david
16:05:54 [Zakim]
DavidHirtle should now be muted
16:05:54 [johnhall]
#41
16:06:02 [cgi-irc]
nick PaulV
16:06:03 [DavidHirtle]
I think it's 41# isn't it?
16:06:35 [johnhall]
zakim, ??p17 is me
16:06:40 [Zakim]
+johnhall; got it
16:07:01 [csma]
zakim, ??P31 is paulv
16:07:01 [Zakim]
+paulv; got it
16:07:08 [ChrisW]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jan/att-0118/16.01.07-rif-minutes.html
16:07:31 [johnhall]
Jan 16 minutes aproved
16:07:34 [ChrisW]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jan/att-0112/23-01-07-rif-minutes.html
16:07:48 [johnhall]
Jan 23 minutes approved
16:08:13 [johnhall]
no agenda amendmants
16:08:18 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
16:08:18 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, ChrisW
16:08:22 [ChrisW]
q?
16:08:28 [ChrisW]
ack p17
16:08:31 [ChrisW]
ack ??
16:08:35 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
16:08:35 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "F2F" taken up [from ChrisW]
16:08:54 [AllenGinsberg]
zakim, unmute me
16:08:54 [Zakim]
Allen_Ginsberg should no longer be muted
16:09:00 [csma]
action-210 closed
16:09:05 [johnhall]
f2f alan to add hotels - action 210
16:09:11 [johnhall]
210 completed
16:09:37 [johnhall]
Alan - time on day 3 show some demos?
16:09:58 [johnhall]
time on day 3 for demos - to go on agenda
16:10:02 [csma]
zakim, unmute me
16:10:02 [Zakim]
csma should no longer be muted
16:10:06 [csma]
q+
16:10:25 [johnhall]
infrastructure needed for demos - contact Alan
16:10:38 [csma]
zakim, mute me
16:10:40 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
16:10:46 [johnhall]
telecon facilities - use W3C bridge
16:11:00 [johnhall]
networking - wireless access
16:11:11 [johnhall]
Alan willlook into details
16:11:29 [johnhall]
Alan recommends Comfort Inn
16:11:58 [johnhall]
make reservation now - can cancel
16:12:12 [csma]
action to allen to check telecon and network for F2F
16:12:16 [csma]
ack csma
16:12:24 [ChrisW]
action: allen to check telecon and network for F2F
16:12:24 [ChrisW]
[11:13] <csma> ack csma
16:12:24 [ChrisW]
[11:13] * Zakim unmutes csma
16:12:24 [ChrisW]
[11:13] * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
16:12:26 [rifbot]
Created ACTION-214 - Check telecon and network for F2F [on Allen Ginsberg - due 2007-02-06].
16:12:27 [johnhall]
Action; Alan telecon and wireless for F2F
16:12:38 [johnhall]
Christian - how long for demos?
16:12:56 [johnhall]
Alan maybe 2 hours - depends on who wants to demon
16:13:08 [johnhall]
Christian - need to know who, for agenda
16:13:24 [johnhall]
Alan - deadline Feb 10?
16:13:42 [sandro]
2 weeks in advance
16:13:53 [johnhall]
agenda needed - at least draft - end of this week
16:14:14 [johnhall]
Feb 10 OK deadline for demos
16:14:16 [ChrisW]
ack c
16:14:19 [csma]
zakim, mute me
16:14:19 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
16:14:27 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
16:14:27 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Liason" taken up [from ChrisW]
16:14:32 [AllenGinsberg]
zakim, mute em
16:14:32 [Zakim]
sorry, AllenGinsberg, I do not know which phone connection belongs to em
16:14:38 [AllenGinsberg]
zakim, mute me
16:14:38 [Zakim]
Allen_Ginsberg should now be muted
16:14:43 [johnhall]
DBVR - no change
16:14:49 [PaulVincent]
PRR - no change
16:14:51 [johnhall]
SBVR
16:15:11 [johnhall]
What OMG phase is PRR in?
16:15:15 [igor]
igor has joined #rif
16:15:40 [johnhall]
Pauls V; to be completed V1
16:15:49 [johnhall]
In finalization?
