IRC log of rif on 2007-04-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:23:46 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
14:23:46 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:23:54 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #rif
14:24:02 [ChrisW]
zakim, this will be rif
14:24:02 [Zakim]
ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 36 minutes
14:24:42 [ChrisW]
Meeting: RIF Telecon 10 Apr 07
14:24:53 [ChrisW]
Chair: Christian de Sainte-Marie
14:25:17 [ChrisW]
14:25:37 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has changed the topic to: 10 April RIF Telecon Agenda:
14:25:50 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
14:25:50 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
14:26:08 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Admin
14:26:15 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Liason
14:26:23 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Core
14:26:29 [ChrisW]
agenda+ UCR
14:26:36 [ChrisW]
agenda+ RIFRAF
14:26:43 [ChrisW]
agenda+ AOB
14:26:54 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make logs public
14:41:20 [Francois]
Francois has joined #rif
14:47:25 [patranja]
patranja has joined #rif
14:57:16 [csma]
csma has joined #rif
14:57:30 [AlexKozlenkov]
AlexKozlenkov has joined #rif
14:58:31 [csma]
Alex, can you scribe today, please?
14:58:35 [IgorMozetic]
IgorMozetic has joined #rif
14:58:46 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
14:58:54 [Zakim]
14:59:11 [Zakim]
14:59:13 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
14:59:14 [Zakim]
Attendees were
14:59:27 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
14:59:33 [Zakim]
14:59:39 [Hassan]
Hassan has joined #rif
14:59:46 [csma]
zakim, ??P7 is me
14:59:46 [Zakim]
+csma; got it
14:59:56 [Zakim]
15:00:08 [Zakim]
15:00:10 [Francois]
??P1 is me.
15:00:21 [Francois]
zakim, ??P1 is me.
15:00:21 [Zakim]
+Francois; got it
15:00:23 [Zakim]
15:00:24 [ChrisW]
zakim, ibm is temporarily me
15:00:24 [Zakim]
+ChrisW; got it
15:00:28 [Francois]
zakim, mute me.
15:00:29 [Zakim]
Francois should now be muted
15:00:43 [StellaMitchell]
StellaMitchell has joined #rif
15:00:45 [sandro]
sandro has joined #rif
15:01:24 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
15:01:25 [StellaMitchell]
15:01:30 [csma]
15:01:49 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
15:01:52 [Zakim]
+ +39.047.101.aaaa
15:02:15 [Zakim]
15:02:21 [StellaMitchell]
zakim, [ibm] is temporarily me
15:02:21 [Zakim]
+StellaMitchell; got it
15:02:30 [Zakim]
15:02:40 [IgorMozetic]
zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:02:40 [Zakim]
+IgorMozetic; got it
15:02:45 [IgorMozetic]
zakim, mute me
15:02:45 [Zakim]
IgorMozetic should now be muted
15:02:47 [csma]
scribenick: StellaMitchell
15:02:51 [Zakim]
+ +49.892.180.aabb
15:03:03 [csma]
zakim, who is on the phone
15:03:04 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on the phone', csma
15:03:09 [sandro]
(I'll be a few minutes late.)
15:03:11 [csma]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:03:12 [Zakim]
On the phone I see csma, Francois (muted), Hassan_Ait-Kaci, ChrisW, josb (muted), StellaMitchell (muted), IgorMozetic (muted), PaulaP
15:03:22 [Zakim]
15:03:56 [Zakim]
15:04:29 [StellaMitchell]
zakim, next item
15:04:32 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Admin" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:05:00 [StellaMitchell]
csma: next meeting, next Tues, April 17
15:05:01 [Zakim]
+Dave_Reynolds (was Guest P28 74394)
15:05:04 [Zakim]
15:05:36 [StellaMitchell]
PROPOSED: approve minutes from March 27
15:05:50 [ChrisW]
Regrets: AllenGinsberg, AxelPolleres, MichaelSintek, DavidHirtle
15:05:52 [StellaMitchell]
RESOLVED: approved minutes from March 27 telecom
15:06:09 [StellaMitchell]
csma: any proposed amendments?
