14:42:34 RRSAgent has joined #rif 14:42:34 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/08/28-rif-irc 14:42:42 zakim, this will be rif 14:42:42 ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 18 minutes 14:43:08 Meeting: RIF Telecon 28 August 2007 14:43:18 Chair: Chris Welty 14:43:50 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Aug/0055.html 14:44:04 ChrisW has changed the topic to: 28 August RIF Telecon agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Aug/0055.html 14:44:47 Scribe: Paula Patranjan 14:45:08 zakim, list agenda 14:45:08 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda: 14:45:09 6. BLD - Overview of changes [from ChrisW] 14:45:12 8. BLD - Planning for WD [from ChrisW] 14:45:15 9. AOB [from ChrisW] 14:45:16 zakim, clear agenda 14:45:16 agenda cleared 14:45:25 agenda+ Admin 14:45:31 agenda+ Liason 14:45:36 agenda+ F2F 14:45:40 agenda+ UCR 14:45:50 agenda+ BLD - RDF in BLD 14:46:11 agenda+ BLD - XML Syntax 14:46:25 agenda+ BLD - Planning for next WD 14:46:36 agenda+ BLD - Frames/Classification 14:46:43 agenda+ AOB 14:46:53 rrsagent, make minutes 14:46:53 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/08/28-rif-minutes.html ChrisW 14:49:03 Zakim, agenda? 14:49:03 I see 9 items remaining on the agenda: 14:49:06 1. Admin [from ChrisW] 14:49:07 2. Liason [from ChrisW] 14:49:08 3. F2F [from ChrisW] 14:49:09 4. UCR [from ChrisW] 14:49:11 5. BLD - RDF in BLD [from ChrisW] 14:49:14 6. BLD - XML Syntax [from ChrisW] 14:49:17 7. BLD - Planning for next WD [from ChrisW] 14:49:20 8. BLD - Frames/Classification [from ChrisW] 14:49:24 9. AOB [from ChrisW] 14:51:43 Hassan has joined #rif 14:53:45 DavidHirtle has joined #rif 14:53:59 patranja has joined #rif 14:57:17 Harold has joined #rif 14:58:47 SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started 14:58:54 +[NRCC] 14:59:37 DaveReynolds has joined #rif 14:59:52 +PaulaP 14:59:55 IgorMozetic has joined #rif 15:00:05 zakim, [NRCC] is me 15:00:05 +Harold; got it 15:00:23 +??P16 15:00:52 josb has joined #rif 15:00:52 StellaMitchell has joined #rif 15:00:56 cgi-irc has joined #rif 15:01:05 +Hassan_Ait-Kaci 15:01:26 +AllenGinsberg 15:01:45 +[IBM] 15:01:49 rrsagent, make logs public 15:02:04 +[IBM.a] 15:02:07 zakim, ibm is temporarily me 15:02:16 +ChrisW; got it 15:02:21 zakim, [ibm.a] is temporarily me 15:02:28 +DougL 15:02:30 +StellaMitchell; got it 15:02:40 + +39.047.1.aaaa 15:03:23 zakim, mute me 15:03:26 DougL should now be muted 15:03:32 +??P42 15:03:40 +Sandro 15:03:48 zakim, ??P42 is me 15:03:48 +IgorMozetic; got it 15:03:50 scribenick: PaulaP 15:03:54 zakim, mute me 15:03:54 IgorMozetic should now be muted 15:04:07 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:04:07 On the phone I see Harold, PaulaP, DaveReynolds, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), AllenGinsberg, ChrisW, StellaMitchell (muted), DougL (muted), josb, IgorMozetic (muted), Sandro 15:04:15 +??P49 15:04:49 zakim, ??P49 is me 15:04:49 +DavidHirtle; got it 15:05:00 PaulVincent has joined #rif 15:05:15 zakim, unmute me 15:05:15 DougL should no longer be muted 15:05:32 zakim, next item 15:05:32 agendum 1. "Admin" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:06:04 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Aug/att-0047/21-Aug-07-rif-minutes.html 15:06:11 ChrisW: we have minutes from last week 15:06:19 ChrisW: any objections? 15:06:31 ChrisW: minutes accepted 15:06:48 ChrisW: action review 15:07:18 luis_polo has joined #rif 15:07:34 ChrisW: Ben Grosof not able to perform his actions 15:07:46 so, better drop his actions 15:07:53 zakim, next item 15:07:53 agendum 2. "Liason" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:07:54 AxelPolleres has joined #rif 15:08:07 ChrisW: move to Liaison 15:08:09 +??P55 15:08:15 zakim, close item 2 15:08:15 agendum 2, Liason, closed 15:08:16 I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 15:08:17 3. F2F [from ChrisW] 15:08:19 zakim, next item 15:08:19 agendum 3. "F2F" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:08:19 ChrisW: anything to report? 