16:15:53 [Zakim]
+??P32
16:16:02 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
16:16:02 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Technical Design" taken up [from ChrisW]
16:16:05 [johnhall]
Pauls V: submite April, finlization 6 months
16:16:09 [igor]
zakim, ??P32 is me
16:16:09 [Zakim]
+igor; got it
16:16:15 [igor]
zakim, mute me
16:16:15 [Zakim]
igor should now be muted
16:16:17 [johnhall]
TECHNICAL DESIGN
16:16:24 [johnhall]
ACtion 182 closed
16:16:29 [csma]
action-182 closed
16:17:08 [johnhall]
Discussion - lots of email activity
16:17:33 [ChrisW]
regarding the XML syntax from the abstract syntax
16:17:35 [johnhall]
sandro - decouple XML symtax from info in rules
16:17:46 [Zakim]
+Gary_Hallmark
16:17:56 [ChrisW]
john, use this syntax speaker: content
16:17:56 [johnhall]
XML syntax mechaically derived
16:18:05 [ChrisW]
and ...continuation
16:18:20 [johnhall]
2 classes - fully striped - stripe skipped
16:19:50 [johnhall]
sandor - stripe skipping recommedned
16:20:25 [johnhall]
Chris: stripe skipping discussion now or abstracct apprcoh in general?
16:20:42 [johnhall]
.. stripe skipping seems like implementation
16:21:00 [johnhall]
sandro - people will judge from skimming XML
16:21:08 [Harold]
Mapping between fully striped and stripe-skipped is itself an important (though syntactic) interchange transformation.
16:21:39 [Harold]
We can 'reach' different classes of languages in this way.
16:21:41 [johnhall]
sandro - sooner we settle, sooner we can implement interoperable
16:22:11 [johnhall]
Chris- have seen an example a month ago, using abstract syntax
16:22:19 [Zakim]
+Sandro.a
16:22:31 [johnhall]
.. lot of discussions and confusion
16:22:42 [Zakim]
-Sandro
16:22:49 [johnhall]
... now that they have developed
16:23:07 [AxelPolleres]
q+
16:23:16 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
16:23:21 [johnhall]
... people have seen how abstract syntax can yield and XML syntax -any discussion
16:23:27 [csma]
q+
16:23:28 [ChrisW]
q?
16:23:40 [johnhall]
... not Sandro's specific proposal
16:24:30 [csma]
q-
16:24:31 [johnhall]
Axel- close relationship with OWL ontology
16:24:41 [johnhall]
SAndro - agree, subset of OWL
16:25:17 [johnhall]
Axel - try to convert , have representative classes
16:25:24 [csma]
ack axel
16:25:26 [Harold]
The fully striped class is important to reach the UML, RDF, ... communities; the stripe-skipped class is important to reach the logic, XML, ... communities: RIF's internal stripe-skipping mapping can help to bring theses classes together.
16:25:45 [csma]
zakim, unmute me
16:25:45 [Zakim]
csma should no longer be muted
16:25:54 [johnhall]
Chris - ASN06 or OWL - need to discuss
16:25:59 [ChrisW]
ack c
16:26:25 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is talking?
16:26:40 [Zakim]
ChrisW, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: csma (61%), ChrisW (43%), sandro (4%), johnhall (37%)
16:26:41 [AxelPolleres]
Not to be misunderstood: I do NOT suggest or encourage by any means OWL as a syntax for RIF.
16:26:44 [johnhall]
Christian - we decided to have abstract syntax, left open how it would be expressed - for now keep, nor decide normative
16:27:05 [johnhall]
Chris - how many maintained? Just one an generate others from it?
16:27:09 [ChrisW]
zakim, mute johnhall
16:27:09 [Zakim]
johnhall should now be muted
16:27:19 [johnhall]
Sandro - did not address this
16:27:23 [Harold]
Chris, these two version could be an example for 'standard dialects'.
16:27:35 [johnhall]
Christian - trivial if not for stripe skipping?
16:27:43 [AxelPolleres]
... if there is an overlap though, I would welcome it.
16:27:44 [johnhall]
Sandro - straightforward
16:28:11 [johnhall]
Chris - seems to make most sense to maintain 1
16:28:16 [Harold]
The inverse mapping is 'stripe-reconstruction'.