15:06:35 [StellaMitchell]
15:06:41 [StellaMitchell]
zakim, next item
15:06:41 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Liason" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:06:48 [StellaMitchell]
csma: action review
15:07:01 [StellaMitchell]
action-268 complete
15:07:12 [StellaMitchell]
csma: any news from liasons?
15:07:25 [StellaMitchell]
csma: no news
15:07:32 [StellaMitchell]
zakim, next item
15:07:32 [Zakim]
agendum 2 was just opened, StellaMitchell
15:08:01 [StellaMitchell]
zakim, next item
15:08:01 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Core" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:08:11 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:08:11 [Zakim]
agendum 3 was just opened, ChrisW
15:08:20 [StellaMitchell]
csma: action review
15:08:29 [josb]
15:08:32 [StellaMitchell]
action-271 complete
15:09:23 [Zakim]
15:09:34 [IgorMozetic]
IgorMozetic has joined #rif
15:09:42 [StellaMitchell]
action-272 continued
15:09:45 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
15:10:12 [StellaMitchell]
csma: first item of technical design: issue 30, about rif:uri
15:10:29 [StellaMitchell]
csma: there has been email disucssion
15:10:40 [StellaMitchell]
csma: has this led to any agreement?
15:10:54 [StellaMitchell]
csma: michael kifier is not here
15:11:01 [StellaMitchell]
csma: jos, summarize?
15:11:11 [Harold]
Hi, I was late so just joined first on the phone, then on IRC. Someone can tell zakim who I am?
15:11:20 [StellaMitchell]
jos: i talked with mk offline and no longer have any disagreement
15:11:48 [StellaMitchell]
jos: I thought doc was proposal for a dialect, but it is just basically a framework so it is ok to be more general
15:11:56 [Zakim]
15:12:01 [csma]
15:12:06 [StellaMitchell]
csma: but what is rif: uri?
15:12:13 [sandro]
(sorry for being late)
15:12:41 [StellaMitchell]
jos: it is a sort, an iri written in normal form
15:12:54 [StellaMitchell]
jos: no additional semantic implications
15:13:03 [MichaelKifer]
MichaelKifer has joined #rif
15:13:07 [StellaMitchell]
jos: dialects may introduce additional restrictions
15:13:15 [StellaMitchell]
csma: dave reynolds, any comments?
15:13:33 [StellaMitchell]
15:14:00 [StellaMitchell]
dave: discussion of whether they should be iri's
15:14:13 [StellaMitchell]
dave: wasn't sure about ???
15:14:28 [StellaMitchell]
jos: that would be specified in particular dialects?
15:14:43 [StellaMitchell]
csma: jos, do you consider this issue basically resolved?
15:14:58 [Zakim]
+ +43.512.507.aacc
15:15:03 [StellaMitchell]
csma: who would be the one to write the additional text on which everhyone would agree
15:15:12 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:15:12 [Zakim]
On the phone I see csma, Francois (muted), Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), ChrisW, josb, StellaMitchell (muted), IgorMozetic (muted), PaulaP (muted), Dave_Reynolds, [NRCC], Sandro
15:15:14 [StellaMitchell]
jos: not sure that we need additional text
15:15:16 [Zakim]
... (muted), +43.512.507.aacc
15:15:26 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, aacc is me
15:15:26 [Zakim]
+MichaelKifer; got it
15:15:34 [StellaMitchell]
csma: the issue is a question re: what is defn of rif:uri
15:15:55 [StellaMitchell]
csma: so we need a written definition
15:15:58 [StellaMitchell]
15:16:16 [StellaMitchell]
15:16:25 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
15:16:25 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
15:16:49 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
15:16:49 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
15:17:12 [StellaMitchell]
csma: mk, who would write the text that will allow us to close issue-30
15:17:37 [StellaMitchell]
csma: WD1 currently refers to the issue
15:17:50 [StellaMitchell]
mk: what is the problem with the current text?
15:18:05 [StellaMitchell]
jos: it refers to an open issue
15:18:35 [StellaMitchell]
mk: is the syntax the same as rfc ?
