14:54:49 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rif
14:54:49 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/07/31-rif-irc
14:55:00 <ChrisW> zakim, this will be rif
14:55:00 <Zakim> ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
14:55:25 <ChrisW> Meeting: RIF Telecon 31 July 07
14:55:35 <ChrisW> Chair: Chris Welty
14:55:53 <ChrisW> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jul/0188.html
14:56:06 <ChrisW> ChrisW has changed the topic to: 31 Jul Agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jul/0188.html
14:56:26 <ChrisW> rrsagent, make minutes
14:56:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/07/31-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
14:56:32 <ChrisW> list agenda
14:56:39 <ChrisW> zakim, clear agenda
14:56:53 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:57:04 <Harold> Harold has joined #rif
14:57:46 <josb> josb has joined #rif
14:57:52 <ChrisW> agenda+ Admin
14:58:00 <ChrisW> agenda+ F2F
14:58:03 <ChrisW> agenda+ Liason
14:58:22 <Zakim> SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
14:58:22 <ChrisW> agenda+ BLD - Sorts
14:58:29 <Zakim> +[NRCC]
14:58:32 <ChrisW> agenda+ BLD - Frames/classification
14:58:42 <ChrisW> agenda+ UCR
14:58:47 <ChrisW> agenda+ AOB
14:59:45 <Zakim> +[IBM]
14:59:59 <Zakim> + +39.047.101.aaaa
15:00:04 <ChrisW> zakim, ibm is temporarily me
15:00:04 <Zakim> +ChrisW; got it
15:00:36 <Zakim> +Sandro
15:01:10 <StellaMitchell> StellaMitchell has joined #rif
15:01:30 <Zakim> +Hassan_Ait-Kaci
15:02:01 <DaveReynolds> DaveReynolds has joined #rif
15:02:35 <Zakim> +??P30
15:02:38 <Zakim> +Dave_Reynolds (was ??P30)
15:02:46 <LeoraMorgenstern> LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
15:02:49 <Zakim> +[IBM]
15:02:53 <StellaMitchell> zakim, [ibm] is temporarily me
15:02:53 <Zakim> +StellaMitchell; got it
15:03:57 <ChrisW> scribe: Hassan
15:04:00 <Zakim> +??P41
15:04:04 <ChrisW> scribenick: Hassan
15:04:10 <LeoraMorgenstern> zakim, ??P41 is me
15:04:10 <Zakim> +LeoraMorgenstern; got it
15:04:17 <LeoraMorgenstern> zakim, mute me
15:04:17 <Zakim> LeoraMorgenstern should now be muted
15:04:17 <ChrisW> zakim, next item
15:04:18 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Admin" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:04:27 <ChrisW> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:04:27 <Zakim> On the phone I see [NRCC], ChrisW, +39.047.101.aaaa, Sandro, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Dave_Reynolds, StellaMitchell (muted), LeoraMorgenstern (muted)
15:05:15 <Harold> zakim, [NRCC] is me
15:05:15 <Zakim> +Harold; got it
15:05:24 <GaryHallmark> GaryHallmark has joined #rif
15:05:37 <Hassan> Objections to last week minutes? 
15:05:38 <Harold> Did we approve the f2f5 minutes?
15:05:44 <Hassan> None
15:05:54 <Hassan> Minutes accepted.
15:05:55 <Harold> s/ f2f5/ f2f6/
15:06:05 <AllenGinsberg> AllenGinsberg has joined #rif
15:06:06 <Hassan> Next telecon August 7 Poll
15:06:08 <LeoraMorgenstern> I can be here.
15:06:09 <sandro> +1 plan to be here Aug 7
15:06:11 <josb> +1
15:06:19 <DaveReynolds> -1
15:06:20 <Harold> +1
15:06:21 <Hassan> +1 plan to be here (hak)
15:06:31 <GaryHallmark> -1
15:06:39 <AxelPolleres> AxelPolleres has joined #rif
15:06:44 <Hassan> August 14?
15:06:46 <LeoraMorgenstern> +1 to the 14th
15:06:47 <sandro> +1 plan to be here Aug 14
15:06:48 <josb> +1
15:06:48 <DaveReynolds> +1
15:06:49 <Hassan> +1
15:06:49 <Zakim> +Gary_Hallmark
15:06:50 <Harold> +1
15:06:52 <StellaMitchell> +1
15:06:52 <Zakim> +Allen_Ginsberg
15:07:24 <Hassan> Auguts 21?
