IRC log of rif on 2007-09-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:41:04 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
14:41:04 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:41:12 [ChrisW]
zakim, this will be rif
14:41:13 [Zakim]
ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 19 minutes
14:41:31 [ChrisW]
Meeting: RIF Telecon 4 Sept 07
14:41:40 [ChrisW]
Chair: Christian de Sainte-Marie
14:42:22 [ChrisW]
14:42:35 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has changed the topic to: 4 Sept Telecon Agenda
14:42:56 [ChrisW]
Scribe: Allen Ginsberg
14:43:08 [ChrisW]
scribenick: AllenGinsberg
14:43:21 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Admin
14:43:26 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Liason
14:43:31 [ChrisW]
agenda+ F2F
14:43:36 [ChrisW]
agenda+ UCR
14:43:45 [ChrisW]
agenda+ BLD - RDF
14:43:59 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Arch - Data Models
14:44:04 [ChrisW]
agenda+ AOB
14:44:13 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
14:44:13 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
14:52:13 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make logs public
14:59:16 [csma]
csma has joined #rif
14:59:50 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
15:00:16 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
15:00:17 [Zakim]
15:00:31 [Zakim]
15:00:32 [csma]
zakim, ??P19 is me
15:00:32 [Zakim]
15:00:33 [Zakim]
15:00:35 [Zakim]
+csma; got it
15:00:36 [Zakim]
+Dave_Reynolds (was ??P22)
15:01:12 [LeoraMorgenstern]
LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
15:01:15 [csma]
Chair: Christian de Sainte Marie
15:01:19 [StellaMitchell]
StellaMitchell has joined #rif
15:01:29 [csma]
Scribe: Allen Ginsberg
15:01:43 [csma]
scribenick: AllenGinsberg
15:01:58 [Zakim]
15:02:10 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
15:02:13 [Zakim]
15:02:14 [Zakim]
15:02:19 [Zakim]
15:02:27 [LeoraMorgenstern]
zakim, ??p28 is me
15:02:27 [Zakim]
+LeoraMorgenstern; got it
15:02:34 [LeoraMorgenstern]
zakim, mute me
15:02:37 [Zakim]
LeoraMorgenstern should now be muted
15:02:45 [LeoraMorgenstern]
zakim, unmute me
15:02:45 [Zakim]
LeoraMorgenstern should no longer be muted
15:02:48 [PaulVincent]
PaulVincent has joined #RIF
15:02:48 [Harold]
zakim, [NRCC] is me
15:02:48 [Zakim]
+Harold; got it
15:02:51 [csma]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:02:51 [Zakim]
On the phone I see csma, Dave_Reynolds, AllenGinsberg, LeoraMorgenstern, Harold, josb
15:03:01 [Zakim]
+ +43.512.507.9aaaa
15:03:04 [LeoraMorgenstern]
zakim, mute me
15:03:04 [Zakim]
LeoraMorgenstern should now be muted
15:03:09 [Zakim]
15:03:24 [Zakim]
15:03:35 [ChrisW]
zakim, ibm is temporarily me
15:03:35 [Zakim]
+ChrisW; got it
15:03:36 [barry_b]
zakim, aaaa is me
15:03:36 [Zakim]
+barry_b; got it
15:04:04 [Zakim]
15:04:10 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
15:04:16 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:04:16 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Admin" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:05:18 [cgi-irc]
cgi-irc has joined #rif
15:05:21 [DavidHirtle]
DavidHirtle has joined #rif
15:05:25 [csma]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:05:25 [Zakim]
On the phone I see csma, Dave_Reynolds, AllenGinsberg, LeoraMorgenstern (muted), Harold, josb, barry_b, Stella_Mitchell (muted), ChrisW, PaulVincent
15:05:45 [Zakim]
15:06:46 [luis_polo]
luis_polo has joined #rif
15:06:52 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: action review
15:07:19 [Zakim]
15:07:24 [Zakim]
15:07:35 [AllenGinsberg]
chrisW: action 334 closed, 335 done
15:08:25 [AllenGinsberg]
minutes accepted for aug 28 telecon
15:08:36 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:08:36 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Liason" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:08:50 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: no action to review
15:08:51 [PaulVincent]
OMG PRR: no news
15:09:15 [ChrisW]
zakim, close item 2
15:09:15 [Zakim]
agendum 2, Liason, closed
15:09:16 [Zakim]
I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:09:17 [Zakim]
3. F2F [from ChrisW]
15:09:18 [Zakim]
15:09:19 [ChrisW]
zakim, open item 3
15:09:19 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "F2F" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:09:29 [DavidHirtle]