15:18:43 [sandro]
15:19:00 [ChrisW]
RFC 3987 is the IRI RFC
15:19:10 [StellaMitchell]
csma: is it ok to not have any agreed upon definition of rif: uri
15:19:19 [sandro]
15:19:26 [DaveReynolds]
15:19:32 [StellaMitchell]
mk: there is a definition, but we are not sure it's what we want
15:19:33 [DaveReynolds]
ack me
15:19:37 [csma]
ack dave
15:20:03 [StellaMitchell]
daver: on question of syntax, I did propose a phrasing
15:20:21 [StellaMitchell]
mk: i think you proposed that the rfc allows relative uri's
15:20:38 [StellaMitchell]
mk: and relative uris is just a shorthand
15:21:14 [StellaMitchell]
daver: normalizations and change references to iris
15:21:22 [Harold]
An XML syntax for URIs/IRIs was discussed before:
15:21:42 [DaveReynolds]
15:21:44 [StellaMitchell]
csma: proposed resolution of issue-30 is that we remove sentence from WD!
15:21:51 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
15:21:51 [Harold]
15:21:54 [josb]
15:21:54 [StellaMitchell]
...about open issue
15:21:58 [csma]
ack harold
15:22:03 [StellaMitchell]
...and inclused dave's proposed text
15:22:16 [Harold]
<Ind iri=""/>
15:22:24 [StellaMitchell]
jos: in earlier doc we already had synax for iri, are people still aware of it?
15:22:32 [Zakim]
15:22:38 [StellaMitchell]
jos: it was an attribute
15:22:49 [ChrisW]
15:22:53 [Harold]
Now: <Const iri=""/>
15:23:01 [csma]
ack jos
15:23:06 [StellaMitchell]
15:23:26 [DaveReynolds]
15:23:43 [csma]
ack dave
15:23:44 [StellaMitchell]
jos: for RDF group was not sufficient to just reference rfc, so it might not be in our cas either
15:23:52 [StellaMitchell]
csma: that is about syntax
15:24:05 [StellaMitchell]
dave: reason for that is iri spec wasn't finished at that time
15:24:20 [StellaMitchell]
dave: difference ended up being in treatment of spaces
15:24:33 [ChrisW]
15:24:46 [StellaMitchell]
dave: sparql was fine pointing to rfc 3987
15:25:12 [StellaMitchell]
mk: will we call them uris or iris. have we decided on iris?
15:25:40 [StellaMitchell]
harold: most people prefer iri; but i like uri or subset of iri
15:25:57 [StellaMitchell]
csma: any objection to using iri?
15:26:12 [josb]
15:26:15 [csma]
ack sandro
15:26:18 [StellaMitchell]
chris: I don't understand consquences of the decision to use iri
15:26:19 [DaveReynolds]
15:26:28 [StellaMitchell]
chris: I don't know of anyone who actually uses them
15:26:37 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: concerned about market perception
15:26:48 [josb]
+1 to Sandro; better to use IRIs, but call them URIs
15:26:56 [ChrisW]
+1 to holding off on IRI vs. URI
15:27:02 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: most people still use "uri"
15:27:19 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: uri and iri are mappable to each other
15:27:24 [DaveReynolds]
15:27:33 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: so in that sense they are equivalent
15:27:50 [DaveReynolds]
15:27:54 [StellaMitchell]
csma: i agree with chris, so would rather be more conservative and use uri
15:28:07 [StellaMitchell]
csma: let's raise an issue about whether to use uri or iri
15:28:28 [csma]
ack dave
15:28:34 [StellaMitchell]
mk: but dave's formulation refers to iri
15:28:53 [StellaMitchell]
dave: people do use iri in rdf data
15:29:39 [StellaMitchell]
dave: so if we communicate that rif doesn't support iri, it would surprose people
15:29:59 [StellaMitchell]
mk: in rdf, do people use uri or iri?
15:30:11 [StellaMitchell]
dave: (didn't catch answer)
15:30:25 [StellaMitchell]
chris: how about if the text says "iri or uri"
15:30:36 [Harold]
I wonder if the URI/IRI issue wouldn't be a (much) broader topic than for RIF or even the Semantic Web, perhaps for the Technical Architecture Group (TAG): (BTW, how do we liaise with the TAG?)?