15:07:28 <Zakim> +??P46
15:07:31 <sandro> +1 aug 21
15:07:32 <josb> +1
15:07:32 <Hassan> +1
15:07:33 <Harold> +1
15:07:34 <DaveReynolds> +1
15:07:34 <LeoraMorgenstern> +1
15:07:35 <StellaMitchell> +1
15:07:40 <GaryHallmark> +1 for 21/8
15:07:46 <Hassan> Aug 28?
15:07:48 <LeoraMorgenstern> +1
15:07:48 <sandro> +1 Aug 28
15:07:49 <Hassan> +1
15:07:50 <Harold> +1
15:07:52 <DaveReynolds> + 0.5
15:07:53 <josb> +1
15:07:53 <GaryHallmark> +1
15:08:18 <AxelPolleres> 14th -1, 21 +1, 28 +1
15:08:35 <Hassan> Chairs will discuss the schdule for Aug telecons and will get back to the rest
15:09:00 <Hassan> Action reviews...
15:09:18 <Hassan> Action 332 ?
15:09:32 <IgorMozetic> IgorMozetic has joined #rif
15:09:34 <luis_polo> luis_polo has joined #rif
15:09:41 <Hassan> Dave Reylnolds - has to do with classification.
15:09:49 <Hassan> Action 332 complete
15:10:08 <Hassan> Action 329 on ChrisW complete 
15:10:28 <Hassan> Action 324 - continued
15:11:01 <Hassan> Agenda amendments?
15:11:07 <ChrisW> zakim, next item
15:11:07 <Zakim> agendum 2. "F2F" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:11:08 <Hassan> None heard
15:11:08 <Zakim> +diego
15:11:14 <Zakim> +??P49
15:11:24 <IgorMozetic> zakim, ??P49 is me
15:11:24 <Zakim> +IgorMozetic; got it
15:11:29 <IgorMozetic> zakim, mute me
15:11:29 <Zakim> IgorMozetic should now be muted
15:11:41 <josb> must be CTIC
15:11:51 <luis_polo> zakim, diego is me
15:11:51 <Zakim> +luis_polo; got it
15:12:16 <Hassan> F2F meetings - open actions
15:12:21 <Hassan> See wiki page
15:12:29 <Hassan> Questions?
15:12:34 <AxelPolleres> is the date now fix?
15:13:11 <Hassan> W3C tech plenary week of Nov 6 - give opportunity to RIF to attend?
15:13:37 <Hassan> Where- Boston.
15:14:38 <Hassan> We should decide by Sept ... ?
15:14:52 <Hassan> Sandro is confused about the dates ...
15:15:04 <sandro> I am not at all confused about the dates.
15:15:27 <Hassan> ChrisW: What value is to have two meetings a month apart? 
15:15:47 <Hassan> Sandor: need time to work on what to show in November
15:15:57 <Hassan> s/Sandor/Sandro/
15:16:11 <Hassan> Sandro: we need a quorum for decisions
15:16:12 <Harold> F2F7 was pushed further and further into late Aug., then Sept.
15:16:28 <sandro> It's not about quorum -- it's about not excluding people.
15:16:45 <Hassan> ChrisW: the F2F will assign actions - decisions will be made by telecon
15:17:11 <AxelPolleres> 2 subsequent meetings in US, difficult -1
15:17:18 <Hassan> ChrisW: anyone having things to say on this issue?
15:17:19 <Harold> Can a F2F be replaced with a highbandwidth2highbandwidth video conference?
15:17:19 <DaveReynolds> If it would be useful but I couldn't guarantee to be there
15:17:22 <Hassan> Hearing none ...
15:17:49 <ChrisW> zakim, next item
15:17:49 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Liason" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:17:49 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/11/TPAC/
15:17:56 <Hassan> ChrisW: moving to Liaisons
15:18:15 <Hassan> Report on liaisons?
15:18:27 <ChrisW> zakim, next item
15:18:27 <Zakim> agendum 3 was just opened, ChrisW
15:18:32 <Hassan> Nothing on liaison
15:18:33 <ChrisW> zakim, close item 3
15:18:33 <Zakim> agendum 3, Liason, closed
15:18:35 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:18:37 <Zakim> 4. BLD - Sorts [from ChrisW]
15:18:37 <ChrisW> zakim, next item
15:18:37 <Zakim> agendum 4. "BLD - Sorts" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:18:48 <Hassan> Action review
15:18:59 <Hassan> 331 on Chris - on mappings?
