IRC log of rif on 2007-04-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:27:05 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
14:27:05 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:27:10 [sandro]
RRSAgent, make record public
14:37:23 [sandro]
sandro has joined #rif
14:45:20 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #rif
14:45:30 [ChrisW]
sandro, u there?
14:50:28 [patranja]
patranja has joined #rif
14:51:06 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #rif
14:53:33 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
14:56:05 [sandro]
I'm here, Chris.
14:56:17 [sandro]
(stuck at home because my car battery died, but here. :-)
14:56:34 [AlexKozlenkov]
AlexKozlenkov has joined #rif
14:57:39 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
14:57:46 [Zakim]
14:58:36 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
14:58:52 [Zakim]
14:59:22 [Hassan]
Hassan has joined #rif
14:59:51 [Zakim]
14:59:53 [Zakim]
+Dave_Reynolds (was ??P37)
15:00:05 [Zakim]
+ +49.892.180.aaaa
15:00:19 [Francois]
Francois has joined #rif
15:00:24 [Zakim]
15:00:26 [Francois]
zakim, ??
15:00:26 [Deborah_Nichols]
Deborah_Nichols has joined #rif
15:00:28 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, Francois.
15:00:28 [Harold]
zakim, [NRCC] is me
15:00:32 [Zakim]
+Harold; got it
15:00:54 [sandro]
sandro has changed the topic to: 17 April RIF Telecon Agenda:
15:01:03 [LeoraMorgenstern]
LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
15:01:10 [Zakim]
15:01:24 [Zakim]
15:01:30 [Francois]
zakim, ??P25 is me.
15:01:30 [Zakim]
+Francois; got it
15:01:34 [Zakim]
15:01:37 [Francois]
zakim, mure me.
15:01:38 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'mure me', Francois
15:01:44 [Francois]
zakim, mute me.
15:01:44 [Zakim]
Francois should now be muted
15:01:57 [StellaMitchell]
StellaMitchell has joined #rif
15:02:00 [Zakim]
15:02:00 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:02:01 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Sandro, Harold, Dave_Reynolds, PaulaP (muted), ChrisW, Francois (muted), Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted)
15:02:11 [Deborah_Nichols]
Deborah_Nichols has joined #rif
15:02:43 [LeoraMorgenstern]
LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
15:02:53 [Zakim]
15:02:57 [IgorMozetic]
IgorMozetic has joined #rif
15:03:21 [johnhall]
johnhall has joined #rif
15:03:39 [Zakim]
15:03:51 [LeoraMorgenstern]
zakim, please mute me
15:03:51 [Zakim]
Leora_Morgenstern should now be muted
15:03:55 [Zakim]
15:04:06 [Zakim]
15:04:12 [IgorMozetic]
zakim, ??P18 is me
15:04:12 [Zakim]
+IgorMozetic; got it
15:04:16 [LeoraMorgenstern]
15:04:20 [johnhall]
zakim, p38 is me
15:04:20 [Zakim]
sorry, johnhall, I do not recognize a party named 'p38'
15:04:31 [Zakim]
15:04:31 [johnhall]
zakim, ??p38 is me
15:04:32 [Zakim]
+johnhall; got it
15:04:47 [IgorMozetic]
zakim, mute me
15:04:47 [Zakim]
IgorMozetic should now be muted
15:04:52 [StellaMitchell]
zakim, [ibm] is temporarily me
15:04:52 [Zakim]
+StellaMitchell; got it
15:04:53 [johnhall]
zakim, mute me
15:04:54 [Zakim]
johnhall should now be muted
15:05:06 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Next meeting is next Tuesday, as usual.