15:30:51 [StellaMitchell]
chris: the name of the sort can still be "rif:uri"
15:31:07 [StellaMitchell]
mk: how about use uri now, and say that in future rif might change to iri
15:31:12 [StellaMitchell]
csma: still an issue
15:31:27 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: i agree with dave that semantic web community expects iri
15:31:53 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: people are use to iris, they just don't call them iris
15:32:10 [StellaMitchell]
15:32:13 [Harold]
15:32:37 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: we agree there is an issue. question is what does the draft say until the issue is resolved
15:33:05 [josb]
using IRI would be playing safe (wrt. public perception)
15:33:10 [csma]
ack harold
15:33:16 [Zakim]
15:33:41 [DaveReynolds]
-1 to Harold
15:33:53 [csma]
Josb, using URI would be playing safe (wrt technical implementation), as I understand
15:34:08 [StellaMitchell]
harold: starting with uris is safer because it is easier to express uri as iri, then iri as uri
15:34:18 [josb]
any IRI can be encoded as a URI
15:34:18 [StellaMitchell]
15:34:33 [DaveReynolds]
15:34:33 [StellaMitchell]
csma: we need reference to dave's text
15:34:35 [ChrisW]
I propose: Symbols of this sort have the form "XYZ"^^rif:uri, where XYZ is a URI as specified in RFC 3986 (or an IRI as specified in RFC 3987)
15:35:00 [StellaMitchell]
chris: i put some proposed text in the irc
15:35:19 [StellaMitchell]
chris: I think everyone is saying we will have uris, and we should also include iris
15:35:32 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: i think rdf uses iri, but doesn't call them that
15:35:50 [StellaMitchell]
chris: rdf in spec, doesn't use iri - it defines a mapping
15:36:09 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: that encoding is the same as iri
15:36:18 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: is there a normalization step?
15:36:48 [StellaMitchell]
csma: chris, in your wording, what is the semantic of the "or"
15:37:04 [StellaMitchell]
chris: yes, we will still raise an issue
15:37:11 [sandro]
+1 Chris's wording
15:37:55 [StellaMitchell]
PROPOSED: remove from WD1 the sentence about open issue, add dave's proposed text from link above
15:38:15 [StellaMitchell]
... but replace one sentence with chris' text, and close the issue
15:38:39 [StellaMitchell]
chris: let's see the changes and then close the issue next week
15:38:47 [StellaMitchell]
dave: in what sense close the issue?
15:39:08 [StellaMitchell]
dave: so it gets replace with another issue about the syntax of rif:uri (iri or uri)
15:39:37 [StellaMitchell]
csma; next tech design topic: issue-31
15:39:55 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
15:39:55 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
15:40:02 [Francois]
15:40:09 [Francois]
zakim, unmute me.
15:40:09 [Zakim]
Francois should no longer be muted
15:40:09 [csma]
ack francois
15:40:26 [StellaMitchell]
csma: disjoint names for predicate symbols, function symbols and individuals
15:40:38 [StellaMitchell]
francois: I think we should not require them to be disjoint
15:40:51 [StellaMitchell]
... 1. practical applications
15:41:15 [StellaMitchell]
...2. theoretical logic: it is tradition, but no real reason for having them disjoint
15:42:17 [Francois]
zakim, mute me.
15:42:17 [Zakim]
Francois should now be muted
15:42:19 [josb]
15:42:25 [StellaMitchell]
...3. easier for parsers and humans
15:42:38 [StellaMitchell]
csma: what would drawback be?
15:42:38 [sandro]
The antonym to disjoint-symbols is ....? overloaded symbols?