15:19:04 <Zakim> +MichaelKifer
15:19:06 <Hassan> continued
15:19:11 <MichaelKifer> MichaelKifer has joined #rif
15:19:20 <Hassan> Action 330 on Dave - done
15:19:33 <MichaelKifer> zakim, mute me
15:19:33 <Zakim> MichaelKifer should now be muted
15:19:45 <Hassan> Action 330 kept open until discussed?
15:20:01 <Hassan> Action 300 is kept open for discussion
15:20:11 <Hassan> Action 328 continued (on Sandro)
15:20:45 <Hassan> Action 328 continued (on Sandro) on XML Schema Generation new date 
15:21:07 <Hassan> Action 322 on Dave is completed
15:21:51 <Hassan> Action 300-301 done
15:22:15 <Hassan> ChrisW - no more action to review
15:22:38 <Hassan> Having the sort discussion and the frame classification discussion or the RDF?
15:22:51 <ChrisW> zakim, take up item 5
15:22:51 <Zakim> agendum 5. "BLD - Frames/classification" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:23:17 <MichaelKifer> zakim, unmute me
15:23:17 <Zakim> MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
15:23:50 <Hassan> Michael being asked his reaction to the mail discussion on the subject
15:24:22 <Hassan> Michael summing up: we need a minimalistic model of class hierarchies for RIF
15:24:54 <Hassan> This will allow users using RIF for exchange to "hook" their models onto that of RIF's
15:25:07 <josb> +1
15:25:23 <Hassan> This will preclude n^2 model exchange models
15:25:43 <josb> q+
15:25:56 <josb> s/+1//
15:26:27 <Hassan> ChrisW: some existing for the SW - why reinvnet a new one? or why complicate the mapping from/to RDF
15:26:30 <DaveReynolds> q+
15:26:31 <Hassan> Any other?
15:27:06 <ChrisW> ack jos
15:27:34 <ChrisW> zakim, who is talking?
15:27:45 <Zakim> ChrisW, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: josb (71%), MichaelKifer (5%)
15:27:58 <Hassan> Jos: RDF is close - but OWL is different (has exitentials instead of ...)
15:28:19 <Hassan> Jos: this proposal "unifies" these views
15:28:49 <Hassan> MK: RDFS is a superset of that of RIF - so easy to extend 
15:29:09 <ChrisW> ^existentials^extensional semantics^
15:29:19 <Hassan> MK: RIF class model is minimal in that it is easy to map onto all others
15:29:35 <Hassan> Jos: need additional axioms...
15:29:45 <Hassan> MK: no need
15:30:02 <Hassan> Jos: does this not imply a restriction?
15:30:47 <Hassan> MK: no ... RDF maps into RIF very naturally without problem
15:31:28 <DaveReynolds> ack me
15:31:30 <ChrisW> q?
15:31:58 <MoZ> MoZ has joined #rif
15:33:19 <Hassan> Dave: issues on scoping
15:33:59 <Hassan> MK: Scope for inference - what rules are visible
15:34:07 <josb> s/"unifies"/does not unify/
15:35:00 <Harold> Chris, since the Interop WS we have discussed a scope/module construct for rules, especially for scoped naf.
15:35:10 <Hassan> MK: classes and modules are linked 
15:35:38 <Hassan> MK: no modules yet - but we are looking ahead
15:36:09 <Hassan> MK: want to avoid unintended interactions between imported KBs
15:36:26 <Hassan> ChrisW: let us focus on subclassing not on modules
15:36:39 <Harold>  A scope/module is a 'local' ruleset, possibly named (as in RDF's named graphs).
15:37:36 <MichaelKifer> yes, the notion of modules/scopes is a generalization of rdf's named classes
15:37:42 <Hassan> Dave: there are differences that may conflict among different models of inheritance
15:38:10 <MichaelKifer> s/named classes/named graphs/
15:38:19 <Hassan> Dave: second point - how much "subclass semantics" is there in RIF?
15:38:57 <Hassan> Dave: I thought of RIF as a blank substrate buty it does not look like it is any more
15:39:23 <Hassan> MK: there is still work to do on the specs
15:39:55 <Hassan> ChrisW: try ot fing the most general axioms of subclassing
15:40:12 <Hassan> s/ot fing/to find/
15:41:23 <Hassan> ChrisW: issue - why invent a new class model for semantic web?
15:41:44 <Hassan> MK: none of the existing model is minimalistic
15:42:01 <Hassan> We wee a model that can be a core on most
15:42:05 <ChrisW> q?