15:05:10 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Action review:
15:05:49 [sandro]
scribenick: LeoraMorgenstern
15:05:54 [sandro]
RRSAgent, make minutes
15:05:54 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate sandro
15:06:07 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Agenda item: Liaison:
15:06:14 [johnhall]
zakim, unmute me
15:06:14 [Zakim]
johnhall should no longer be muted
15:06:24 [Zakim]
15:06:24 [sandro]
RRSAgent, make minutes public
15:06:24 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', sandro. Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:06:25 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Powder working group: representative not present
15:06:31 [sandro]
RRSAgent, make record public
15:06:32 [AlexKozlenkov]
zakim, ??P43 is me
15:06:32 [Zakim]
+AlexKozlenkov; got it
15:06:37 [LeoraMorgenstern]
zakim, unmute me
15:06:37 [Zakim]
Leora_Morgenstern should no longer be muted
15:06:39 [AlexKozlenkov]
zakim, mute me
15:06:39 [Zakim]
AlexKozlenkov should now be muted
15:06:46 [sandro]
chair: Chris Welty
15:06:54 [sandro]
Meeting: RIF-WG
15:07:07 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Ontology group: has started mapping between OWL and RDF
15:07:09 [sandro]
RRSAgent, make minutes
15:07:10 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate sandro
15:07:17 [AlexKozlenkov]
betweeen SBVR and OWL/RDF
15:07:26 [johnhall]
zakim, unmute me
15:07:26 [Zakim]
johnhall was not muted, johnhall
15:07:34 [johnhall]
zakim, mute me
15:07:34 [Zakim]
johnhall should now be muted
15:07:42 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Thanks, Alex
15:08:09 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Action review
15:08:13 [LeoraMorgenstern]
15:08:41 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Not much public feedback yet on Core document, beyond Jeremy's typos
15:09:10 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Everyone in working group should be announcing release of first working draft to colleagues, should be sent to mailing list, etc.
15:09:37 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: If anyone knows of appropriate place to announce release of working draft, we should;
15:09:39 [sandro]
15:10:09 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Sandro: Wiki page called Outreach, where people should list organizations to which to send documents to.
15:10:49 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: good record to remember what was done last time wrt annoncements. Also helps prevent overlap.
15:10:50 [Harold]
Perhaps we should combine the WD1 announcement with a reminder: Please Comment By 27 April 2007
15:11:04 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Sandro: We are less than 10 days left to the comment period.
15:11:17 [MichaelKifer]
MichaelKifer has joined #rif
15:11:22 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: We will still accept comments beyond that date, but ina process date, we are not obliged to respod to such comments.
15:11:35 [LeoraMorgenstern]
s/are less/have less
15:12:04 [GiorgosStoilos]
GiorgosStoilos has joined #rif
15:12:09 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Topic: Issue 30 --- RIF:URI in the core spect
15:12:25 [Zakim]
+ +43.512.507.aabb
15:12:25 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: some discussion last week, and there's been email follow-up
15:12:29 [LeoraMorgenstern]
15:12:37 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, aab is me
15:12:37 [Zakim]
sorry, MichaelKifer, I do not recognize a party named 'aab'
15:12:45 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, aabb is me
15:12:45 [Zakim]
+MichaelKifer; got it
15:12:47 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Michael, Harold, and Dave, summarize the discussion. Are we near consensus yet?
15:12:56 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Harold: Summary: everyone is fine with URIs.
15:12:56 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
15:12:56 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
15:13:07 [Zakim]
15:13:14 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
15:13:14 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
15:13:22 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Harold: my own opinion: in the unlikely event that the web changes from IRIs, all groups will need to change.
15:13:35 [LeoraMorgenstern]
15:13:54 [Francois]
15:13:57 [Harold]
I think we can call it rif:iri
15:14:02 [Francois]
zakim, unmute me.
15:14:02 [Zakim]
Francois should no longer be muted
15:14:03 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: anyone who disagrees that we should use IRI instead of URI in the spec?
15:14:36 [Francois]
zakim, mute me.
15:14:36 [Zakim]
Francois should now be muted
15:14:39 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Francois: IRIs shouldn't be referred to as resources, but as pointers.
15:14:46 [sandro]
PROPOSED: We'll use IRIs
15:15:11 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: proposing to close Issue 30 by agreeing to use IRIs instead of URIs everywhere in core spec.
15:15:19 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Is anyone opposed?
15:15:26 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Hearing none, we've closed issue 30.
15:15:34 [Harold]
15:16:00 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Naming: should we change naming from RIF:URI to RIF:IRI?
15:16:11 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Harold: yes to Chris's suggestion
15:16:27 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Michael: Maybe should be RIF:ID
15:16:44 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Harold: But in XML, ID has another meaning. Any term might have another meaning.
