See also: IRC log
<ChrisW> Chair: Chris Welty
<ChrisW> scribenick: PaulaP
<DavidHirtle> Igor, I think I'm pretty sure I'm IPcaller... could you do 41#?
ChrisW: minutes of last week
<DavidHirtle> yes, you're IPcaller.a, not IPcaller. :)
<IgorMozetic> David, aren't you IPcaller.a
ChrisW: any objections to the
... no objection
... next week telecon at same time as today
<IgorMozetic> David, you are right. How do I release IPcaller?
<ChrisW> ack ipcaller.a
ChrisW: no items to be added to the agenda?
<AxelPolleres> Can the one typing so lout please mute?
<ChrisW> ack [ip
<DavidHirtle> Igor, I just changed you to IPcaller.a, but IPcaller still seems unavailable
ChrisW: next F2F meeting
... Christian made another proposal for the upcoming F2F
... possibility to meet in Paris at ILOG
... Sandro to make a form for voting on the location and dates for the next F2F
<sandro> ACTION: Sandro set up F2F6 survey, today [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/13-rif-minutes.html#action01]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-264 - Set up F2F6 survey, today [on Sandro Hawke - due 2007-03-20].
Hassan: May 24 and 25, 2007
ChrisW: there are many possible
dates at ESWC 2007
... some of them conflict with events co-located with ESWC 2007
... possible to vote for multiple dates
<josb> I think the wiki page is clear
ChrisW: anything else on the next F2F?
<PaulVincent> PRR: submission due in next OMG meeting
ChrisW: action review
... Michael, are you here?
<Deborah_Nichols> yes, continued
ChrisW: Deborah's action
... Harold's action 246 is done
ACTION 242 done
ACTION 232 continued
ChrisW: status of 1st WD?
<ChrisW> michael are you there?
Harold: Michael did almost
... moved blue boxes at the end
ChrisW: is the heading structure fixed?
Michael: I did almost
... to fix the section heading structure - I forgot what this is about
Harold: structure of main and sub-headings
Michael: I'll take a look at the structure
ChrisW: Sandro, how is the TOC actually generated for the generated version?
Sandro: it uses the structure of
what is on the front wikipage
... it is not the right thing at moment
ChrisW: too many levels of nesting
Sandro: it might be a bug in the wiki-tr
Michael: 2.1 is a heading, but 2.1.1 not
Sandro: let me look at it right now
ChrisW: 2.1 has a subsection Meta-model
Sandro: the problem is that it hasn't a number, it is just formatted in bold
Michael: 3 levels of nesting are quite normal
ChrisW: syntax and abstract syntax are sub-headings
Sandro: there are some problems
here, style and number
... I'll choose a solution
ChrisW: also raise multi-sorted syntax one level
Michael: I see, it is level 5
ChrisW: check if subsections are nested too deep
<Deborah_Nichols> The issue isn't there yet.
ChrisW: action on linking to
... replace the discussion on URI
Michael: RIF URI will be defined in a next WD
ChrisW: every datatype will have a URI
Michael: this should be replaced
by RIF, datatypes will have URIs
... type of URIs
Dave: abstract domain
... not really sure if it is like RDF resource
Michael: we have to say how to
interpret this thing
... current as abstract domain
... there is an enumeration of all datatypes
... somewhere towards the end in Positive Conditions
... Multi-sorted syntax
... there is a paragraph on the domains of these datatypes
<sandro> AllenGinsberg, DavidHirtle -- I think I just fixes wiki-tr to do the right thing on the <pre> examples (finally!)
Michael: there are two sentences
... it is like RDFS resource
... adding a new notation just raises new questions
ChrisW: use RIF:URI
Michael: there is one more thing on disjoint functions
ChrisW: we didn't decide on that
... raise a formal issue to ensure that it will be discussed
Deborah: the issue on URIs will be open tomorrow
ChrisW: disjointness of various
semantic domains as new issue
... Michael to write an email to describe this new issue
ACTION to link to the new issue continued
Deborah: user-defined types considered as sorts?
ChrisW: we didn't have a resolution on that
Michael: what are they if they aren't sorts
ACTION on Deborah to open an issue on disjointness of various semantic domains
<Harold> Coming back to my ACTION 232, I meanwhile looked again at Hassan's minutes, where it says:
<Harold> <csma> Harold: "...among the bodies of the rules expressed in future RIF dialects. Possible dialects that have been considered so far include LP, FO, PR and RR; the condition language could also be used to unfirmly express integrity contraints and queries".
Harold: action 232 - there is just a typo above
<Harold> Although there was no decision regarding concrete extensions beyond Horn rules, the intent behind this condition language is that it will be shared among the bodies of the rules expressed in future RIF dialects. Possible dialects that have been considered so far include LP, FO, PR and RR; the condition language could also be used to uniformly express integrity contraints and queries.