15:42:10 <Hassan> s/wee/need/
15:42:36 <Hassan> MK: minimal in the number of axioms
15:43:16 <Hassan> ChrisW: what about OWL-DL?
15:43:37 <Hassan> MK: It has additional axioms (s,a,, extensionality, ...)
15:44:34 <Hassan> MK: the minimal axioms need to be made explicit
15:46:01 <Hassan> Gary has a question - how do we express having no subclass?
15:46:08 <Hassan> MK: this is NAF
15:47:57 <Hassan> MK: this a meta statement that needs something like NAF
15:48:46 <Hassan> Dave - Gary: how can you have this in the head of a rule?
15:50:34 <Hassan> Dave - cannot change the type hierarchy dynamically 
15:50:58 <Hassan> Dave - unless having meta model that allows you to
15:51:47 <Hassan> MK: maybe not an issue - e.g., interfacing with Java 
15:52:30 <GaryHallmark> for Java data model, no membership or subclass relations in rule heads
15:53:35 <sandro> q+ to ask whether "minimal" == "underspecified" == "ambiguous" == not supporting interoperability itself.
15:53:39 <Hassan> Dave: need to assume the "right" set of axioms need for the task
15:53:56 <josb> q+
15:54:01 <Hassan> s/need/needed/
15:54:11 <GaryHallmark> XML schema data model has similar issues to Java
15:55:00 <Hassan> Sandro: it sounds like "minimal" means underspecified or ambiguous - if so that may be an interop problem
15:55:24 <josb> minimal subset of RDFS, which probably gives us all we need: http://www.eswc2007.org/pdf/eswc07-munoz.pdf
15:55:33 <Hassan> Sandro: expectations may be thwarted
15:57:01 <Hassan> MK: just transitivity of subclassing is enough
15:57:33 <sandro> MK: B subClassof A
15:58:59 <josb> structure?
15:59:23 <Hassan> MK: we do need inheritance of "structure" in RIF because we have no "structure" in RIF
15:59:31 <sandro> Okay -- I think I understand what Michael is saying now, about how RDF doesn't have inheritance.    Just inheritance of the type -- not of the properties, etc.
16:00:30 <Hassan> ChrisW: what do you mean by structure?
16:01:10 <Hassan> MK: RDF has structure (slots ...) which is inherited
16:01:48 <Hassan> MK: Sorry - RDF has no inheritance
16:02:34 <sandro> so.... are # and ## proposed to be exactly the same as rdf:type and rdfs:subClassOf   ?
16:02:56 <josb> q?
16:03:02 <sandro> q-
16:03:19 <sandro> q+to ask if # and ## proposed to be exactly the same as rdf:type and rdfs:subClassOf   ?
16:03:44 <AllenGinsberg> +q
16:04:00 <sandro> Chris: similar to RDF, except that relation itself is not in the domain.
16:04:04 <AxelPolleres> Summary: transitivity of subclassing and of classmembership over the class hierarchy is the minimal semantics, yes? No more need to debate (for RIF) about additional axioms/inheritance notions.
16:04:08 <Hassan> ChrisW: minimal semantics of RIF subclass has not notion of structural inheritance
16:04:12 <Hassan> MK: yes
16:04:14 <josb> q?
16:05:21 <AxelPolleres> reflexive, you mean?
16:05:43 <sandro> jos: If you restrict the syntax to RDF, you get something the same, except that the subclassof is reflesive.     In RDFS if you know A is a class, then you know A is a subclass of itself.
16:05:51 <Hassan> Jos: RDFS subclassing is reflexive 
16:05:56 <sandro> s/to RDF/of RDF/
16:06:00 <AxelPolleres> s/reflesive/reflexive
16:06:15 <sandro> MK: That bit of RDF has been criticized and has no justification.
16:06:49 <sandro> q-
16:07:00 <sandro> (I'm comfortable with Jos's answer)
16:07:13 <Hassan> MK: adopting RDF as a model will entail adopting relations and we do not want to do that
16:07:39 <Hassan> Jos: why not use the core that already exists
16:08:03 <Hassan> MK: beacuse we need to differentiate the RIF from any client models
16:08:39 <Hassan> s/beacuse/because/
16:08:55 <AllenGinsberg> q-
16:09:21 <AxelPolleres> That would bring us back to the extensibility discussion, ie. whether "restricting" a dialect is covered by "extensibility".... or no?
