RIF Telecon 30 Jan 07 -- 30 Jan 2007

Admin

<ChrisW> john hall can you scribe today?

<johnhall> yes

<DavidHirtle> ]

<ChrisW> Scribe: John Hall

<DavidHirtle> uhoh

<ChrisW> scribenick: johnhall

<DavidHirtle> I just raised my hand, but it showed up as johnhall

<DavidHirtle> okay I'm good now

I'm not

#41

<cgi-irc> nick PaulV

<DavidHirtle> I think it's 41# isn't it?

<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jan/att-0118/16.01.07-rif-minutes.html

Jan 16 minutes aproved

<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jan/att-0112/23-01-07-rif-minutes.html

Jan 23 minutes approved

no agenda amendmants

<ChrisW> ack ??

F2F

<csma> action-210 closed

f2f alan to add hotels - action 210

210 completed

Alan - time on day 3 show some demos?

time on day 3 for demos - to go on agenda

infrastructure needed for demos - contact Alan

telecon facilities - use W3C bridge

networking - wireless access

Alan willlook into details

Alan recommends Comfort Inn

make reservation now - can cancel

<csma> action to allen to check telecon and network for F2F

<ChrisW> ACTION: allen to check telecon and network for F2F [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/30-rif-minutes.html#action01]

<ChrisW> [11:13] <csma> ack csma

<ChrisW> [11:13] * Zakim unmutes csma

<ChrisW> [11:13] * Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue

<rifbot> Created ACTION-214 - Check telecon and network for F2F [on Allen Ginsberg - due 2007-02-06].

Action; Alan telecon and wireless for F2F

Christian - how long for demos?

Alan maybe 2 hours - depends on who wants to demon

Christian - need to know who, for agenda

Alan - deadline Feb 10?

<sandro> 2 weeks in advance

agenda needed - at least draft - end of this week

Feb 10 OK deadline for demos

Liason

DBVR - no change

<PaulVincent> PRR - no change

SBVR

What OMG phase is PRR in?

Pauls V; to be completed V1

In finalization?

Technical Design

Pauls V: submite April, finlization 6 months

TECHNICAL DESIGN

ACtion 182 closed

<csma> action-182 closed

Discussion - lots of email activity

<ChrisW> regarding the XML syntax from the abstract syntax

sandro - decouple XML symtax from info in rules

<ChrisW> john, use this syntax speaker: content

XML syntax mechaically derived

<ChrisW> and ...continuation

2 classes - fully striped - stripe skipped

sandor - stripe skipping recommedned

Chris: stripe skipping discussion now or abstracct apprcoh in general?
... stripe skipping seems like implementation

sandro - people will judge from skimming XML

<Harold> Mapping between fully striped and stripe-skipped is itself an important (though syntactic) interchange transformation.

<Harold> We can 'reach' different classes of languages in this way.

sandro - sooner we settle, sooner we can implement interoperable

Chris- have seen an example a month ago, using abstract syntax

scribe: lot of discussions and confusion
... now that they have developed
... people have seen how abstract syntax can yield and XML syntax -any discussion
... not Sandro's specific proposal

Axel- close relationship with OWL ontology

SAndro - agree, subset of OWL

Axel - try to convert , have representative classes

<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.

Chris - ASN06 or OWL - need to discuss

<AxelPolleres> Not to be misunderstood: I do NOT suggest or encourage by any means OWL as a syntax for RIF.

Christian - we decided to have abstract syntax, left open how it would be expressed - for now keep, nor decide normative

Chris - how many maintained? Just one an generate others from it?

Sandro - did not address this

<Harold> Chris, these two version could be an example for 'standard dialects'.

Christian - trivial if not for stripe skipping?

<AxelPolleres> ... if there is an overlap though, I would welcome it.

Sandro - straightforward

Chris - seems to make most sense to maintain 1

<Harold> The inverse mapping is 'stripe-reconstruction'.

scribe: like to make decison now

<AxelPolleres> "straightforward" I always only believe/understand after having it written down somewhere. :-)

Christian - what should be normativ e is abstract syntax

Sandro - Chris, are you assuming a specific mechanism for abstract syntax

<AxelPolleres> volunteer!

<ChrisW> scribenick: axelpolleres

harold: we should have both asn metasyntax and a fully striped syntax.
... this has advantage of being back and forth translatable between object-oriented and XML world.