15:42:45 [Francois]
15:43:14 [StellaMitchell]
chris: if they are not disjoint, many implemented systems assume they are disjoint
15:43:31 [StellaMitchell] will need to make a complicated encoding
15:43:40 [StellaMitchell]
and round-tripping will be more difficult
15:44:06 [Francois]
15:44:29 [Francois]
15:44:32 [StellaMitchell]
csma: RT more difficult because systems that required disjoint
15:44:34 [csma]
ack josb
15:44:40 [StellaMitchell]
...would create new symbols
15:45:20 [Francois]
15:45:25 [StellaMitchell]
jos: biggest argument for having them disjoint is accessibility of the core
15:45:41 [StellaMitchell]
chris: it's about translation/encoding
15:45:58 [StellaMitchell]
15:46:44 [StellaMitchell]
chris: every rule system can express things that cannot be expressed in core
15:47:08 [Francois]
15:47:14 [StellaMitchell]
....but in this case, it would be something in the core that would be complicated to express on a lot of languages
15:47:55 [StellaMitchell]
csma: but if rif requires disjoint sets than a system that requires symbols that are not disjoint will have to make them disjoint for rif core
15:47:55 [csma]
ack francois
15:48:01 [Francois]
zakim, unmute me.
15:48:01 [Zakim]
Francois was not muted, Francois
15:48:11 [Harold]
When we map both <Rel>s</Rel> and <Fun>s</Fun> to <Const>s</Const>, then we cannot uniquely invert that mapping.
15:48:25 [StellaMitchell]
francois: want to answer to what chris said. it's a good point that RT is a problem
15:48:38 [StellaMitchell]
...but we already have this problem anyway
15:49:08 [StellaMitchell]
...because of all the syntactic requirements
15:49:12 [csma]
+1 to Francois
15:50:29 [csma]
15:51:18 [josb]
you cannot just rename URIs in exchange
15:51:26 [Francois]
zakim, mute me.
15:51:26 [Zakim]
Francois should now be muted
15:51:33 [Harold]
However, sorts such as something like <Const sort="relational/...">s</Const> and <Const sort="functional/...">s</Const> can keep the inverse mapping to <Rel>s</Rel> and <Fun>s</Fun> unique.
15:51:33 [StellaMitchell]
francois: ...don't put syntactic restrictions you don't need
15:51:36 [Harold]
15:51:41 [Hassan]
I agree 100% with Francois! Local variables/symbols should be allowed.
15:51:48 [StellaMitchell]
csma: I think francois makes a good point
15:52:02 [StellaMitchell]
chris: no, I think it's different
15:52:05 [sandro]
I think there are two conflated issues here. (1) Can you tell by the syntax of an identifier what kind of thing it is, and (2) Can you use the same string to name a predicate and a function at the same time?
15:52:15 [StellaMitchell]
chris: this is a semantic issue, not a syntactic one
15:52:35 [Francois]
15:53:00 [StellaMitchell]
chris: (ex: rules that quantify over predicates) need different encoding, rather than just renaming things
15:53:18 [StellaMitchell]
15:53:55 [Francois]
15:54:17 [StellaMitchell]
csma: question is whether we allow non-disjoint in core and dialects retrict to disjoint
15:54:36 [csma]
ack harold
15:54:46 [StellaMitchell]
... or whether we want core to be disjoint and dialects restrict to non-disjoint
15:54:54 [StellaMitchell]
francois: I put an example in the IRC
15:55:22 [StellaMitchell]
15:55:37 [csma]
ack francois
15:55:45 [StellaMitchell]
harold: within the const element there is an atrribute "sort" where we can disambiguate
15:56:57 [StellaMitchell]
francois: want to answer chris' point
15:57:14 [StellaMitchell]
chris: I said renaming symbols is a syntactic issue
15:57:39 [StellaMitchell]
chris: say you have rule that quatifies over predicates, and want to translate that through RIF
15:57:56 [StellaMitchell]
francois: we have a misunderstanding
15:58:04 [csma]
15:58:37 [josb]
15:59:20 [StellaMitchell]
francois: the position in the formula tells you what is the type of the symbol
15:59:22 [Hassan]
Are you guys aware of something called the (typed) lambda-calculus? :-) It was invented by somebody called Alonzo Church for precisely what we are talking about.
15:59:44 [csma]
ack josb
15:59:57 [MichaelKifer]
16:00:14 [Francois]
zakim, mute me.