16:10:00 <AxelPolleres> ... was referring to the comment that Gary's language would need restrictions to fit into BLD.
16:10:07 <Hassan> MK: why standardize things that many do not use and "impose" it on all
16:11:23 <josb> josb has joined #rif
16:11:41 <Hassan> ChrisW: Are logic languages conform to this approach - can they be mapped to the minimal model?
16:12:07 <Hassan> MK: They will be translated to something else - not RDF
16:13:16 <Hassan> MK: they will have to map to different relations
16:13:38 <Hassan> ChrisW: is there really a problem?
16:14:22 <Hassan> ChrisW: there are 2 aspects of RDFS subclass model missing from the RIF subclass model
16:15:36 <AllenGinsberg> q+
16:15:44 <josb> q-
16:15:45 <Hassan> ChrisW: (1) syntactic reflection and (2) subclassing is reflexive  
16:16:23 <josb> no
16:16:28 <DaveReynolds> It's in OWL
16:16:32 <Hassan> Allen: what about antisymmetry?
16:16:41 <Hassan> Jos - not in RDFS.
16:17:06 <AxelPolleres> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisymmetric_relation
16:17:11 <Hassan> ChrisW - it is so in OWL-DL.
16:17:47 <Hassan> MK: these differences justify taking a miminal model of subclassing
16:19:07 <ChrisW> q?
16:19:08 <Hassan> ChrisW: those arguments in favor OO models in too early - keep in mind logic languages
16:19:54 <sandro> Chris: These differences between the proposed RIF Subclass and RDF Subclass ....  RIF having a new, more minimal one, ... does this make sense?
16:19:57 <Hassan> Jos thinks the difference between RDFS/RIF subclass model is not a big price to pay 
16:20:52 <Hassan> Dave - having no issue except that could be even more minimal
16:20:59 <ChrisW> zakim, who is talking?
16:21:02 <josb> s/not a big price to pay/is not sufficient justification for introducing a classification vocabulary in RIF/
16:21:07 <sandro> DaveReynolds: The question is what this stuff buys us -- why should it be in BLD at all?    Just define the relation yourself, if you need it, when writing/translating the rule.
16:21:10 <Zakim> ChrisW, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 14 (36%)
16:21:19 <ChrisW> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:21:19 <Zakim> On the phone I see Harold, ChrisW, josb, Sandro, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Dave_Reynolds, StellaMitchell (muted), LeoraMorgenstern (muted), Gary_Hallmark, Allen_Ginsberg, AxelPolleres
16:21:23 <Zakim> ... (muted), luis_polo, IgorMozetic (muted), MichaelKifer
16:21:29 <ChrisW> zakim, who is talking?
16:21:40 <Zakim> ChrisW, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 14 (51%), Dave_Reynolds (23%)
16:21:52 <sandro> Zakim, list attendees
16:21:52 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +39.047.101.aaaa, ChrisW, Sandro, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Dave_Reynolds, StellaMitchell, LeoraMorgenstern, josb, Harold, Gary_Hallmark,
16:21:56 <Zakim> ... Allen_Ginsberg, AxelPolleres, IgorMozetic, luis_polo, MichaelKifer
16:22:42 <Hassan> ChrisW: we seem to understand this issue better - move on ...
16:23:08 <ChrisW> q?
16:23:17 <ChrisW> ack allen
16:23:19 <Hassan> ChrisW: any comment on this thread?
16:23:27 <IgorMozetic> q+
16:24:24 <ChrisW> ack igor
16:24:26 <IgorMozetic> zakim, unmute me
16:24:26 <Zakim> IgorMozetic was not muted, IgorMozetic
16:24:33 <GaryHallmark> q+
16:24:51 <Hassan> Igor: it would be good to have a resolution
16:25:01 <Hassan> ChrisW: good point - 
16:25:03 <IgorMozetic> zakim, mute me
16:25:03 <Zakim> IgorMozetic should now be muted
16:25:43 <Hassan> Gary: I like the current proposal - except that we could fix it a bit for what we need
16:25:57 <josb> Gary, you might as well use RDFS
16:26:20 <josb> in both cases you need the same kind of restrictions
16:26:26 <sandro> Straw poll on each question....