<DaveReynolds> translators are not so easy if you want forward compatibility via self-describing syntax

chrisW: harold do you want both normative? stripe-skipped and full asn?

harold: would prefer to call asn "object oriented abstract syntax"

<johnhall> I'm back - can take notes again - thanks Axel

sandro: straw poll between "meta-model", "ontology", and "abstract syntax"?

<johnhall> Harold - what SAndro did was make a model

<johnhall> csma - model of RIF is model of RIF rules

<scribe> scribenick: johnhall

csma - metamodel of RIF rules

SAndro's model translates easily

Harold - need a format for interchange

Chris - OK to call this apprcoah a metamodel

sandro - discuss compared with 'ontology'

Axel - there are metamod languages - if an ontology then OWL

<LeoraMorgenstern> q

<csma> advantage of asn06 over UML is simplicity, as I see it

<LeoraMorgenstern> q

Chris - discussing metamodel vs ontology?

sandro - trying to bridge the two camps

sando not argue about UML and OWL

<AxelPolleres> fair enough, if it is well-defined in a document as an abstrct syntax proposal for OWL.

Chris - haven't heard objection to the proposed approach

scribe: maintining artefact and generating

<sandro> bridging between metamodel & ontology via ASN06 --- which should map to a subset of OWL and a subset of UML.

scribe: any objections?

<csma> neither

leora - not an ontology, just a syntax

<Harold> Leora, is it not an 'ontology' of what rules are allowed, how they look like, etc.?

<LeoraMorgenstern> Harold, no, I don't see that.

<igor> abstract syntax seems fine to me

<AlexKozlenkov> any valid metamodel is an ontology

Axel - not clear on how it is translatable betwenn UML and OWL

<LeoraMorgenstern> One can construct a syntax that defines a language,

<LeoraMorgenstern> and then say, a string does or does not belong to the language.

Chris - do not want to separate appraoch from language?

<Harold> OK, it's not the (model-theoretic) *semantics*, so you are right it is (abstract) syntax.

<LeoraMorgenstern> However, I believe that an ontology does much more.

<sandro> To be clear -- my intent is to help us stay in the intersection of Ontologies and Metamodels.

<LeoraMorgenstern> It organizes objects in a particular way.

Axel - not sure it's worth the effort

<LeoraMorgenstern> I don't see this abstract syntax doing that, unless I have missed something.

Chris - ASN06 would not agree, OWL OK?

<LeoraMorgenstern> well, sandro, I don't understand what you're saying either --- about the intersection between Ontologies and Metamodels.

Axel -no document for ASN06 yet?

sandro - not yet, can use parts of OWL I need

Axel- if you can use part of OWL, RDF ... OK with me

<Harold> Leora, right, the RIFRAF ontology is more on the semantic level, but also is making a few syntactic distinctions.

<csma> ack

Axel - but we need it written down

<Harold> Not everything written in OWL is and ontology?!

leora - don't understand where 'ontology' is coming from

sandro - to me ontology is set of classes and properties and constraining formulae

<AxelPolleres> +1to "Not everything written in OWL is and ontology", but this is not what worries me.

<Harold> BTW, 'partonomy' could be used when we talk about parts of rules.

leora - language is not the ontology

sandro - classes are there, and relationships

<Harold> ASN06 then is a kind of 'partonomy' language. :-)

<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.

csam - new topic

eveni we decdide to maintin RIF as an abstract syntax /metamodel - maintained & normative

csma - also need normative XML syntaxe

<Harold> I agree with Christian: we also need a good XML concrete syntax.

sandro - agree with csma

sandro - hearing consesnus on two stage - hesitation on stage 1

csma - hear no objection to maintaining abstract syntax and XML that depends on it

csma - do not agree on the form

<AxelPolleres> I object to maintian an abstract sytax, a concrete synatax AND an ontology, but am not religious on what to drop.

Chris - where are you on more frmally definiing the notation - OWL and RDFS?

<Harold> Christian, the 'form' of asn06 is no problem because it can reach OWL, RDF, etc.

scribe: reasonable to investigate rather than inventinf ASN06?

<csma> Axel, if the ontology you are mentioning is the RIFRAF, I think that it is a different story

sandro - too difficult to brodgr the gap from OWL without intermediate

<csma> Harold, I did no say there is a problem, I said I did not hear consensus on that

<Harold> Right.

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?

chris - Axel if abstract syntax is maintained in some arteftact, would you be happy?

<JeffP> +1 if OWL is enough, use OWL rather than ASN06

Axel - tried to deal with abstract syntax to OWL in RIFRAFF - sandro and I should work together

<DaveReynolds> RIFRAF and rule metamodel seem rather different to me

csma - big advantage of ASN is that it is simple

csma - if there are convincing args that it is adequate, strong argument

samdro - need to tweak it

csme - even for extensions?