15:08:39 ChrisW: there is a registration form for the next F2F 15:08:43 F2F7 reg: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/38457/f2f7reg/ 15:08:47 it is also linked from the wiki 15:09:11 Sandro: please fill out the form even if you are not coming 15:09:34 ChrisW: we'll have coffee breaks, lunch, and a dinner 15:09:59 ChrisW: dinner either at a local restaurant or in NY 15:10:12 ChrisW: we could do a social event on Friday 15:10:26 +berrueta 15:10:40 zakim, +berrueta is me 15:10:40 sorry, luis_polo, I do not recognize a party named '+berrueta' 15:10:44 MichaelKifer has joined #rif 15:10:47 :-) 15:10:57 zakim, mute me 15:10:57 sorry, luis_polo, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 15:11:15 ChrisW: questions on F2F? 15:11:22 q? 15:11:22 ChrisW: comments? 15:11:26 zakim, next item 15:11:26 agendum 4. "UCR" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:11:40 +Gary_Hallmark 15:11:45 ChrisW: last week we had a discussion on one of the use case examples 15:12:02 Hassan: phone connection at F2F? 15:12:08 zakim, mute me 15:12:08 AllenGinsberg should now be muted 15:12:10 ChrisW: as usual for the telecons 15:12:20 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 15:12:35 +MichaelKifer 15:12:42 ChrisW: we discussed the use case example of Leora 15:12:49 zakim, mute me 15:12:49 MichaelKifer should now be muted 15:13:00 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/D._Evaluation%3A_Use_Cases 15:13:29 ChrisW: use case 6 15:13:52 ChrisW: does anyone want to discuss one of the examples? 15:14:01 zakim, berrueta is me 15:14:01 +luis_polo; got it 15:14:07 ChrisW lists the existing use case examples 15:14:26 ChrisW: how about use case 10? 15:14:37 ChrisW: is the author of that here? 15:14:51 AxelPolleres, you here? 15:15:32 Axel: better to discuss it next week 15:15:45 ChrisW: use case 9 by Gary 15:15:57 Gary: this one uses production rules 15:16:04 and a simple XML Schema 15:16:08 I prefer to go over it again wrt. the latest changes in BLD, etc. 15:16:29 Gary: production rules increment a score counter 15:16:41 Gary: I changed them to an assert 15:16:58 Gary: we need aggregation here 15:17:11 Gary: extended with an aggregate operator 15:17:48 Gary: the issue is that still requires operators like sum for working with the working memory 15:18:12 Gary, this looks similar to Mark's MISMO efforts: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jun/0016.html 15:18:38 Gary: the order of conjuncts becomes important 15:18:50 Gary: it doesn't really translate production rules 15:18:50 q+ to ask about non-aggregator way to do this in BLD 15:18:56 q+ 15:19:09 Gary: we have here deduction rules with aggregation 15:19:29 Gary: sum into a score 15:19:36 Gary: like a Prolog findall 15:20:06 Sandro: one possibility is just to add the scores 15:20:18 AxelPolleres has joined #rif 15:20:28 Sandro: another possibility is to explicitly aggregate them 15:20:45 +[IPcaller] 15:20:52 q+ 15:20:59 zakim, unmute me 15:20:59 AllenGinsberg should no longer be muted 15:21:31 Sandro: by using a kind of 'big rule' 15:21:33 acl sandro 15:21:36 ack san 15:21:36 sandro, you wanted to ask about non-aggregator way to do this in BLD 15:21:40 ack har 15:22:00 Harold: I agree with Sandro's point 15:22:14 q+ 15:22:38 Gary: need for actions to update global counters 15:22:52 Gary: but not the case for this particular example 15:22:56 ack al 15:23:08 Sandro: that is, it's possible to do this without aggregators, if you're willing to maintain pointers to all the rule results. Then it's BLD, but it's harder to maintain. 15:23:17 Allen: you say that there is a set of increments 15:23:36 Allen: does RIF really handle this kind of example? 15:24:58 Gary: using forall instead of existential would not change the effect of rule 15:25:05 ack doug 15:25:29 Doug: reflection is used in rule languages for such kind of examples 15:26:10 ChrisW: we don't have this capability in the first version of RIF 15:26:19 couldn't what doug says be "emulated" by a kinda trigger-flag per rule? 15:26:23 ChrisW: other comments on Gary's example? 