zakim, ??P43 is me
15:09:29 [Zakim]
+DavidHirtle; got it
15:09:42 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: everyone please fill out f2f survey
15:09:45 [sandro]
-> F2F7 Register/Regrets
15:09:53 [Zakim]
15:09:55 [AllenGinsberg]
chrisW: no unpdates on f2f
15:10:03 [luis_polo]
zakim, berrueta is me
15:10:03 [Zakim]
+luis_polo; got it
15:10:13 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: first draft agenda by end of next week
15:10:22 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:10:22 [Zakim]
On the phone I see csma, Dave_Reynolds, AllenGinsberg, LeoraMorgenstern (muted), Harold, josb, barry_b, Stella_Mitchell (muted), ChrisW, PaulVincent, DougL, Sandro, Gary_Hallmark,
15:10:25 [Zakim]
... DavidHirtle, luis_polo
15:10:28 [Hassan]
Hassan has joined #rif
15:10:43 [Zakim]
15:10:44 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: skipping UCR item because Axel not here
15:10:59 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: any volunteer to review another one?
15:11:20 [Harold]
As I mentioned, Axel and Paula told me they have only a shakey connection from the Reasoning Web Summer School in Dresden.
15:11:23 [AllenGinsberg]
chrisW: any volunteers for next week?
15:11:40 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: Axel should do it next week
15:11:47 [ChrisW]
15:12:55 [AllenGinsberg]
chrisW: dave you did use case 8?
15:13:17 [AllenGinsberg]
dave: stuff has changed
15:13:29 [ChrisW]
15:13:29 [AllenGinsberg]
dave: can do UC 8 next week
15:13:47 [AllenGinsberg]
AllenG: can do UC3 following week
15:14:33 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: move on to BLD
15:14:34 [ChrisW]
zakim, take up item 4
15:14:34 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "UCR" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:14:40 [ChrisW]
zakim, take up item 5
15:14:40 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "BLD - RDF" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:14:49 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: action review
15:15:06 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: sandro action 336?
15:15:19 [AllenGinsberg]
sandro: continued
15:15:40 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: 337?
15:15:46 [AllenGinsberg]
harold: continued
15:15:52 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: 338
15:16:07 [AllenGinsberg]
chrisW: 338 is done (by Gary)
15:16:11 [Harold]
New actions come in for me, too, with the discussion and work Sandro started for the successor to asn06.
15:16:31 [ChrisW]
Harold, do you want to record some actions?
15:16:34 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: jos to discuss changes to RDF compatibility section
15:16:42 [josb]
15:16:46 [Harold]
No, that's an 'informal' action.
15:17:18 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: cleaned it up....make more readable and to incorporate new items and resolutions
15:17:38 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: also included new comments and discussion itmes
15:17:58 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: biggest thing, found more elegant way to define the semantics, so now easier to read etc
15:18:20 [kifer]
kifer has joined #rif
15:18:25 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: does anyone have clarification qustions?
15:18:47 [AllenGinsberg]
chrisW: I have common interpretations section condition 2
15:19:03 [AllenGinsberg]
chrisW: what is condition 2 doing?
15:19:28 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: just makes sure that whenever you use an element as a property then it is in the set Ip
15:19:55 [AllenGinsberg]
AllenG: (technical discussion of condition 2)
15:20:16 [AllenGinsberg]
chrisW: just says all slots are RDF properties?
15:20:19 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: yes
15:20:46 [Zakim]
15:20:52 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: Michael had some sceptisim concerning the semnatics?
15:21:41 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: especially concerning the combination semantics; I responded in email
15:21:59 [AllenGinsberg]
mkifer: I didn't get a chance to read it yet.
15:22:09 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: let's continue in email
15:22:54 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: did you (Jos) mean that an RDF graph can be translated into RIF rules?