16:28:18 [Harold]
q+
16:28:32 [ChrisW]
q?
16:28:33 [johnhall]
... like to make decison now
16:28:53 [AxelPolleres]
"straightforward" I always only believe/understand after having it written down somewhere. :-)
16:28:58 [johnhall]
Christian - what should be normativ e is abstract syntax
16:29:47 [johnhall]
Sandro - Chris, are you assuming a specific mechanism for abstract syntax
16:30:48 [johnhall]
zakim, unmute me
16:30:48 [Zakim]
johnhall should no longer be muted
16:30:51 [csma]
ack harold
16:32:11 [AxelPolleres]
volunteer!
16:32:23 [ChrisW]
scribenick: axelpolleres
16:32:37 [csma]
zakim, mute me
16:32:37 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
16:32:49 [AxelPolleres]
harold: we should have both asn metasyntax and a fully striped syntax.
16:33:44 [AxelPolleres]
... this has advantage of being back and forth translatable between object-oriented and XML world.
16:34:02 [DaveReynolds]
translators are not so easy if you want forward compatibility via self-describing syntax
16:34:39 [AxelPolleres]
chrisW: harold do you want both normative? stripe-skipped and full asn?
16:34:45 [csma]
q+
16:35:20 [AxelPolleres]
harold: would prefer to call asn "object oriented abstract syntax"
16:35:30 [johnhall]
zakim, mute me
16:35:30 [Zakim]
johnhall should now be muted
16:35:51 [johnhall]
I'm back - can take notes again - thanks Axel
16:35:54 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: straw poll between "meta-model", "ontology", and "abstract syntax"?
16:36:13 [johnhall]
Harold - what SAndro did was make a model
16:36:16 [csma]
zakim, unmute me
16:36:16 [Zakim]
csma should no longer be muted
16:36:38 [johnhall]
csma - model of RIF is model of RIF rules
16:36:44 [AxelPolleres]
scribenick: johnhall
16:37:12 [johnhall]
csma - metamodel of RIF rules
16:37:24 [AxelPolleres]
q+
16:37:41 [johnhall]
SAndro's model translates easily
16:37:54 [johnhall]
Harold - need a format for interchange
16:38:07 [csma]
zakim, mute me
16:38:07 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
16:38:11 [johnhall]
Chris - OK to call this apprcoah a metamodel
16:38:32 [johnhall]
sandro - discuss compared with 'ontology'
16:38:57 [johnhall]
Axel - there are metamod languages - if an ontology then OWL
16:39:05 [LeoraMorgenstern]
q
16:39:05 [csma]
advantage of asn06 over UML is simplicity, as I see it
16:39:10 [LeoraMorgenstern]
q
16:39:18 [johnhall]
Chris - discussing metamodel vs ontology?
16:39:19 [LeoraMorgenstern]
q+
16:39:43 [johnhall]
sandro - trying to bridge the two camps
16:39:56 [johnhall]
sando not argue about UML and OWL
16:40:13 [AxelPolleres]
fair enough, if it is well-defined in a document as an abstrct syntax proposal for OWL.
16:40:17 [johnhall]
Chris - haven't heard objection to the proposed approach
16:40:32 [johnhall]
... maintining artefact and generating
16:40:33 [sandro]
bridging between metamodel & ontology via ASN06 --- which should map to a subset of OWL and a subset of UML.
16:40:39 [johnhall]
... any objections?
16:40:47 [csma]
neither
16:41:19 [johnhall]
leora - not an ontology, just a syntax
16:41:43 [Harold]
Leora, is it not an 'ontology' of what rules are allowed, how they look like, etc.?
16:42:03 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Harold, no, I don't see that.
16:42:07 [igor]
abstract syntax seems fine to me
16:42:09 [AlexKozlenkov]
any valid metamodel is an ontology
16:42:17 [johnhall]
Axel - not clear on how it is translatable betwenn UML and OWL
16:42:21 [LeoraMorgenstern]
One can construct a syntax that defines a language,
16:42:33 [LeoraMorgenstern]
and then say, a string does or does not belong to the language.
16:42:35 [johnhall]
Chris - do not want to separate appraoch from language?