15:17:06 [Hassan]
15:17:10 [DaveReynolds]
15:17:11 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Sandro: Are we naming things by serialization or by thing identified by serialization.
15:17:50 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Michael, are you objecting, or just sounding out alternatives?
15:17:59 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Michael: no objection, just trying to find a neutral term.
15:18:08 [Francois]
15:18:18 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: In interest of expedience, accept RIF:IRI; can always change if something better comes along.
15:18:45 [Francois]
15:19:01 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Hassan: Want to be able to adapt to whatever the standard is. That's what Michael is aiming for.
15:19:01 [sandro]
15:19:24 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: so what would the actual name be?
15:19:31 [Harold]
Hassan, but such a level of indirection could later diverge to another kind of URL/URI/IRI/..., which don't want to do in RIF.
15:19:34 [PaulaP]
15:19:37 [Hassan]
15:19:42 [Francois]
15:19:48 [sandro]
15:19:55 [sandro]
ack Harold
15:20:17 [sandro]
ack DaveReynolds
15:20:25 [sandro]
q+ DaveReynolds
15:20:30 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Harold: summarizing point made above on IRC.
15:21:17 [Hassan]
15:21:26 [DaveReynolds]
fine by me
15:21:27 [MichaelKifer]
rif:gid (global id) or rif:rid (resource id)
15:21:31 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Change it to rif:iri for now, we can discuss level of indirection and change it later if there's consensus on a new name
15:21:31 [Harold]
+1 to Chris
15:21:45 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #rif
15:21:59 [sandro]
RESOLVED: Change it to rif:iri for now, we can discuss level of indirection and change it later if there's consensus on a new name
15:22:03 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Proposal is resolved.
15:22:31 [sandro]
ACTION: mkifer to change URI to IRI and rif:uri to rif:iri
15:22:32 [rifbot]
Created ACTION-275 - Change URI to IRI and rif:uri to rif:iri [on Michael Kifer - due 2007-04-24].
15:22:34 [DaveReynolds]
ack me
15:22:35 [LeoraMorgenstern]
ACTION on Michael Kifer to update spec to reflect both resolutions:
15:22:42 [sandro]
ack DaveReynolds
15:24:22 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Dave: absolute, relative addressing, stuff from SPARQL, Dave will paste into IRC
15:24:33 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Onto Issue 31
15:24:53 [DaveReynolds]
The paragraph was in:
15:25:02 [DaveReynolds]
The para was ...
15:25:03 [ChrisW]
15:25:08 [DaveReynolds]
In the concrete XML and human readable syntax relative IRI references
15:25:09 [DaveReynolds]
are permitted in which case they will be resolved relative to a base IRI
15:25:11 [DaveReynolds]
as per Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax [RFC3986] using
15:25:12 [DaveReynolds]
only the basic algorithm in Section 5.2. Neither Syntax-Based
15:25:14 [DaveReynolds]
Normalization nor Scheme-Based Normalization (described in sections
15:25:15 [DaveReynolds]
6.2.2 and 6.2.3 of RFC3986) are performed.
15:26:13 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Issue 31: Disjoint Domains for Individuals, Functions, and Predicates
15:26:21 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Anyone things in the Core we should have disjointness?
15:26:29 [LeoraMorgenstern]
15:26:45 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Michael: Jos's objection was that this would make compatibility with OWL/DL harder.
15:27:35 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Michael: that is, not have the disjoint assumption would make the compatibility harder
15:27:53 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: OWL is talking about changing this in OWL 1.1, but realistically, this is more than a year away.
15:28:09 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Concern about making interoperability more difficult --- makes translation more difficult.
15:28:28 [Francois]
15:28:44 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: No good reason technically or mathematically to have this restriction.
15:29:00 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Nevertheless, there are many systems that make this simplification.
15:29:08 [Francois]
+1with Hassan
15:29:09 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Hassan: It's not a simplification, it's a complication!
15:29:16 [Francois]
15:29:27 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
15:29:27 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer was not muted, MichaelKifer
15:29:33 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Sandro: What about the logic textbooks that I've seen that make this assumption?
15:29:46 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Hassan: It's not necessary, and it's silly!
15:29:59 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Sandro and Hassan disagree about whether this is commonly done.