15:26:43 good idea, axel; i think that would work. 15:27:09 Sandro: no aggregation and assert in the current RIF proposal 15:27:16 s/RIF/BLD/ 15:27:28 zakim, next item 15:27:28 agendum 5. "BLD - RDF in BLD" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:27:32 ChrisW: continue discussion of use case examples next week 15:27:42 yes 15:28:00 ChrisW: review of actions 15:28:53 zakim, list agenda 15:28:53 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda: 15:28:55 5. BLD - RDF in BLD [from ChrisW] 15:28:56 6. BLD - XML Syntax [from ChrisW] 15:28:57 7. BLD - Planning for next WD [from ChrisW] 15:28:58 8. BLD - Frames/Classification [from ChrisW] 15:29:12 ACTION 343 DONE 15:30:16 -luis_polo 15:31:04 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/RIF-RDF_Compatibility 15:31:47 not sure about the above given action 15:31:52 +luis_polo 15:32:15 Jos: not sure about the right place for the RIF RDF compatibility 15:32:30 Harold: it is the right place 15:32:54 Harold: and it shows that we need same kind of work for OWL compatibility 15:33:25 Do we liaise with OWL 1.1? sorry might have missed that, if mentioned earlier in the call before I entered. 15:33:25 action: jos to clean up RDF section 15:33:25 Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - jos 15:33:25 Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jderoo, jdebruij) 15:33:39 ACTION on Jos to clean up a bit the RDF section 15:33:59 action jos to start OWL compatibility section of BLD 15:34:13 Jos: I can also outline some issues for the OWL compatibility 15:34:28 zakim, next item 15:34:28 agendum 6. "BLD - XML Syntax" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:34:46 ChrisW: Sandro has released some work on XML syntax 15:35:05 Sandro: I proposed a strawman XML syntax a few weeks ago 15:35:26 -> http://www.w3.org/2007/08/rif-absyn/eg7b-rif.xml Example RIF Instance 15:35:28 Sandro: a complete example was also given 15:35:50 Yes, I can see it 15:35:55 +1 15:35:57 got it 15:36:34 Sandro: I discovered a couple of issues 15:36:51 ChrisW: take us through a part of the example 15:36:57 action chris to put action 330 on the agenda next week 15:37:03 action: chris to put action 330 on the agenda next week 15:37:04 Created ACTION-334 - Put action 330 on the agenda next week [on Chris Menzel - due 2007-09-04]. 15:37:16 Sandro: one of the issue is the usage of contants 15:37:30 action: christopher to put action 330 on the agenda next week 15:37:30 Created ACTION-335 - Put action 330 on the agenda next week [on Christopher Welty - due 2007-09-04]. 15:37:44 rifbot, only my mother calls me christopher 15:38:11 Sandro: e.g. there are many possibilities to specify numeric values 15:38:46 Sandro: global and local constants 15:39:07 -> http://www.w3.org/2007/08/rif-absyn/bld.asn (modified) BLD Abstract Syntax 15:39:42 Sandro: can be specified 15:40:01 Sandro: global constant has to be a URI 15:40:39 Sandro: questions about that? 15:40:51 Harold: we have an XML syntax already 15:41:14 Harold: use of attributes for the difference between global and local constants 15:41:36 zakim, unmute me 15:41:36 MichaelKifer should no longer be muted 15:41:38 q+ 15:41:40 Harold: so no need for different types of tags for the different kind of constants 15:42:12 Harold: also other controversial features in the proposed syntax 15:43:49 Harold: in XML we have the order of the child elements 15:44:03 q+ 15:44:09 Sandro: but then there might be a problem when the order is unimportant 15:44:35 Sandro: how does a parser know if it is ordered or not? 15:44:53 Harold: inside uniterms the order is important 15:45:06 -IgorMozetic 15:45:18 Harold: by default in XML you keep the order of child elements 15:45:33 q? 15:45:36 Harold: e.g. the order of slots does not matter 15:46:42 Michael: a few weeks ago I asked Sandro to explain what is wrong with the current, proposed XML syntax and why is the new proposal better 15:46:46 zakim, mute me 15:46:46 MichaelKifer should now be muted 15:46:47 ack me 15:46:48 q- 15:47:05 ACTION on Sandro to explain why a new XML syntax is needed 15:47:11 action: sandro to discuss what is wrong with BLD draft syntax 15:47:11 Created ACTION-336 - Discuss what is wrong with BLD draft syntax [on Sandro Hawke - due 2007-09-04]. 15:47:43 Dave: is there a formal definition of the first proposed XML syntax? 