16:42:42 [Harold]
OK, it's not the (model-theoretic) *semantics*, so you are right it is (abstract) syntax.
16:42:48 [LeoraMorgenstern]
However, I believe that an ontology does much more.
16:42:50 [sandro]
To be clear -- my intent is to help us stay in the intersection of Ontologies and Metamodels.
16:42:55 [LeoraMorgenstern]
It organizes objects in a particular way.
16:43:02 [johnhall]
Axel - not sure it's worth the effort
16:43:06 [LeoraMorgenstern]
I don't see this abstract syntax doing that, unless I have missed something.
16:43:31 [johnhall]
Chris - ASN06 would not agree, OWL OK?
16:43:41 [LeoraMorgenstern]
well, sandro, I don't understand what you're saying either --- about the intersection between Ontologies and Metamodels.
16:43:49 [johnhall]
Axel -no document for ASN06 yet?
16:44:15 [johnhall]
sandro - not yet, can use parts of OWL I need
16:44:38 [ChrisW]
ack axel
16:44:39 [johnhall]
Axel- if you can use part of OWL, RDF ... OK with me
16:44:45 [Harold]
Leora, right, the RIFRAF ontology is more on the semantic level, but also is making a few syntactic distinctions.
16:44:48 [csma]
ack
16:44:52 [johnhall]
Axel - but we need it written down
16:44:52 [csma]
ack csma
16:45:36 [Harold]
Not everything written in OWL is and ontology?!
16:45:37 [johnhall]
leora - don't understand where 'ontology' is coming from
16:46:19 [johnhall]
sandro - to me ontology is set of classes and properties and constraining formulae
16:46:23 [AxelPolleres]
+1to "Not everything written in OWL is and ontology", but this is not what worries me.
16:46:24 [Harold]
BTW, 'partonomy' could be used when we talk about parts of rules.
16:46:33 [johnhall]
leora - language is not the ontology
16:46:55 [johnhall]
sandro - classes are there, and relationships
16:47:12 [Harold]
ASN06 then is a kind of 'partonomy' language. :-)
16:47:15 [AxelPolleres]
my only concern is that RIF is not chartered to do a metamodel language, but well, if we use it, we need to define somewhere, what it means, even if that's trivial.
16:47:17 [johnhall]
csam - new topic
16:47:51 [johnhall]
eveni we decdide to maintin RIF as an abstract syntax /metamodel - maintained & normative
16:48:38 [johnhall]
csma - also need normative XML syntaxe
16:48:39 [Harold]
I agree with Christian: we also need a good XML concrete syntax.
16:48:51 [johnhall]
sandro - agree with csma
16:49:18 [johnhall]
sandro - hearing consesnus on two stage - hesitation on stage 1
16:49:58 [johnhall]
csma - hear more objection to maintaining abstract syntax and XML that depends on it
16:50:09 [johnhall]
csma - do not agree on the form
16:50:26 [AxelPolleres]
I object to maintian an abstract sytax, a concrete synatax AND an ontology, but am not religious on what to drop.
16:50:34 [csma]
s/hear more/hear no/
16:50:40 [johnhall]
Chris - where are you on more frmally definiing the notation - OWL and RDFS?
16:50:41 [Harold]
Christian, the 'form' of asn06 is no problem because it can reach OWL, RDF, etc.
16:51:10 [johnhall]
... reasonable to investigate rather than inventinf ASN06?
16:51:16 [csma]
Axel, if the ontology you are mentioning is the RIFRAF, I think that it is a different story
16:51:40 [johnhall]
sandro - too difficult to brodgr the gap from OWL without intermediate
16:51:41 [csma]
Harold, I did no say there is a problem, I said I did not hear consensus on that
16:52:33 [Harold]
Right.
16:52:56 [johnhall]
sandro - nailing down all the detail of connecting to OWL is hard work - do not want to do unless really necessary and would need help. Maybe Axel?
16:53:45 [johnhall]
chris - Axel if abstract syntax is maintained in some arteftact, would you be happy?