15:30:31 [sandro]
Hassan isn't actually saying it's not commonly done -- he's disagreeing but saying something else.
15:30:33 [Francois]
15:30:35 [Francois]
15:30:43 [Francois]
zakim, unmute me.
15:30:43 [Zakim]
Francois should no longer be muted
15:30:48 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Michael: Useful., possibly, in a textbook, but useless ina language. Didactic reasons, no computational reasons.
15:31:00 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
15:31:00 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
15:31:02 [sandro]
15:31:06 [sandro]
ack Francois
15:31:27 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Francois: It's a 19th century tradition.
15:31:48 [sandro]
Francois: it's a 19th century tradition --- like in Fortran where all variables that start with an n (i) are integerrs, etc.
15:32:08 [sandro]
Francois: There's no reason to do it any more.
15:32:09 [Hassan]
Good explanation Francois !
15:32:57 [Francois]
zakim, mute me.
15:32:57 [Zakim]
Francois should now be muted
15:33:32 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Sandro: No one is arguing whether you can tell the type of symbol by looking at it.
15:33:44 [AlexKozlenkov]
15:33:52 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Sandro: what they are arguing about is whether the same symbol can be used as individual and predicate in same formula.
15:33:53 [Hassan]
Yes - Java , C, C++ do it !
15:34:17 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Sandro: No one is going to the extreme of Fortran
15:34:24 [Francois]
15:34:37 [Francois]
+1 with Hassan's explanation
15:34:50 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Hassan: Francois was not suggesting a direct analogy; he was poiniting out the silliness of this particular convention
15:34:59 [sandro]
but it's a different convention.
15:35:10 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Hassan: and arguing, that just as the Fortran convention can be dropped, so can this convention.
15:35:22 [Francois]
15:35:30 [DaveReynolds]
15:35:51 [Francois]
Chris' comment is not fair!
15:35:51 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: are we so passionately convinced that this is silly that we will tell people to adhere to these conventions that their translations will be harder
15:36:15 [sandro]
zakim, who is making noise?
15:36:18 [AlexKozlenkov]
massive noise
15:36:26 [Zakim]
sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ChrisW (42%), Sandro (64%)
15:36:32 [Francois]
zakim, mute me.
15:36:32 [Zakim]
Francois was already muted, Francois
15:36:55 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Hassan: we are not authorizing or forbidding anything.
15:37:43 [sandro]
15:37:46 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Hassan: No problem in Java, e.g, having foo(foo), where first instance is a function, and second is an individual.
15:38:07 [Francois]
15:38:20 [AlexKozlenkov]
zakim, unmute me
15:38:20 [Zakim]
AlexKozlenkov should no longer be muted
15:38:32 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Hassan: should have a better reason for a design choice than, "the negihbors do it."
15:38:52 [AlexKozlenkov]
zakim, mute me
15:38:52 [Zakim]
AlexKozlenkov should now be muted
15:38:52 [AlexKozlenkov]
zakim, mute me
15:38:53 [Zakim]
AlexKozlenkov was already muted, AlexKozlenkov
15:38:58 [Francois]
zakim, unmute me.
15:38:58 [Zakim]
Francois should no longer be muted
15:39:13 [sandro]
forall x x(x) <---- you want to allow that, Hassan?
15:39:32 [sandro]
ack AlexKozlenkov
15:39:35 [sandro]
ack Francois
15:39:42 [Francois]
zakim, mute me.
15:39:42 [Zakim]
Francois should now be muted
15:39:45 [DaveReynolds]
ack me
15:39:45 [AlexKozlenkov]
zakim, mute me
15:39:46 [Zakim]
AlexKozlenkov should now be muted
15:39:48 [sandro]
ack DaveReynolds
15:40:00 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Francois: reiterates that we should not use still style of 19th c. at the beginning o 21rst century.
15:41:00 [sandro]
DaveReynolds: Could the people who are opposd to DS say whether they want ONDS (OWL1.1) or OS (RDF)?
15:41:02 [Hassan]
Sandro : I do not want to allow anything meaningless, I do not want to forbid something meaningful
15:41:15 [sandro]
+1 DaveReynolds
15:41:47 [Francois]
zakim, unmute me.