15:23:00 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: yes.
15:23:27 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: actually translated to facts
15:23:35 [GaryHallmark]
15:23:48 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: that means rif includes rdf?
15:24:25 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: means that if you want to use RDF with RIF you are implictly assuming this semantics
15:24:44 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: does it mean that any RDF can be expressed as a RIF rule set?
15:25:02 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: any kind of rdf entailment maps into entailment in rif
15:25:36 [AllenGinsberg]
mkifer: this is the problem: the combined semantics isn't needed because rif already allows for that embdding
15:25:43 [josb]
15:25:43 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: let's continue that over email
15:25:47 [AllenGinsberg]
mkifer: ok
15:26:05 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: let;'s go over other issues in the email one-by-one
15:26:23 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: 3 issues related to identifiers...
15:26:50 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: absolute iri's versus rdf use of uri references
15:26:51 [DaveReynolds]
15:27:05 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: might need a conversion?
15:27:10 [csma]
ack dave
15:27:12 [ChrisW]
ack dave
15:27:16 [kifer]
zakim, mute me
15:27:16 [Zakim]
sorry, kifer, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
15:27:36 [AllenGinsberg]
dave: rdf uses "rdf uri references"
15:27:42 [csma]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:27:42 [Zakim]
On the phone I see csma, Dave_Reynolds, AllenGinsberg, LeoraMorgenstern (muted), Harold, josb, barry_b, Stella_Mitchell (muted), ChrisW, PaulVincent, DougL, Sandro, Gary_Hallmark,
15:27:46 [Zakim]
... DavidHirtle, luis_polo, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), Michael_Kifer
15:27:59 [MichaelKifer]
MichaelKifer has joined #rif
15:28:02 [AllenGinsberg]
dave: they were trying to hone in on iri's before the irs spec was finalized
15:28:11 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
15:28:11 [Zakim]
Michael_Kifer should now be muted
15:28:18 [AllenGinsberg]
dave: i suggest we just leave it as iri's
15:28:39 [sandro]
DaveReynolds: What the RDF spec uses is "RDF URI References" which is a confusing term. It's not "URI References". It was, rather, their best attempt to anticipate what IRIs would be. There may be a difference around spaces. I suggest we not dwell on any differences.
15:28:39 [kifer]
kifer has joined #rif
15:29:09 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: I was confused by different statements in the specs
15:29:13 [sandro]
Jos: I was trying to figure out if we need to take into account the conversions between URIs and IRIs.
15:29:30 [AllenGinsberg]
dave: we don't need to worry about conversion
15:29:37 [sandro]
DaveReynolds: I don't think we do. We just treat them as IRIs.
15:29:45 [sandro]
+1 (just treat them as IRIs)
15:29:51 [AllenGinsberg]
dave: in the iri specs conversion algorithms would be defined
15:30:19 [AllenGinsberg]
dave: we certainly wouldn't define new conversions ourselves
15:31:00 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: dave we are missing some of your audio....
15:31:03 [DaveReynolds]
15:31:16 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: so the solution is to use absoluete iris
15:31:30 [AllenGinsberg]
chrisW: do we need to refer to uris at all?
15:31:35 [DaveReynolds]
exactly, don't point to any conversion, just talk about IRIs
15:31:46 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: for the sake of rdf compatibility
15:31:52 [MichaelKifer_]
MichaelKifer_ has joined #rif
15:32:12 [AllenGinsberg]
sandro: rdf uri references are not uris
15:32:38 [josb]
15:33:14 [AllenGinsberg]
chrisW: they were iri's before iri's were defined
15:33:41 [AllenGinsberg]
sandro: I agree we dave that we don't need to worry about these issues
15:33:57 [AllenGinsberg]
sandro: we are basically tracking an evolving standard
15:34:02 [DaveReynolds]
I proposed a form of words (derived from the SPARQL spec) before, I can find that again
15:34:27 [AllenGinsberg]
sandro: just talk about iri's and maybe include a note to deal with special cases
15:34:33 [Zakim]
15:34:58 [Zakim]
15:35:01 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: investigate further?
15:35:11 [AllenGinsberg]
sandro: not us.