15:48:10 Sandro: it was just a placeholder 15:48:52 Sandro: and I thought the first XML syntax was not a complete proposal 15:49:26 Hassan: can it be reconciled, Sandro? can you adapt the asn to amtch the official version? 15:49:28 q? 15:49:39 s/amtch/match 15:49:54 Sandro: there are things that I don't agree with 15:50:16 Sandro: the question is whether to refine them or discuss them first 15:50:33 Hassan: if it is no agreement, then we should discuss it 15:50:52 ChrisW: the XML syntax in the BLD draft has no official status 15:51:08 ChrisW: not clear where to go from here 15:51:34 parsetype collection is not controversial in RDF 15:51:54 Harold: RDF as a top level, controversial features in RDF are examples of issues that are problematic in Sandro's proposal 15:52:10 Harold: it is also deviates from our use cases 15:52:31 Harold: we can use the abstract syntax to generate directly the XML syntax 15:52:43 Harold: so not invent a new language 15:53:05 Sandro: I didn't generate a new language 15:53:17 Harold: but you changed the abstract syntax 15:53:25 Sandro: yes, this I did 15:53:53 zakim, mute me 15:53:53 MichaelKifer was already muted, MichaelKifer 15:54:06 class Ruleset 15:54:06 property formula : Rule* 15:54:28 Sandro: this is the change I did 15:54:51 Harold: attributes tell you about the order 15:55:36 ChrisW: we don't have an XML syntax 15:55:46 zakim, unmute me 15:55:46 MichaelKifer should no longer be muted 15:55:53 q+ 15:55:59 ChrisW: the existing one has no official status 15:56:03 q+ 15:56:34 ChrisW: Harold, is your main objection the fact that the new proposal is a RDF syntax? 15:57:05 Harold: even in the RDF community some of the issues are controversial 15:57:40 q- 15:57:42 Harold: one main point is that in RDF you can have these open properties and this is wrong for a syntax 15:58:02 Harold: refinement of constants not in the semantics 15:58:22 Global v. local constants are in the semantics already surely? 15:58:28 Harold: I will send an email with all my objections to the new proposal 15:58:36 q+ 15:58:45 DaveR, we have a formal abstract syntax and an EBNF definition. 15:59:19 I have at least a worry here: the RDF syntax already had some complicating effects on OWL, IMO, my personal opinion is at least that I am unsure whether its a good idea to have OWL in RDF... I would likewise be worried for RDF in RIF. 15:59:44 Sandro: I would like to hear concrete objections 15:59:50 "The primary normative syntax of the language must be an XML syntax." http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/charter.html#xml-syntax 16:00:01 Michael: the first proposal is a proposal and shouldn't be ignored 16:00:08 ack me 16:00:11 zakim, mute me 16:00:11 MichaelKifer should now be muted 16:00:13 q- 16:00:14 ChrisW: it is a valid alternative 16:00:20 Harold, this IS AN XML SYNTAX. It has an XML Schema. 16:00:36 Dave: it would be good to have a pointer to what this alternative is 16:00:59 Dave: among the concrete issues was how we could carry metadata 16:01:28 Dave: so we have to include a solution to this issue 16:01:55 DaveR just argues for an RDF SYNTAX, not AN XML SYNTAX, because of metadata for rules. 16:02:24 An example why I worry is that OWL/RDF splits one OWL statement to a set of triples, however a subset of those triples usually makes no sense, whereas in RDF alone a subset of triples makes perfect sense. So, on the RDF level, you cannot decide whether an OWL/RDF graph reflects a valid set of OWL statements. 16:02:28 Harold - Sandro's proposal is an XML syntax which happens to be largely RDF compatible 16:02:36 We would run into the same problem in RIF. 16:02:40 pieces of RDF could be embedded an the RIF XML syntax 16:03:05 q+ 16:03:07 Sandro: we have to give people the chance to look into issues before deciding something 16:03:08 Issue: ordering/structure encoded in instance 16:03:08 Issue: how to serialize and model datatype literal values 16:03:08 Issue: how to serialize and model local and global constants 16:03:10 q? 16:03:26 Sandro: RDF vs non-RDF syntax is an issue 16:04:06 Axel, "So, on the RDF level, you cannot decide whether an OWL/RDF graph reflects a valid set of OWL statements." This is not true. One can guess an OWL ontology, and check whether it represents this ontology 16:04:06 Sandro: we could figure out what we need by means of use cases 16:04:47 Axel: concerns on using RDF for the syntax 16:05:21 q? 16:05:25 Axel: you mix the semantics of the data and the semantics of the structure 16:05:41 Axel: I would prefer a kind of separation 16:06:13 Sandro: the XML Schema is not for RDF but for RIF 16:06:20 Axel: I see 16:06:27 Axel: still... 