15:41:47 [Zakim]
Francois should no longer be muted
15:42:04 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Dave: are those who are opposed to DS (disjoint sorts) supporting ONDS (punning: Overlapping names, disjoint sorts) or OS (overlapping sorts)? (refer to chris's wiki page)
15:42:23 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: believed that Francois supported ONDS (check)
15:42:39 [Hassan]
+1 with Francois - distinct cates should be an *option* not a requirement
15:42:42 [Francois]
zakim, mute me.
15:42:42 [Zakim]
Francois should now be muted
15:42:58 [sandro]
Francois: it seems to me that what is being called "sorts" here should be call "syntactic categories"
15:43:03 [Hassan]
15:43:35 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: may not be able to push much further with this. However, people aren't really addressing the question: does it make sense to make the translation more difficult.
15:43:58 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Perhaps need more examples of translations so that this discussion can become more real.
15:44:08 [AlexKozlenkov]
15:44:11 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Sandro: Is anyone opposed to OS?
15:44:22 [Francois]
What is OS?
15:44:30 [PaulaP]
overlapping sorts
15:44:31 [LeoraMorgenstern]
OS = overlapping sorts: same symbol can denote any number of things.
15:44:31 [Harold]
OS: Overlapping sorts. Symbols uniquely denote semantic objects but these objects themselves can be more than one thing (a function and/or a predicate and/or an individual). This is the approach used in common logic. A common misconception is that this is necessarily second order, but as shown in my logic textbook (Enderton), it is still first order.
15:44:33 [Francois]
15:44:41 [Francois]
15:44:47 [Francois]
15:44:55 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: hesitant to make decision. What would Gary, Paul Vicent, Jos say?
15:44:55 [AlexKozlenkov]
Hassan +1
15:45:12 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Hassan: I don't understand OS thing.
15:45:32 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Description makes it sound as if we're talking about semantic objects, but this is just a discussion of syntax.
15:45:50 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Hassan: OS description doesn't make sense to me.
15:46:51 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Difference between OS and ONDS: ONDS --- can use same symbol syntactically, but depending on position, can be different thing (predicate, function, individual)
15:47:27 [LeoraMorgenstern]
OS: unique symbol denotes object which can be used as predicate, function, individual
15:47:45 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: admits that perhaps the description could use clarification
15:48:00 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Dave: Difference is somewhat akin to difference between OWL full and OWL DL.
15:49:07 [LeoraMorgenstern]
OWL full : if you say x and y are equivalent, classes and predicates have same extensions
15:49:47 [Francois]
15:49:58 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Dave: (check) but OWL DL: even if x and y are equivalent, doesn't make claims about equivalent extensions (???)
15:50:43 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: (elaborating on Dave's example): so you can say P=Q for individuals, but doesn't say anything about the predicates P and Q being equivalent.
15:50:58 [Francois]
15:51:20 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: OWL 1.1 spec has good explanation of this issue.
15:51:57 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: people either seem to be ambivalent or expressing support for OS approach.
15:52:18 [AlexKozlenkov]
We probably need a good test case
15:52:19 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Sandro: there appears to be much confusion about this issue, so we need to look at test cases.
15:52:42 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Would be good to gather some examples, and especially what this means for translation.
15:53:17 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Any volunteers for examples of ONDS translation into both OS and DS?
15:53:53 [Harold]
Should we use this occasion to liaise/work with colleagues from OWL 1.1?
15:54:19 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Hearing no volunteers, will send out email msg to recruit volunteers
15:54:35 [LeoraMorgenstern]
ACTION on Chris to recruit volunteers?
15:54:35 [sandro]
ACTION: ChrisW to recruit someone to write examples of ONDS transation
15:54:35 [rifbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - ChrisW
15:54:45 [LeoraMorgenstern]
15:54:55 [sandro]
ACTION: Chris to recruit someone to write examples of OS/ONDS translations
15:54:55 [rifbot]
Created ACTION-276 - Recruit someone to write examples of OS/ONDS translations [on Chris Menzel - due 2007-04-24].