16:00:14 [Zakim]
Francois should now be muted
16:00:23 [Harold]
The language must support working with properties of properties and properties of rules. This can be done while staying first-order by having intensional semantics for predicates, where what seem to be second-order properties are really first-order properties of something in the domain of discourse which has the same name (URI) as the subject property. (This is what Pat Hayes calls "punning" and is widely implemented, although it is not normally a part of FOL
16:00:29 [StellaMitchell]
francois: you (chris ) are speaking of relation constants not relation variables
16:01:04 [StellaMitchell]
jos: a problem is that if you assert that 2 uris are equal, then they are equal only if they occur in a certain context
16:01:10 [StellaMitchell]
chris: is there a solution?
16:01:15 [Zakim]
16:01:25 [StellaMitchell]
jos: hilog provides a solution, but not acceptable for pure fol dialect
16:01:55 [Hassan]
Higher-order logic has solved all these issues a long time ago. Are we reinventing the (square) wheel again? :-(
16:02:17 [StellaMitchell]
chris: if jos is right about what francois is saying, then I agree that it is a simple renaming issue
16:02:45 [StellaMitchell]
chris: but now what uri refers to must be interpreted contextually
16:02:46 [josb]
16:02:56 [csma]
ack michaelk
16:02:57 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
16:02:58 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer was not muted, MichaelKifer
16:03:13 [StellaMitchell]
mk: i don't understand what we are discussing: I think there are 2 issues
16:03:59 [StellaMitchell]
1. extensibility....we are talking about pure fol dialect, so if we don't introduce sort system, then fol dialect will not be allowed
16:04:25 [StellaMitchell]
2. round-tripping: it will not be possible if we do not separate the symbols
16:04:37 [josb]
but then the URIs are lost!
16:04:38 [StellaMitchell]
csma: but the separation can be done at the translation step
16:05:09 [StellaMitchell]
mk: I'm not sure that will really work.
16:05:47 [StellaMitchell]
csma: there is still an issue about round-tripping, we still haven't
16:06:01 [StellaMitchell]
specified exactly what we expect: will it be identical or equivalent?
16:07:05 [StellaMitchell]
mk: I think jos's point is that it will be be a real web language
16:07:45 [StellaMitchell]
jos: RT: if names of symbols (which are uris) are lost, then you
16:07:59 [StellaMitchell]
...might lose some important information, and this might not be acceptable
16:08:20 [StellaMitchell]
mk: symbols have meaning outside of the system, so changing them might not be accepta ble
16:09:13 [StellaMitchell]
jos: could be a problem either way: (disjoint in rif, not in dialect) (not disjoint in rif, disjoint in dialect)
16:09:20 [StellaMitchell]
...which one do we want to cater to?
16:09:54 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: is this the same issue as the difference between owl 1.0 and 1.1
16:10:00 [StellaMitchell]
chris: I think it's different
16:10:10 [StellaMitchell]
chris: owl doesn't translate
16:10:57 [StellaMitchell]
csma: I propose we keep the issue-31 open for now
16:11:14 [StellaMitchell]
chris: mk, did you want them disjoing or not disjoint?
16:11:23 [StellaMitchell]
mk: I do not have a preference
16:12:12 [StellaMitchell]
mk: is non dis in core, then language that do distinguish will have problems with translation from RIF
16:12:23 [StellaMitchell]
s/is non/if non/
16:12:48 [StellaMitchell]
csma: any rule lang will have to have a way to check whether a specific rule set can be translated
16:12:53 [StellaMitchell]
...and this will be one of those checks
16:13:35 [StellaMitchell]
chris: csma, is this a problem for production rules?
16:13:46 [StellaMitchell]
...(to have non-disjoint sets)
16:13:57 [StellaMitchell]
csma: I don't think it has an impact on production rules
16:14:11 [StellaMitchell]
chris: so functions, predicates, and individuals can have the same names?
16:14:44 [StellaMitchell]
hassan: yes, java allows you do to this.
16:15:01 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: which is restricted form?
16:15:11 [StellaMitchell]
chris: having them disjoint is restricted form
16:15:24 [Francois]
+1 for Hassan's remark!