16:53:59 [JeffP]
+1 if OWL is enough, use OWL rather than ASN06
16:54:28 [johnhall]
Axel - tried to deal with abstract syntax to OWL in RIFRAFF - sandro and I should work together
16:54:29 [DaveReynolds]
RIFRAF and rule metamodel seem rather different to me
16:54:31 [ChrisW]
q?
16:54:42 [ChrisW]
ack l
16:54:51 [johnhall]
csma - big advantage of ASN is that it is simple
16:55:24 [johnhall]
csma - if there are convincing args that it is adequate, strong argument
16:55:33 [johnhall]
samdro - need to tweak it
16:55:48 [johnhall]
csme - even for extensions?
16:56:21 [Harold]
Likely, asn06 (in spite of its built-in 'partonomy' features) is a sublanguage of OWL-DL.
16:56:22 [johnhall]
sandor - yese. Concerns around coactions, no multi-valued properties
16:56:50 [johnhall]
csma - is it really difficult tomap ASN06 to OWL?
16:57:13 [johnhall]
sandro - list restriction wrt OWL full
16:57:51 [johnhall]
chris - most OWl parsers will handle
16:58:06 [AxelPolleres]
does that roundtrip?
16:58:18 [johnhall]
sandro - only problem with OWL full is readability of published RIF
16:58:42 [johnhall]
Chris - publish as UML-like picture would be easiest to understand
16:58:52 [johnhall]
sandro -open to persuasion
16:59:25 [johnhall]
chris - if just another serialization of OWL - is this what we are discussing
16:59:47 [johnhall]
chris - if ASN06 is just a fragment of OWL he would be OK
16:59:58 [johnhall]
sandro - trying to show this
17:00:05 [csma]
q+
17:00:30 [johnhall]
chris - does not matter if fragment of OWL DL or OWL full
17:00:45 [Harold]
Chris, it all started with 'pictures' (F2F breakout presentation informally specifying the CORE in on slide), but we also need a plain-ASCII version, e.g. for copy&paste communication in email bodies.
17:01:04 [johnhall]
chris - Axel - is this what you are looking for
17:01:38 [johnhall]
axel - not my main interest - but would like to know what official status would be
17:01:50 [johnhall]
chris - but you would be OK
17:02:13 [johnhall]
sandro - is this a resolution?
17:02:41 [johnhall]
axel - is is written down what fragment?
17:02:51 [Harold]
q+
17:02:55 [AxelPolleres]
ok.
17:03:11 [johnhall]
chris - this is contingency in resolution - if a fragmnet of OWL ...
17:03:27 [johnhall]
harold - need to say metaysntax for metamodel
17:03:56 [johnhall]
chris - concrete syantax will be created from the metamodel
17:04:04 [johnhall]
harold - and the mapping
17:04:10 [johnhall]
chris - agree
17:04:28 [sandro]
PROPOSED: we'll maintain the XML syntax(es) of RIF in the 2-step process, where step one will use asn06 (which is understood as being a subset of OWL Full) and step 2 is the mapping from asn06 to XML (striped or stripe skipping or whatever).
17:04:33 [johnhall]
csma - if ASN06 os fragment of OWL, is reolution to use it?
17:04:37 [Harold]
[Admin] Can a WG have 'extra' results?
17:04:40 [johnhall]
chris - yes
17:04:49 [johnhall]
csma - make it part of RIF
17:05:14 [johnhall]
sandro - ASN06 normative, derived informative
17:05:20 [AxelPolleres]
particularly, any well-grounded KR language in which we can ground asn would be fine with me, not necesarrily OWL ;-) if you write it down into FOL sentences, common logic, KIF, F-Logic, I am also fine
17:05:26 [Harold]
'extra' in the sense that some results can be immediately useful for other WGs.
17:05:27 [johnhall]
csma - not the same
17:06:47 [JeffP]
s/os/is
17:07:26 [johnhall]
csma - metamodel of RIF and the mapping should be normative
17:08:15 [johnhall]
chris - even if generated, the XML syntax is normative
17:09:09 [johnhall]
csma - for another dialect could generate another XML syntax that is not compatible
17:09:40 [johnhall]
chris - any objections to abstract syntax and mapping being normative?
17:09:48 [AxelPolleres]
I object, as long the meaning of abstract syntax is not formalized, sorry to be picky
17:10:04 [JeffP]
Is the abstract syntax the same as the human readable syntax?