15:55:04 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Next item in Agenda: compatibility with RDF in
15:55:08 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Rif Core
15:55:24 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Discussion Issue 25, compatibility with RDF in RIF core
15:55:31 [sandro]
Topic: RDF Compatibility
15:55:40 [AlexKozlenkov]
15:56:09 [sandro]
Harold: Object-centered syntax object[property->>value]
15:56:14 [AlexKozlenkov]
it is right
15:56:28 [AlexKozlenkov]
15:56:29 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
15:56:29 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
15:56:46 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: can write rules conditioned on properties.
15:57:28 [MichaelKifer]
15:58:08 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Dave basic notion of triple predicate with some syntactic sugar seems very reasonable.
15:58:28 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Dave: Jos's paper also showed how entailment rules would be handled.
15:58:44 [LeoraMorgenstern]
(Check the above wrt Jos's paper)
15:59:12 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Michael: I think this can be added to the core.
15:59:21 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris Anyone hesitant/skeptical about this approach?
16:00:00 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Sandro: Concern raised in email: would like to have binary predicate approach available too, if possible.
16:00:08 [AlexKozlenkov]
variables over predicate smay be good to have
16:00:15 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Michael: Not when using variables over predicates.
16:00:27 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Sandro: but in the 80% of cases where you don't have that ...
16:01:04 [IgorMozetic]
Sandro: why would you like binary predicates?
16:01:08 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Michael: Sandro, so you're proposing to have one approach to cover 80% of cases, and another approach to cover everything?
16:01:31 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Sandro: In RIF core, can't quantify over predicates.
16:01:42 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Sandro: In RDF rules, need to be able to allow it.
16:02:10 [Francois]
16:02:20 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Sandro. Which is why you have this triple predicate. But, is there a way to have the binary predicate option?
16:02:30 [Harold]
What about allowing (Hilog-like) 2nd-order syntactic sugar to query a property in property(object,value), semantically equivalent to holds(property,object,value)?
16:02:31 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Sandro: Mulling this over, rather than proposing solution.
16:02:54 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Michael This seems more like an implementation issue.
16:02:55 [Harold]
16:02:55 [Francois]
16:03:06 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Sandro: Michael is likely right. Will think about this some more.
16:03:30 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #rif
16:03:56 [sandro]
(That is -- Michael says that using __triple doesn't necessarily mean bad performance. EG you can recognize rulesets which don't use predicate quantification.)
16:03:57 [AlexKozlenkov]
Why can't we go ahead and do it?
16:04:04 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Harold: Suggests: Holds predicate can be used as syntactic sugar for binary predicates.
16:04:28 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Syntactic sugar for binary predicates or all?
16:04:29 [AlexKozlenkov]
Any predicates
16:04:38 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Harold: can easily be generalized to n-ary predicates.
16:04:59 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Michael: Does this mean proposing variables over predicates in the core?
16:05:59 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Michael: (in response to Chris's remark): Orthogonal to discussion of disjointness issues.
16:06:18 [AlexKozlenkov]
Example: We receive a message that contains a triple, we find a rule for a matching binary predicate
16:07:51 [AlexKozlenkov]
In reactive systems at least, we would exchange terms that then could unify with atoms
16:07:59 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Sandro: do you have aggregates? Can you descend into objects themselves and write rules about their slots, etc.?
16:08:19 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris can oyu query an object for its slots, e.g.?
16:08:51 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Hassan: talking about reflection. Yes, JRules can do this.
16:09:39 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Sandro: Point was: do we need quantifying over predicates for more than just RDF compatibility? Is it needed in general for RIF?
16:10:26 [AlexKozlenkov]
As said before, there are uses for that elsewhere
16:10:58 [AlexKozlenkov]
16:11:09 [Francois]
16:11:31 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: a point of clarification: In Jos's proposal, just quantification of RDF properties, not of any predicates. Can we generalize to quantification in general.
16:11:35 [Harold]
Semantically, querying ?property in object[?property->>value] doesnt seem to be easer property(object,value)
16:11:55 [LeoraMorgenstern]
It seems to me that once you introduce reification (via Holds), you may as well take advantage of its power.
16:12:25 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Harold: <missed it>
16:12:59 [Harold]
s/Semantically, querying ?property in object[?property->>value] doesnt seem to be easer property(object,value)/Semantically, querying ?property in object[?property->>value] doesnt seem to be easer than querying property(object,value)./
16:14:12 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris; don't need to support all of RDF in core. Might not have to support quantification over predicates.