15:35:21 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: do we need a formal decision?
15:35:39 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: any objections to just talking about iri's?
15:35:48 [AllenGinsberg]
15:35:52 [sandro]
Sandro: The issue that I think is real is what we say you do about the odd little corner cases like an RDF URI Reference that is not an IRI -- eg one with a space in it.... I suggest we ignore this issue. (I think concurring with Dave on this suggestion)
15:36:53 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: 2nd issue: some rdf literals are not strings accroding to xml schema strings
15:37:17 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: but we didn't decide whether we want to go with xmls 1 or 2
15:37:30 [josb]
s/1 or 2/1.0 or 1.1/
15:38:23 [Harold]
We certainly should be prepared for 1.1 and for now stay in the common subset.
15:38:35 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: not clear about all the consequences of doing one or the other
15:38:55 [AllenGinsberg]
chrisW: can we leave these decision to implementors of rif?
15:39:10 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: do you mean in rif instance docs?
15:39:37 [Harold]
s/ now stay/ now encourage RIF users to stay/
15:39:39 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: yes we could, but then we should say something about rdf literals that are not xml 1.0 strings
15:39:55 [AllenGinsberg]
chrisW: what does xmls 1.0 say?
15:39:56 [sandro]
Jos: we need to say what to do if you see an xml 1.0 literal string
15:40:03 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: doesn;t say anything
15:41:43 [MichaelKifer]
MichaelKifer has joined #rif
15:41:44 [AllenGinsberg]
dave: we should leave the value space unconstrained (as in xmls 1.1)
15:42:06 [AllenGinsberg]
dave: that doesn't stop people from using 1.0 libraries to process stuff
15:42:19 [AllenGinsberg]
dave: in the spec we need to point to a specific spec
15:42:28 [AllenGinsberg]
dave: 1.1 isn't at spec yet.
15:43:12 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: but we never investigated the consequenses of using 1.1 as reference for xml types
15:43:34 [AllenGinsberg]
dave: agreed...there may be other issues, e.g., builtins
15:44:04 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: somebody to take an action with regard to xml datatypes included in rif
15:44:11 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: volunteers/
15:44:52 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: we need someone with good xml expertise
15:45:03 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: gary?
15:45:19 [AllenGinsberg]
gary: haven't been tracking 1.0 vs 1.1
15:45:27 [ChrisW]
important point jos made, we can't just leave this up to implementors because we agreed to include XML datatypes directly as part of RIF syntax
15:45:32 [AllenGinsberg]
dave: what about asking the xml schema group?
15:45:40 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: yes
15:45:51 [DaveReynolds]
not me
15:46:06 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: i can
15:46:22 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: but they haven't responded to earlier email yet
15:46:48 [AllenGinsberg]
sandro: sending a comment to working group would be good
15:47:25 [AllenGinsberg]
sandro: i can try talking to the people directly, or send a message to working group
15:47:58 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: actions?
15:49:20 [ChrisW]
action: debruij to send message to XML Schema WG comments list
15:49:20 [rifbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - debruij
15:49:57 [AllenGinsberg]
action taken by jos to send comment to xml schema working group
15:50:07 [ChrisW]
action: jdebruij to send message to XML Schema WG comments list
15:50:07 [rifbot]
Created ACTION-339 - Send message to XML Schema WG comments list [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2007-09-11].
15:50:27 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: ill-typed literals in rif vs rdf
15:50:46 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: treatment is different
15:50:53 [josb]"s"^^u)
15:51:07 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: I made a suggestion (see link in irc)
15:51:37 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: map ill-typed literals to uris. Is this a good idea?
15:52:21 [sandro]
rifbot, status
15:52:33 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: don't ill-typed literals in rules make them uninterpretable and therfore who cares?
15:52:52 [DaveReynolds]
15:53:06 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: they can occur in rdf data, so we need a way to treat them in rif
15:53:39 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: ah this is for the combination semantics?
15:53:49 [DaveReynolds]
ack me
15:53:52 [csma]
ack dave
15:54:54 [AllenGinsberg]
dave: this seems to be an unimportant case. in actual data you don't let ill-typed literals through. this isn't practically important
15:55:07 [AllenGinsberg]
dave: just say the embedding only works for well-typed case
15:55:45 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: basically agree with dave
15:56:09 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: i don't agree. why not support all of rdf?