17:10:12 [johnhall]
chris - consequence - one and only one XML syntax
17:10:15 [AlexKozlenkov]
it is at least slightly odd
17:10:30 [johnhall]
sandro - derived syntax is normative?
17:10:53 [johnhall]
sandro - W3C debate on derived into being normative
17:11:14 [johnhall]
chris - normative/non-normative needs more discussion
17:11:34 [DaveReynolds]
Axel - if you have a formally specified mapping from a metamodel to the concrete syntax why do you need additional semantics for for the metamodelling language?
17:11:35 [johnhall]
csma - would agree to Sandro's resolution
17:11:53 [sandro]
(repeat) PROPOSED: we'll maintain the XML syntax(es) of RIF in the 2-step process, where step one will use asn06 (which is understood as being a subset of OWL Full) and step 2 is the mapping from asn06 to XML (striped or stripe skipping or whatever).
17:11:55 [johnhall]
chris - then discuss what would be normative
17:13:11 [JeffP]
Dave - but XML has no formal semantics
17:13:14 [johnhall]
csma - contingent on ASN06 being defined as subset of OWL full
17:13:39 [DaveReynolds]
Jeffp - exactly, we are only using this to indirectly specify a syntax, no addtional semantics is requried
17:13:41 [johnhall]
axel - want it written down
17:14:23 [johnhall]
csma - if defined as subset of OWL full, do not have to include ASN06as part of RIF spec
17:14:35 [Harold]
A small point regarding step 2: is it just a mathematical mapping or a mapping that itself is specified in a (W3C-standardized) language?
17:14:41 [sandro]
PROPOSED-2: we'll maintain the XML syntax(es) of RIF in the 2-step process, where step one will use asn06 (contingent on asn06 being defined as a subset of OWL Full or some other standard formalism) and step 2 is the mapping from asn06 to XML (striped or stripe skipping or whatever).
17:14:58 [JeffP]
DaveReynolds - the need for abstract syntax is usually for defining the semantics, like in OWL
17:15:05 [Harold]
q+
17:15:09 [johnhall]
sandro - ... as a subset of OWL full or some other acceptable specification?
17:15:17 [csma]
q-
17:15:18 [johnhall]
axel -OK
17:15:35 [DaveReynolds]
Jeffp - we are not talking about asn06 as being about specifying the semantics of rulesets!
17:15:53 [johnhall]
harold - step 2 - just a math mapping, or must it be specified in normative part?
17:15:54 [sandro]
PROPOSED-3: we'll maintain the XML syntax(es) of RIF in the 2-step process, where step one will use asn06 (contingent on asn06 being defined as a subset of OWL Full or some other standard formalism) and step 2 is the precisely specified mapping from asn06 to XML (striped or stripe skipping or whatever).
17:16:21 [csma]
+1
17:16:27 [Harold]
+1
17:16:27 [DavidHirtle]
s/in the 2-step/in a 2-step ?
17:16:31 [johnhall]
no objections - proposed resolution
17:16:42 [AxelPolleres]
+1
17:16:44 [sandro]
RESOLVED: we'll maintain the XML syntax(es) of RIF in the 2-step process, where step one will use asn06 (contingent on asn06 being defined as a subset of OWL Full or some other standard formalism) and step 2 is the precisely specified mapping from asn06 to XML (striped or stripe skipping or whatever).
17:16:45 [PaulVincent]
Holding peace
17:17:00 [johnhall]
RESOLUTION closed
17:17:57 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
17:17:57 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, ChrisW
17:18:01 [ChrisW]
q?