16:26:33 <Hassan> ChrisW: (1) do we have a subclass op or (2) not 
16:26:45 <sandro> +1 have subclass operator (instead of each one define their own mapping)
16:26:47 <LeoraMorgenstern> +1
16:26:52 <Harold> +1
16:26:54 <IgorMozetic> +1 for subclass
16:26:56 <Hassan> +1
16:27:01 <DaveReynolds> -1
16:27:03 <AllenGinsberg> +1 (only if extensible)
16:27:03 <GaryHallmark> josb: I'd need to see some kind of a proposal before I could agree
16:27:04 <luis_polo> +1
16:27:11 <sandro> MK say +1, not on IRC
16:27:12 <GaryHallmark> +1
16:27:17 <AxelPolleres> +1 subclass (as syntactic sugar foe a ruleset emulating the semantics of RDFS, basically)
16:27:48 <AxelPolleres> q+
16:27:58 <ChrisW> ack gary
16:27:59 <GaryHallmark> q-
16:28:04 <ChrisW> ack axel
16:28:05 <sandro> ack AxelPolleres 
16:28:14 <Hassan> Jos: does not understand the diff between what is proposed and RDFS subclassing
16:28:35 <josb> s/diff between what is proposed and RDFS subclassing/question/
16:28:42 <MichaelKifer> MichaelKifer has joined #rif
16:29:10 <josb> Gary, if you could send me a link to a use case, I can try to show how to use RDFS in this case
16:29:27 <Hassan> Axel: RDFS semantics can be emulated through ruleset?
16:29:33 <josb> In any Datalog-like language
16:29:35 <Hassan> MK: yes - it can be
16:30:03 <sandro> Axel: since RDFS can be expressed (emulated) as a BLD ruleset, then we can see this proposal for a syntactic construct of subclass, then this gives you an automatic inclusion of part of the RDFS ruleset.
16:30:44 <sandro> MK: I understand Axel to be supporting my proposal.
16:30:55 <Hassan> MK: Axel's point is in agreement with my proposal
16:31:36 <josb> My problem is that I need the additional constructs
16:32:01 <sandro> q+ to rephrase this as:    So # and ## are proposed to be syntactic sugar for a subset of the RDFS-Ruleset (as written in BLD).
16:32:40 <Hassan> MK and Axel argue a technical point ...
16:33:04 <josb> right
16:33:23 <Hassan> Nobody undertands ... :-)
16:33:39 <sandro> Axel -- what Sandro said is what I meant.
16:33:46 <AxelPolleres> yes, with emphasis on *part of* the RDFS ruleset.
16:34:18 <sandro> Axel: What MK wants is the same subset of RDFS that I have in mind.
16:34:24 <josb> reflexivity is the difference
16:34:41 <Hassan> MK and Axel: argue subclass operator in RIF and RDFS 
16:34:42 <josb> yes
16:35:00 <AxelPolleres> probably yes.
16:35:16 <Hassan> ChrisW: will summaruze in email
16:35:22 <Zakim> -LeoraMorgenstern
16:35:23 <Zakim> -josb
16:35:24 <Zakim> -Allen_Ginsberg
16:35:24 <Hassan> Meeting over
16:35:25 <sandro> AxelPolleres, can you write the rules you have in mind, and send them in e-mail?
16:35:26 <Zakim> -MichaelKifer
16:35:26 <DaveReynolds> bye
16:35:27 <Zakim> -Gary_Hallmark
16:35:28 <Zakim> -Harold
16:35:29 <Zakim> -IgorMozetic
16:35:30 <Zakim> -StellaMitchell
16:35:31 <Zakim> -AxelPolleres
16:35:32 <Zakim> -Dave_Reynolds
16:35:32 <ChrisW> rrsagent, make minutes
16:35:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/07/31-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
16:35:33 <Zakim> -luis_polo
16:35:48 <ChrisW> rrsagent, make logs public
16:36:15 <ChrisW> Regrets: FrançoisBry, PaulaLaviniaPatranjan, JeffPan, MichaelSintek
16:36:19 <ChrisW> rrsagent, make minutes
16:36:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/07/31-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
16:36:54 <ChrisW> rrsagent, make minutes
16:36:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/07/31-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
16:37:45 <Zakim> -Hassan_Ait-Kaci
16:38:42 <Zakim> -ChrisW
16:38:43 <Zakim> SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
16:38:45 <Zakim> Attendees were +39.047.101.aaaa, ChrisW, Sandro, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Dave_Reynolds, StellaMitchell, LeoraMorgenstern, josb, Harold, Gary_Hallmark, Allen_Ginsberg, AxelPolleres,
16:38:47 <Zakim> ... IgorMozetic, luis_polo, MichaelKifer