15:56:35 [Hassan]
15:56:57 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: it doesn't mean that rif rules can't interact with all of rdf data, it only means that some rdf data can't be translated into rif rues
15:57:13 [Harold]
Jos' proposal re ill-typed literals could still come into RIF: where we deal with exceptions, partial compliance, etc., anyway.
15:57:41 [Harold]
(see Sandro's earlier wiki page)
15:58:02 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: but this comes into play with queries - rif query over rdf-data (containing ill-typed literals)
15:58:29 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: but if rdf knows what to do with them, then rdf can deal with them
15:58:49 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: reiterates point about query-answering
15:59:31 [AllenGinsberg]
chrisW: something that understands rdf can do the translation for rif vs. rif itself knows what to do
15:59:55 [AllenGinsberg]
chrisW: how complicated is this? if uncomplicated we can handle all of rdf
16:00:05 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: but at what cost?
16:00:19 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: only implementations that care about rdf would be affected
16:01:22 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: but this contradicts your combination semantics argument,
16:02:15 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: when you try to embed the rdf graph as rif rules you would get a syntax erro (with ill-typed literals)
16:02:52 [AllenGinsberg]
chrisW: in support of csma's argument:
16:03:23 [sandro]
Jos: I DONT propose we support ill-typed literals, instead I propose we translate to URIs.
16:03:39 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: rif doesn't need to support ill-typed literals, we are translating to uri's
16:03:52 [AllenGinsberg]
chrisw: so you are really in agreement (with csma)
16:04:05 [josb]"s"^^u)
16:04:21 [AllenGinsberg]
sandro: what do the uri's look like?
16:04:33 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: shows link in irc
16:04:50 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: ok
16:04:51 [MichaelKifer]
should the data type name be part of such a uri?
16:05:05 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: does this comply with best practices?
16:05:20 [AllenGinsberg]
sandro: this is a pretty weird thing to do (but legal, i think)
16:05:35 [AllenGinsberg]
sandro: it;s a weird hack, but might be our best option
16:05:42 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
16:05:42 [Zakim]
Michael_Kifer should no longer be muted
16:05:46 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: any objections to doing this?
16:06:22 [DaveReynolds]
16:06:22 [AllenGinsberg]
mkifer: basically a good idea, but need to work on details, e.g., other languages might want to use this mechanism
16:07:04 [AllenGinsberg]
sandro: why did rdf do this? probably because it would be impossible to decide whether the literal is really ill-typed
16:07:27 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: so we table this issue for now?
16:07:51 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
16:07:51 [Zakim]
Michael_Kifer should now be muted
16:08:06 [AllenGinsberg]
sandro: jos can you edit the page to show an actual example/
16:08:10 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: yes
16:08:33 [josb]
16:08:36 [DaveReynolds]
16:08:53 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: there are 4 additional issues (see link in irc)
16:09:18 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: once we resolve all these issues are we done with compability?
16:10:04 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: it depends...doc would still need examples, etc. There are other related issues, but we are pretty close
16:10:20 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: do we need to raise those other issues formally?
16:10:26 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: yes
16:10:50 [ChrisW]
action: chris to investigate raising Jos' identified issues
16:10:50 [rifbot]
Created ACTION-340 - Investigate raising Jos\' identified issues [on Chris Menzel - due 2007-09-11].
16:10:51 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: chris will you ask deborah to create those seven issues?
16:10:56 [AllenGinsberg]
chrisW: ok
16:11:39 [AllenGinsberg]
chrisW: sandro can you remove chris menzel from the list?
16:11:43 [AllenGinsberg]
sandro: yes
16:11:43 [ChrisW]
action: cwelty to investigate raising Jos' identified issues
16:11:43 [rifbot]
Created ACTION-341 - Investigate raising Jos\' identified issues [on Christopher Welty - due 2007-09-11].