16:14:39 [AlexKozlenkov]
Sandro: exactly
16:14:43 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Sandro: so, could suggest that we use binary predicates, and if want to quantify over predicates, use same extensions as anyone else.
16:15:01 [Francois]
16:15:14 [Hassan]
Again - I second Michael's opinion - why forbid?
16:15:21 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Michael: But slots also impose the burden. Not necessarily sure disallowing quantification over predicates solves the problem.
16:16:14 [Francois]
sorry, I must leave...
16:16:18 [Francois]
16:16:25 [Zakim]
16:17:21 [AlexKozlenkov]
RDF is just one lead into the issue
16:17:46 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: 3 possibilities regarding quantification over variables. (get them)
16:17:48 [Zakim]
16:18:10 [markproctor]
markproctor has joined #rif
16:18:34 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Michael: Slotted notation is easier to swallow than full quantification over predicates.
16:19:00 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: let's go ahead with adding slotted syntax to core.
16:19:11 [AlexKozlenkov]
zakim, unmute me
16:19:11 [Zakim]
AlexKozlenkov should no longer be muted
16:19:12 [Zakim]
16:19:42 [Zakim]
16:21:06 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Alex: is concerned that we are avoiding the issue of quantifying over predicates, but that it will come up again in the future.
16:21:49 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: But most systems can't handle quant. over pred., and one does want to have the core reflect what's in most systems.
16:22:22 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #rif
16:23:31 [Harold]
Vendors who dont offer direct handling of predicate variables would need to do the 'holds' transformation into their systems.
16:23:34 [AlexKozlenkov]
zakim, mute me
16:23:34 [Zakim]
AlexKozlenkov should now be muted
16:23:54 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Alex and Chris: more discussion about not committing against quant over pred,
16:24:05 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
16:24:05 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
16:24:58 [LeoraMorgenstern]
ACTION: ChrisW to put rifraf on agenda for next week's telecon
16:24:58 [rifbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - ChrisW
16:25:15 [LeoraMorgenstern]
ACTION: ChrisW to put rifraf on agenda for next week's telecon
16:25:15 [rifbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - ChrisW
16:25:23 [Zakim]
16:25:33 [Zakim]
16:25:34 [Zakim]
16:25:34 [LeoraMorgenstern]
ACTION: Chris to put rifraf on agenda for next week's telecon
16:25:35 [rifbot]
Created ACTION-277 - Put rifraf on agenda for next week\'s telecon [on Chris Menzel - due 2007-04-24].
16:25:37 [Zakim]
16:25:40 [Zakim]
16:25:46 [Zakim]
16:25:50 [Zakim]
16:25:52 [Zakim]
16:25:54 [Zakim]
16:25:56 [Zakim]
16:25:58 [Zakim]
16:26:08 [Zakim]
16:26:49 [sandro]
zakim, attendence
16:26:49 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'attendence', sandro
16:26:55 [sandro]
zakim, who was here?
16:26:55 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, sandro.
16:27:07 [sandro]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:27:07 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate sandro
16:27:12 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sakim, attendance
16:27:17 [LeoraMorgenstern]
zakim, attendance
16:27:17 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'attendance', LeoraMorgenstern
16:27:20 [sandro]
zakim, attendance?
16:27:20 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, sandro.
16:28:09 [Zakim]
16:28:17 [Zakim]
16:28:42 [sandro]
zakim, drop LeoraMorgenstern
16:28:42 [Zakim]
Leora_Morgenstern is being disconnected
16:28:43 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
16:28:44 [Zakim]
Attendees were Sandro, Dave_Reynolds, ChrisW, PaulaP, Harold, Deborah_Nichols, Francois, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Leora_Morgenstern, IgorMozetic, johnhall, StellaMitchell, AlexKozlenkov,
16:28:47 [Zakim]
... +43.512.507.aabb, MichaelKifer, [IVML], Mark_Proctor
16:28:54 [sandro]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:28:54 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate sandro
16:29:08 [sandro]
There we go.
16:31:03 [AxelPolleres]
16:31:24 [AxelPolleres]
have a second?
18:36:56 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rif