Harold: the proposed resolution is given above
ACTION 232 DONE
Jos: disjointness of various
domains; the issue is how extensible the Core should be
... some dialects will require such disjointness
... we need to look at it wrt to requirements on the Core
ChrisW: I agree with that
Dave: what is the status of the editorial comments of the reviews?
Harold: maybe send it again or pointers to it
<AxelPolleres> if I understood jos right he said that we need to decide whether core is the most restrictive subset, or whether actual languages could actually be more restrictive than the core? In case ++1
Michael: Francois also sent a message and I incorporated most of his suggestions
ChrisW: we don't need to repeat the review work
Michael: just search to see whether some issues were adressed
ChrisW: post the URL of your email containing the review
<AxelPolleres> ... anyway letme add, I think we shouldn't strive for the most restrictive possible subset, as this would be maybe somethnig not beyond propositional horn.
ChrisW: we should take these comments also into account
Michael: about Jos's remark - extensibility means that everything in the Core will be there in the extensions
<josb> the issue is when other dialects add restrictions
ChrisW: action review
ACTION 237 DONE
ACTION 236 DONE
ACTION 235 DONE
<AxelPolleres> jos, sure, but propositional horn is a kinda very restrictive dialect, right? so the question is where to draw the line for "core", IMO.
ChrisW: we started to have some
substantial changes to the UCR WD
... should we make other changes before review?
Allen: requirement to determine
that a set of rules conform to a certain dialect
... some way of determining that a language is in a RIF dialect
... is this a requirement?
ChrisW: I'm not sure that this is a requirement
ChrisW: it might be a unsolvable
problem in case of more complex dialects
... interesting question
... we can raise and discuss it, if you think this is important
<josb> It was exactly my point that we need to think about what we want with the core; from this would follow what it looks like.
Allen: the basic RIF processing
model at the beginning of UCR WD
... this is Section 2
... I added some initial paragraph
... below the second figure are some new sentences
... not sure if Christian is happy with that
<ChrisW> It is worth noting here that data models based on XML, RDF, and OWL, have special status in RIF, in part because of the RIF charter. Interchange of rules based upon the use of other data modeling formats might therefore require additional machinery beyond RIF-based translation software.
ChrisW: PR people? do you have any concerns regarding the text given above and in the UCR WD?
<PaulVincent> No objection from a PR perspective...
ChrisW: should we get some reviews for the document?
Allen: I think so
Leora: I wrote a partial review
ChrisW: Leora, Adrian take a look
at the new version to make sure you agree with it
... any other comments on the UCR WD?
ChrisW: action review
<AxelPolleres> I checked, didn't find an action for me on that :-)
ChrisW: actions to do work
similar to Axel's
... Axel, anything to discuss today on RIFRAF?
Axel: actually I don't know what
was decided at F2F
... I wait for the actions on Leora and Allen to be completed
... I can complete the work I started or wait until the Core is stable
ChrisW: the version of Core is stable
ACTION on Axel to complete his RIFRAF exercise
<AxelPolleres> that was the bottom-up vs. top down, right?
ChrisW: we still to use RIFRAF to
this much more coarse-grained identification of dialects
... defining which combination of features goes in which dialect
<sandro> ACTION: Axel to complete his RIFRAF excersize - due 2007-03-31 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/13-rif-minutes.html#action02]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-265 - complete his RIFRAF excersize [on Axel Polleres - due 2007-03-31].
Axel: before defining sets of features we need to define these features
Leora: agreement on that
ChrisW: we are at the end of our agenda
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128 of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/disjunction/disjoint functions/ Succeeded: s/ACTIOM/ACTION/ Found ScribeNick: PaulaP Inferring Scribes: PaulaP Default Present: ChrisW, Deborah_Nichols, Dave_Reynolds, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, +39.047.101.aaaa, josb, PaulaP, Harold, Allen_Ginsberg, Axel_Polleres, Leora_Morgenstern, Sandro, IgorMozetic, agiurca, PaulVincent, DavidHirtle, Gary_Hallmark, Gerd_Wagner, Michael_Kifer, AlexKozlenkov Present: ChrisW Deborah_Nichols Dave_Reynolds Hassan_Ait-Kaci +39.047.101.aaaa josb PaulaP Harold Allen_Ginsberg Axel_Polleres Leora_Morgenstern Sandro IgorMozetic agiurca PaulVincent DavidHirtle Gary_Hallmark Gerd_Wagner Michael_Kifer AlexKozlenkov Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Mar/0030.html Got date from IRC log name: 13 Mar 2007 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/03/13-rif-minutes.html People with action items: axel sandro WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]