16:12:06 [ChrisW]
zakim, list agenda
16:12:06 [Zakim]
I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
16:12:07 [Zakim]
3. F2F [from ChrisW]
16:12:08 [Zakim]
4. UCR [from ChrisW]
16:12:10 [Zakim]
5. BLD - RDF [from ChrisW]
16:12:11 [Zakim]
6. Arch - Data Models [from ChrisW]
16:12:12 [Zakim]
7. AOB [from ChrisW]
16:12:20 [ChrisW]
zakim close item 5
16:12:25 [ChrisW]
zakim, close item 5
16:12:25 [Zakim]
agendum 5, BLD - RDF, closed
16:12:26 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:12:29 [Zakim]
3. F2F [from ChrisW]
16:12:31 [ChrisW]
zakim, open item 6
16:12:31 [Zakim]
agendum 6. "Arch - Data Models" taken up [from ChrisW]
16:12:40 [ChrisW]
zakim, close item 3
16:12:40 [Zakim]
agendum 3, F2F, closed
16:12:41 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:12:41 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: action review
16:12:42 [Zakim]
4. UCR [from ChrisW]
16:12:48 [AllenGinsberg]
action 331 continued
16:12:56 [AllenGinsberg]
action 330 done
16:13:28 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: action 258 done?
16:13:34 [AllenGinsberg]
dave: yes a long time ago
16:14:06 [AllenGinsberg]
dave: we discussed 258 at the last f2f.
16:14:16 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: action 258 closed
16:14:22 [AllenGinsberg]
action 256 continued
16:14:49 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
16:14:49 [Zakim]
Michael_Kifer should no longer be muted
16:15:11 [AllenGinsberg]
action 254: semantics section for arch doc
16:15:37 [AllenGinsberg]
mkifer: at least telecon i mentioned splitting the arch doc into two.
16:16:19 [Zakim]
16:16:30 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: let's obsolete this action for now
16:16:34 [AllenGinsberg]
action 254 closed
16:16:44 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
16:16:44 [Zakim]
Michael_Kifer should now be muted
16:17:01 [DaveReynolds]
16:17:05 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: dave do you want to discuss your changes
16:17:16 [AllenGinsberg]
dave: see link in irc.
16:17:41 [AllenGinsberg]
dave: this is a result of discussion at last f2f.
16:18:13 [AllenGinsberg]
dave: there are now 3 subsections relating to differnt isues teased out
16:18:41 [AllenGinsberg]
dave: how to identify the data set used by rules
16:20:00 [AllenGinsberg]
dave: basically convey the metadata to give an identifier for data set
16:20:17 [AllenGinsberg]
dave: 2nd section: data model identification
16:20:40 [AllenGinsberg]
dave: how do yo tell the rule process what data model is being used?
16:21:02 [AllenGinsberg]
dave: at f2f we agreed on supporting 3 data models
16:21:43 [AllenGinsberg]
dave: i updated metadata vocabulary to accomodate those three
16:22:34 [AllenGinsberg]
dave: 3rd section data-model usage: see email discussion about this
16:22:59 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: so let;s use remaining time to how to embed metadata in rif
16:23:21 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: there is no mechanism for specifying meta data in rif
16:23:56 [AllenGinsberg]
jos: it's straigtforward to do it, but we need to decide what we want to include
16:24:14 [Zakim]
16:24:35 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: all we have is the proposal to use rdf to express metadata
16:24:58 [AllenGinsberg]
dave: right.
16:26:47 [AllenGinsberg]
Allen: I missed some of this...
16:26:51 [Harold]
Dave, the current syntax proposal is in
16:27:37 [ChrisW]
16:28:09 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is talking?
16:28:10 [AllenGinsberg]
sandro: the question is related to extensibility.
16:28:23 [Zakim]
ChrisW, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: csma (8%), Sandro (21%)
16:28:43 [AllenGinsberg]
sandro: if extensibility is easy then we can let people write their own metadata schema
16:28:44 [cgi-irc]
16:29:07 [ChrisW]
who is cgi-irc?