17:18:01 [johnhall]
Chris - OWL and RDF Compatibility - table
17:18:03 [ChrisW]
ack h
17:18:05 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
17:18:05 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "RIFRAF" taken up [from ChrisW]
17:18:09 [johnhall]
RIFRAF
17:18:32 [Zakim]
-PaulaP
17:18:33 [PaulaP]
PaulaP has left #rif
17:18:48 [johnhall]
Chris - last week status - not major for F2F - lots of actions outstanding
17:19:33 [johnhall]
chris - now we have agreement on abstract syntax, relevant to RIFRAF
17:20:03 [johnhall]
axel - appreciate comments on proposal sent out
17:20:25 [csma]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jan/0105.html
17:20:25 [csma]
and thread
17:20:25 [csma]
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jan/0106.html
17:20:48 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
17:20:48 [Zakim]
agendum 6. "UCR" taken up [from ChrisW]
17:20:57 [johnhall]
USE CASES
17:21:08 [AllenGinsberg]
zakim, unmute me
17:21:08 [Zakim]
Allen_Ginsberg should no longer be muted
17:21:17 [johnhall]
Chris - no actions, close to next working draft
17:21:42 [johnhall]
Alan- added csma's section on processes
17:21:56 [johnhall]
Alan - need to chack all the references
17:22:33 [johnhall]
Sandro - sent pointer to web page for program
17:22:38 [csma]
http://burns.w3.org/cgi-bin/wiki_tr
17:22:54 [AxelPolleres]
Just in the context of RIFRAF still: I would like to close or stall action 177, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jan/0106 mentioned before.
17:22:54 [johnhall]
Alan - if that does the job, nothing else to be done
17:23:06 [johnhall]
chris - want frozen document for F2F
17:23:56 [johnhall]
sandro - HTML pages not saved, send to group
17:24:48 [johnhall]
alan - just did it. need link web page to Wiki - will do it in next couple of days
17:25:03 [johnhall]
Alan - other co-editors to read
17:25:13 [johnhall]
chris - close to final draft
17:25:17 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
17:25:17 [Zakim]
I do not see any non-closed or non-skipped agenda items, ChrisW
17:25:20 [johnhall]
AOB
17:25:35 [AllenGinsberg]
zakim, unmute me
17:25:35 [Zakim]
Allen_Ginsberg was not muted, AllenGinsberg
17:25:44 [AllenGinsberg]
zakim, mute me
17:25:44 [Zakim]
Allen_Ginsberg should now be muted
17:26:04 [csma]
action-177 completed
17:26:10 [johnhall]
Chris - action 177 complete
17:26:23 [johnhall]
Axel - but issue is not solved
17:26:27 [csma]
+1
17:26:28 [Zakim]
-AlexKozlenkov
17:26:28 [JeffP]
+1
17:26:35 [Zakim]
-Harold
17:26:36 [PaulVincent]
bye
17:26:37 [Zakim]
-Deborah_Nichols
17:26:37 [johnhall]
chris - action was to propose
17:26:37 [AllenGinsberg]
bye
17:26:38 [Zakim]
-Dave_Reynolds
17:26:39 [Zakim]
-Jeff_Pan
17:26:40 [Zakim]
-igor
17:26:41 [Zakim]
-Axel_Polleres
17:26:42 [Zakim]
-DavidHirtle
17:26:44 [Zakim]
-PaulVincent
17:26:44 [Zakim]
-josb
17:26:45 [Zakim]
-Gary_Hallmark
17:26:46 [Zakim]
-Allen_Ginsberg
17:27:16 [Zakim]
-Leora_Morgenstern
17:27:24 [ChrisW]
Regrets: FrançoisBry MichaelKifer MichaelSintek MarkusKrötzsch
17:27:30 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:27:30 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/01/30-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
17:27:40 [Zakim]
-sandro
17:27:44 [johnhall]
zakim, unmute me
17:27:44 [Zakim]
johnhall should no longer be muted
17:28:49 [Zakim]
-johnhall
17:31:18 [Zakim]
-ChrisW
17:31:19 [Zakim]
-csma
17:31:20 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
17:31:21 [Zakim]
Attendees were csma, Leora_Morgenstern, ChrisW, Deborah_Nichols, josb, Harold, PaulaP, Dave_Reynolds, Allen_Ginsberg, Jeff_Pan, AlexKozlenkov, Axel_Polleres, DavidHirtle, Sandro,
17:31:23 [Zakim]
... johnhall, PaulVincent, igor, Gary_Hallmark
17:31:28 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:31:28 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/01/30-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
17:32:22 [ChrisW]
it's there now, John
17:55:04 [sandro]
sandro has joined #rif
18:42:05 [csma]
csma has left #rif
19:39:06 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rif