14:27:05 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rif
14:27:05 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/04/17-rif-irc
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> +Sandro
14:58:36 <DaveReynolds> DaveReynolds has joined #rif
14:58:52 <Zakim> +[NRCC]
14:59:22 <Hassan> Hassan has joined #rif
14:59:51 <Zakim> +??P37
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> +ChrisW
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: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Apr/0013.html
15:01:03 <LeoraMorgenstern> LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
15:01:10 <Zakim> +Deborah_Nichols
15:01:24 <Zakim> +??P25
15:01:30 <Francois> zakim, ??P25 is me. 
15:01:30 <Zakim> +Francois; got it
15:01:34 <Zakim> +Hassan_Ait-Kaci
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> -Deborah_Nichols
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> +Deborah_Nichols
15:02:57 <IgorMozetic> IgorMozetic has joined #rif
15:03:21 <johnhall> johnhall has joined #rif
15:03:39 <Zakim> +Leora_Morgenstern
15:03:51 <LeoraMorgenstern> zakim, please mute me
15:03:51 <Zakim> Leora_Morgenstern should now be muted
15:03:55 <Zakim> +??P18
15:04:06 <Zakim> +??P38
15:04:12 <IgorMozetic> zakim, ??P18 is me
15:04:12 <Zakim> +IgorMozetic; got it
15:04:16 <LeoraMorgenstern> yes
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> +[IBM]
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 http://www.w3.org/2007/04/17-rif-minutes.html 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> +??P43
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 http://www.w3.org/2007/04/17-rif-minutes.html 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> CORE:
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> -> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Outreach 
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> C
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> +[IVML]
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> s/IRI/URI
15:13:54 <Francois> +q
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> q+
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> q+
15:17:10 <DaveReynolds> q+
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> +q
15:18:18 <LeoraMorgenstern> Chris: In interest of expedience, accept RIF:IRI; can always change if something better comes along.
15:18:45 <Francois> -q
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> "global_identifier"
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> q?
15:19:37 <Hassan> q-
15:19:42 <Francois> +1
15:19:48 <sandro> q?
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> ok
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: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Mar/0133.html
15:25:02 <DaveReynolds> The para was ...
15:25:03 <ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Issue-31
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> s/things/thinks
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> +1
15:28:30 <LeoraMorgenstern> Hassan: I would think just the opposite --- the more restrictions, the harder
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> +q
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> +q
15:30:35 <Francois> +q
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> q?
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> q+
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> +1
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> +q
15:35:30 <DaveReynolds> q+
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> f(f(f))
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> +q
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> s/cates/categories/
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> +OS
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> +q
15:44:41 <Francois> q?
15:44:47 <Francois> q?
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> q?
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> -q
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> s/volunteers?/volunteers
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> yep
15:56:09 <sandro> Harold: Object-centered syntax     object[property->>value]
15:56:14 <AlexKozlenkov> it is right
15:56:28 <AlexKozlenkov> correct
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> F-logic
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> +q
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> q+
16:02:55 <Francois> -q
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> q+
16:11:09 <Francois> +q
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> q?
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> quit.
16:16:25 <Zakim> -Francois
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> +Mark_Proctor
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> -Mark_Proctor
16:19:42 <Zakim> +Mark_Proctor
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> -Hassan_Ait-Kaci
16:25:33 <Zakim> -Harold
16:25:34 <Zakim> -AlexKozlenkov
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> -StellaMitchell
16:25:40 <Zakim> -Deborah_Nichols
16:25:46 <Zakim> -IgorMozetic
16:25:50 <Zakim> -MichaelKifer
16:25:52 <Zakim> -[IVML]
16:25:54 <Zakim> -johnhall
16:25:56 <Zakim> -Dave_Reynolds
16:25:58 <Zakim> -ChrisW
16:26:08 <Zakim> -PaulaP
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 http://www.w3.org/2007/04/17-rif-minutes.html 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> -Sandro
16:28:17 <Zakim> -Mark_Proctor
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 http://www.w3.org/2007/04/17-rif-minutes.html sandro
16:29:08 <sandro> There we go.
16:31:03 <AxelPolleres> sandro?
16:31:24 <AxelPolleres> have a second?
18:36:56 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rif