16:29:12 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: we need to get a better feeling of what kind of metadata would be required
16:29:29 [cgi-irc]
apparently me for some reason... strange
16:29:33 [cgi-irc]
Doug L
16:29:41 [AllenGinsberg]
csma: if we only a small set of metadata maybe we can just get away with afew attributes and values
16:29:42 [csma]
ack chrisw
16:29:43 [cgi-irc]
zakim, cgi-irc is DougL
16:29:43 [Zakim]
sorry, cgi-irc, I do not recognize a party named 'cgi-irc'
16:29:56 [MichaelKifer]
16:30:16 [AllenGinsberg]
chrisW: this is orgthogonal to whther metadata is done in rdf
16:30:17 [DougL]
16:30:21 [DougL]
16:30:33 [ChrisW]
ack cgi
16:30:48 [ChrisW]
-1 to extenc
16:30:49 [DougL]
16:30:55 [DaveReynolds]
don't mind
16:30:57 [Hassan]
-1 to extend
16:30:59 [sandro]
16:31:03 [MichaelKifer]
16:31:15 [AllenGinsberg]
meeting adjourned
16:31:18 [Zakim]
16:31:22 [Zakim]
16:31:24 [Zakim]
16:31:25 [ChrisW]
zakim, list attendees
16:31:25 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been csma, Dave_Reynolds, AllenGinsberg, josb, LeoraMorgenstern, Harold, +43.512.507.9aaaa, Stella_Mitchell, ChrisW, barry_b, PaulVincent,
16:31:27 [DaveReynolds]
16:31:28 [Zakim]
... DougL, Sandro, Gary_Hallmark, DavidHirtle, luis_polo, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Michael_Kifer, DaveReynolds
16:31:30 [Zakim]
16:31:31 [Zakim]
16:31:33 [Zakim]
16:31:34 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:31:34 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
16:31:34 [Zakim]
16:31:34 [DougL]
16:31:35 [Zakim]
16:31:36 [Zakim]
16:31:53 [Zakim]
16:31:54 [sandro]
zakim, who is here?
16:31:55 [Zakim]
On the phone I see csma, AllenGinsberg, barry_b, Sandro, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted)
16:31:56 [Zakim]
On IRC I see GaryHallmark, LeoraMorgenstern, csma, RRSAgent, Zakim, ChrisW, AllenGinsberg, barry_b, Harold, rifbot, sandro
16:32:00 [Zakim]
16:32:03 [sandro]
zakim, who is here?
16:32:03 [Zakim]
On the phone I see csma, AllenGinsberg, Sandro, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted)
16:32:07 [Zakim]
On IRC I see GaryHallmark, LeoraMorgenstern, csma, RRSAgent, Zakim, ChrisW, AllenGinsberg, barry_b, Harold, rifbot, sandro
16:32:18 [sandro]
Zakim, drop Hassan_Ait-Kaci
16:32:18 [Zakim]
Hassan_Ait-Kaci is being disconnected
16:32:20 [Zakim]
16:32:26 [sandro]
zakim, who is here?
16:32:26 [Zakim]
On the phone I see csma, AllenGinsberg, Sandro
16:32:27 [Zakim]
On IRC I see GaryHallmark, LeoraMorgenstern, csma, RRSAgent, Zakim, ChrisW, AllenGinsberg, barry_b, Harold, rifbot, sandro
16:32:35 [csma]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:32:35 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate csma
16:32:39 [sandro]
Zakim, list attendees
16:32:39 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been csma, Dave_Reynolds, AllenGinsberg, josb, LeoraMorgenstern, Harold, +43.512.507.9aaaa, Stella_Mitchell, ChrisW, barry_b, PaulVincent,
16:32:42 [Zakim]
... DougL, Sandro, Gary_Hallmark, DavidHirtle, luis_polo, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Michael_Kifer, DaveReynolds
16:32:55 [sandro]
RRSAgent, make record public
16:40:17 [Zakim]
16:40:19 [Zakim]
16:40:23 [Zakim]
16:40:25 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
16:40:26 [Zakim]
Attendees were csma, Dave_Reynolds, AllenGinsberg, josb, LeoraMorgenstern, Harold, +43.512.507.9aaaa, Stella_Mitchell, ChrisW, barry_b, PaulVincent, DougL, Sandro, Gary_Hallmark,
16:40:28 [Zakim]
... DavidHirtle, luis_polo, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Michael_Kifer, DaveReynolds
16:43:39 [csma]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:43:39 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate csma