See also: IRC log
<ChrisW> john hall can you scribe today?
<ChrisW> Scribe: John Hall
<ChrisW> scribenick: johnhall
<DavidHirtle> I just raised my hand, but it showed up as johnhall
<DavidHirtle> okay I'm good now
<cgi-irc> nick PaulV
<DavidHirtle> I think it's 41# isn't it?
Jan 16 minutes aproved
Jan 23 minutes approved
no agenda amendmants
<ChrisW> ack ??
<csma> action-210 closed
f2f alan to add hotels - action 210
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
DBVR - no change
<PaulVincent> PRR - no change
What OMG phase is PRR in?
Pauls V; to be completed V1
Pauls V: submite April, finlization 6 months
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
... 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
<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
<csma> advantage of asn06 over UML is simplicity, as I see it
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?
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.
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
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?
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?
<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).
no objections - proposed resolution
<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
Chris - OWL and RDF Compatibility - table
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> and thread
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
<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
<csma> action-177 completed
Chris - action 177 complete
Axel - but issue is not solved
chris - action was to propose
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.127 of Date: 2005/08/16 15:12:03 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/hear more/hear no/ Succeeded: s/os/is/ Succeeded: s/in the 2-step/in a 2-step ?/ Found Scribe: John Hall WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <John\ Hall> ... Found ScribeNick: johnhall Found ScribeNick: axelpolleres Found ScribeNick: johnhall ScribeNicks: johnhall, axelpolleres Default Present: csma, Leora_Morgenstern, ChrisW, Deborah_Nichols, josb, Harold, PaulaP, Dave_Reynolds, Allen_Ginsberg, Jeff_Pan, AlexKozlenkov, Axel_Polleres, DavidHirtle, Sandro, johnhall, PaulVincent, igor, Gary_Hallmark Present: csma Leora_Morgenstern ChrisW Deborah_Nichols josb Harold PaulaP Dave_Reynolds Allen_Ginsberg Jeff_Pan AlexKozlenkov Axel_Polleres DavidHirtle Sandro johnhall PaulVincent igor Gary_Hallmark Regrets: FrançoisBry MichaelKifer MichaelSintek MarkusKrötzsch Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jan/0124.html Got date from IRC log name: 30 Jan 2007 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/01/30-rif-minutes.html People with action items: allen[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]