<Harold> Likely, asn06 (in spite of its built-in 'partonomy' features) is a sublanguage of OWL-DL.

sandor - yese. Concerns around coactions, no multi-valued properties

csma - is it really difficult tomap ASN06 to OWL?

sandro - list restriction wrt OWL full

chris - most OWl parsers will handle

<AxelPolleres> does that roundtrip?

sandro - only problem with OWL full is readability of published RIF

Chris - publish as UML-like picture would be easiest to understand

sandro -open to persuasion

chris - if just another serialization of OWL - is this what we are discussing

chris - if ASN06 is just a fragment of OWL he would be OK

sandro - trying to show this

chris - does not matter if fragment of OWL DL or OWL full

<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.

chris - Axel - is this what you are looking for

axel - not my main interest - but would like to know what official status would be

chris - but you would be OK

sandro - is this a resolution?

axel - is is written down what fragment?

<AxelPolleres> ok.

chris - this is contingency in resolution - if a fragmnet of OWL ...

harold - need to say metaysntax for metamodel

chris - concrete syantax will be created from the metamodel

harold - and the mapping

chris - agree

<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).

csma - if ASN06 is fragment of OWL, is reolution to use it?

<Harold> [Admin] Can a WG have 'extra' results?

chris - yes

csma - make it part of RIF

sandro - ASN06 normative, derived informative

<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

<Harold> 'extra' in the sense that some results can be immediately useful for other WGs.

csma - not the same

csma - metamodel of RIF and the mapping should be normative

chris - even if generated, the XML syntax is normative

csma - for another dialect could generate another XML syntax that is not compatible

chris - any objections to abstract syntax and mapping being normative?

<AxelPolleres> I object, as long the meaning of abstract syntax is not formalized, sorry to be picky

<JeffP> Is the abstract syntax the same as the human readable syntax?

chris - consequence - one and only one XML syntax

<AlexKozlenkov> it is at least slightly odd

sandro - derived syntax is normative?

sandro - W3C debate on derived into being normative

chris - normative/non-normative needs more discussion

<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?

csma - would agree to Sandro's resolution

<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).

chris - then discuss what would be normative

<JeffP> Dave - but XML has no formal semantics

csma - contingent on ASN06 being defined as subset of OWL full

<DaveReynolds> Jeffp - exactly, we are only using this to indirectly specify a syntax, no addtional semantics is requried

axel - want it written down

csma - if defined as subset of OWL full, do not have to include ASN06as part of RIF spec

<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?

<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).

<JeffP> DaveReynolds - the need for abstract syntax is usually for defining the semantics, like in OWL

sandro - ... as a subset of OWL full or some other acceptable specification?

axel -OK

<DaveReynolds> Jeffp - we are not talking about asn06 as being about specifying the semantics of rulesets!

harold - step 2 - just a math mapping, or must it be specified in normative part?

<sandro> PROPOSED-3: we'll maintain the XML syntax(es) of RIF in a 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).

<csma> +1

<Harold> +1

no objections - proposed resolution

<AxelPolleres> +1

<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).

<PaulVincent> Holding peace

RESOLUTION closed

Chris - OWL and RDF Compatibility - table

RIFRAF

Chris - last week status - not major for F2F - lots of actions outstanding

chris - now we have agreement on abstract syntax, relevant to RIFRAF

axel - appreciate comments on proposal sent out

<csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jan/0105.html

<csma> and thread

<csma> [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jan/0106.html

UCR

USE CASES

Chris - no actions, close to next working draft

Alan- added csma's section on processes

Alan - need to chack all the references

Sandro - sent pointer to web page for program

<csma> http://burns.w3.org/cgi-bin/wiki_tr

<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.

Alan - if that does the job, nothing else to be done

chris - want frozen document for F2F

sandro - HTML pages not saved, send to group

alan - just did it. need link web page to Wiki - will do it in next couple of days

Alan - other co-editors to read

chris - close to final draft

AOB

<csma> action-177 completed

Chris - action 177 complete

Axel - but issue is not solved

<csma> +1

<JeffP> +1

<PaulVincent> bye

chris - action was to propose

<AllenGinsberg> bye

- DRAFT -

RIF Telecon 30 Jan 07

30 Jan 2007

Attendees

Contents

Admin

F2F

Liason

Technical Design

RIFRAF

UCR

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output