16:15:35 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: can something be both a property and a function?
16:15:47 [josb]
as soon as you have equality, it is no longer trivial from a logical point of view
16:16:15 [StellaMitchell]
...or can it only be one, and you have to disambiguate? disambiguation is too inconvenient
16:17:06 [Harold]
Couldn't we optionally do static analysis including automatic contextual disambiguation of <Const>s</Const> into <Const sort="relational/...">s</Const> vs. <Const sort="functional/...">s</Const>, changing a ruleset in this way throughout, and then translate that to systems with disjoint <Rel>s</Rel> and <Fun>s</Fun>?
16:17:12 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: context for equality is always individuals, but users may have a hard time keeping track of that
16:17:13 [Harold]
16:17:21 [csma]
ack harold
16:17:40 [StellaMitchell]
harold: maybe we need more attention to static analysis of our rif rule sets
16:18:21 [StellaMitchell]
csma: disambiguation comes from sort mechanisms
16:18:50 [StellaMitchell]
harold: put it in translator so that user does not have to be aware of it
16:19:21 [StellaMitchell]
csma: can someone summarize the positions we have discussed?
16:19:46 [StellaMitchell]
csma: who would like to do this?
16:19:47 [Harold]
s/translator/validator and translator/
16:19:51 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
16:19:51 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
16:20:06 [StellaMitchell]
csma: chris, can you summarize this discussion about disjointness - in an email?
16:20:42 [StellaMitchell]
chris: I can start
16:20:51 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: how about doing it on a wiki page?
16:21:28 [Harold]
16:21:40 [csma]
ack harold
16:22:07 [StellaMitchell]
harold: I think we should not edit other people's entries
16:22:32 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: (unless you're sure it won't offend the author)
16:22:57 [StellaMitchell]
csma: we will not discuss issue-25 today
16:23:09 [StellaMitchell]
zakim, next item
16:23:09 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "UCR" taken up [from ChrisW]
16:23:33 [StellaMitchell]
csma: quick look at RIF-RAF actions
16:24:07 [StellaMitchell]
zakim, move to item 5
16:24:07 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "RIFRAF" taken up [from ChrisW]
16:24:15 [StellaMitchell]
action-175 complete
16:24:53 [StellaMitchell]
csma: axel had action, but he is not here
16:25:17 [StellaMitchell]
csma: we still need section 5 from Leora
16:25:23 [csma]
16:25:29 [StellaMitchell]
csma: any other business?
16:25:29 [Harold]
Thought on 'Etiquette Rules' for Sandro's "Pros and Cons Wikis" (action on Chris): Don't start new row without need, rather align your enter your pros and cons into 'the other column' of existing rows.
16:25:31 [PaulaP]
16:25:34 [Francois]
16:25:35 [Hassan]
16:25:42 [Zakim]
16:25:45 [Zakim]
16:25:46 [PaulaP]
16:25:47 [StellaMitchell]
csma: propse to adjourn?
16:25:52 [Zakim]
16:25:53 [StellaMitchell]
csma: look at your actions
16:25:54 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:25:54 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
16:25:55 [Zakim]
16:25:56 [Zakim]
16:25:58 [Hassan]
16:26:05 [Zakim]
16:26:08 [Harold]
16:26:15 [Zakim]
16:26:24 [csma]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:26:24 [Zakim]
On the phone I see csma, ChrisW, StellaMitchell, Sandro
16:26:41 [Zakim]
16:26:48 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:26:48 [Zakim]
On the phone I see csma, ChrisW, Sandro
16:30:51 [Zakim]
16:30:53 [Zakim]
16:30:54 [Zakim]
16:30:55 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
16:30:56 [Zakim]
Attendees were csma, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Francois, ChrisW, +39.047.101.aaaa, josb, StellaMitchell, IgorMozetic, PaulaP, Dave_Reynolds, [NRCC], Sandro, +43.512.507.aacc, MichaelKifer,
16:30:59 [Zakim]
... Gary_Hallmark
17:10:12 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:10:12 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
18:35:12 [sandro]
sandro has joined #rif