16:06:36 ChrisW: I don't see the worry here 16:06:37 in that case, using the RDF namespace is a bad idea 16:07:02 q+ 16:07:08 Axel: would this data would be used as RDF somewhere? 16:07:38 Sandro: take for example Prolog 16:07:50 q- 16:07:53 Sandro: for RIF would be in fallback processing 16:08:01 In the current syntax, we have unordered rulesets as the default, so . . . means . . . . 16:08:04 -DavidHirtle 16:08:15 I have already heard from people who want to query RDF stores for rules about certain resources 16:08:27 +??P8 16:08:32 zakim, ??P8 is me 16:08:32 +DavidHirtle; got it 16:08:33 sandro: might make perfect sense, good poit, I do not object upfront, just wanted to make it clearer for me. 16:08:58 ChrisW: there is a need to clarify the difference between the two existing proposals for syntax 16:09:01 s/poit/point/ 16:09:29 action: harold to summarize objections to "sandro's" xml syntax 16:09:29 Created ACTION-337 - Summarize objections to \"sandro\'s\" xml syntax [on Harold Boley - due 2007-09-04]. 16:09:54 yes, agree, that there are several issues around this, we should collect them in one place. 16:10:09 So, the unordered/ordered distinction is very natural to express via an XML attribute, and defaults handled via XML's attribute defaulting mechanism. 16:10:30 We dont need RDF's rdf:parseType="Collection". 16:10:35 ChrisW: better to break this down issue by issue but we need to start 16:10:41 q? 16:10:44 q- 16:10:48 ack axel 16:11:55 action: gary to jar up the jaxb version of "sandros" xml syntax 16:11:55 Created ACTION-338 - Jar up the jaxb version of \"sandros\" xml syntax [on Gary Hallmark - due 2007-09-04]. 16:12:14 is there an important difference between whether you say ordered="yes" or rdf:parseType="Collection" 16:12:35 zakim, next item 16:12:35 agendum 7. "BLD - Planning for next WD" taken up [from ChrisW] 16:13:01 ChrisW: concrete plans for the next BLD working draft 16:13:24 ChrisW: there were several items I wanted to have in the next draft 16:13:34 ChrisW: one of them was the XML syntax 16:13:48 zakim, unmute me 16:13:48 MichaelKifer should no longer be muted 16:13:50 ChrisW: seems we have consensus on the RDF compatibility 16:13:52 q+ 16:14:07 ChrisW: the issue of classification is another one 16:14:24 ChrisW: I made a proposal a couple of days ago 16:14:50 ChrisW: what do you think about this plan? 16:15:16 Michael: I propose that just the second part of the RDF compatibility section should go into the next BLD draft 16:15:39 Michael: I don't see the need for a combined language, just for the embedding 16:15:49 Michael: I sent an email on that 16:16:08 q+ 16:16:09 ChrisW: so maybe we are not that close to consensus as I thought 16:16:22 ChrisW: we'll try to discuss it next week 16:16:39 ack mich 16:16:40 ChrisW: what is the timeline we would need to get the next draft out? 16:16:59 Michael: it depends on the form we'll have for the draft 16:17:14 Michael: I propose to split the document in two 16:17:29 Michael: one document on the framework 16:17:51 Michael: and the actual dialect will be explained in more simpler terms 16:18:19 Michael: but there is some work to spit the document in two 16:18:22 +1 splitting document, so BLD is specified in a smaller/simpler document 16:18:46 Harold: I suggest we keep the part on the architecture instead 16:18:58 Harold: and have a draft before the next F2F 16:19:24 Michael: I didn't think at the Arch part when talking about the framework 16:20:02 ChrisW: how long will it take? 16:20:13 Michael: 2 to 3 weeks to split the document 16:21:08 Sandro: will the framework also be a standard then? 16:21:19 Michael: yes, but not part of a particular dialect 16:21:25 in that case, it has to be a standard 16:21:57 Michael: I wouldn't do it before the F2F 16:22:21