See also: IRC log
<csma> Adrian, will you be able to scribe today?
<agiurca> sorry I cannot
<agiurca> I did not follow the discussion for a time
<agiurca> next week I will scribe
<PaulVincent> Christian: I can volunteer to scribe...
<csma> scribe: Paul Vincent
<csma> scribenick: PaulVincent
Christian calls meeting to order...
Chrisitan: for Deborah - outstanding action 295 - continued
Christian: action 324
... call for agenda amendments: suggest 1 - naming conventions proposed by Sandro, 2 - RIF embed discussion
Harold: suggest moving naming discussion to end in case late comers join call
Christian: concur ... reordering
... propose accept last weeks minutes
... no objections - Sept 4 minutes are accepted
... reordering of agenda cancelled - will keep as is
PRR liaison: no news except submission at OMG before next F2F
Sandro: liaison with OWL WG (for OWL 1.1) TBA
Jos: XML schema WG queried but no response
Christian: Action is 399 closed
<sandro> ACTION: Sandro to find out from XML Schema WG's staff contact how we should proceed with getting a response to Jos' email [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/11-rif-minutes.html#action01]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-342 - Find out from XML Schema WG\'s staff contact how we should proceed with getting a response to Jos\' email [on Sandro Hawke - due 2007-09-18].
Christian: no actions on F2F7: action on all RIF members to register attendance or not
Christian: F2F objectives: to publish BLD as early as possible in Oct so issues must be settled as much as possible
<sandro> F2F7 Registration/Regrets Form
Christian: ... and BLD XML schema
to be decided
... ... day 1: syntax, 2 semantics, 3 semantics
... ... freeze BLD version ASAP and email link - action for Harold
<sandro> ACTION: Harold to freeze and editors draft of BLD when he's ready (soon), and send the WG e-mail with the frozen version (or a pointer to it). [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/11-rif-minutes.html#action02]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-343 - Freeze and editors draft of BLD when he\'s ready (soon), and send the WG e-mail with the frozen version (or a pointer to it). [on Harold Boley - due 2007-09-18].
Christian: ... after freeze pls send issues list to chairs
<StellaMitchell> I can in
Sandro: Need to know issues to
... Need to know issues to discuss
<StellaMitchell> sandro: let's try to minimize suprise issues at F2F
<StellaMitchell> ... think about and raise any important issue beforehand
<StellaMitchell> csma: we are aiming to have a frozen BLD draft by Friday
Apologies: lost internet / IRC and VOIP for a while
<StellaMitchell> csma: possibility of f2f8 at tech plenary in Nov in Boston, what's the feeling of the group?
<DaveReynolds> I would not be there
<StellaMitchell> sandro: I think a f2f in Nov would be a good idea, because it will be a crucial time - the time when we will be making a case for extending the working group.
Scribing: can carry on but my cnx is clearly poor today - Stella do you want to continue?
+1 also to F2F8 in Nov
<StellaMitchell> csma: poll in F2F8 on Nov 5 and 6 in Boston?
<sandro> +1 to F2F8 Nov 5-6 in Boston
<DaveReynolds> -1 (I would not be likely to make it)
<Harold> I try to come.
<josb> not yet sure
<csma> +1 to F2F8 in Boston
<PaulaP> I also try to be there
<agiurca> I also try to be there
<IgorMozetic> +1 to F2F8 in Boston
<StellaMitchell> csma: We have to make a decision 8 weeks before having a f2f
<StellaMitchell> csma: that's why it is important we decide soon
<GaryHallmark> +1 to f2f8
<StellaMitchell> sandro: need Chris's input to make the decision
<StellaMitchell> csma; We will discuss at chair's meeting and let the wg know
<GaryHallmark> we already discussed bpel orchestration
<StellaMitchell> gary: We already dicsussed my example
<StellaMitchell> csma: and Axel is not here
<StellaMitchell> daver: we can discuss mine, UC8
<StellaMitchell> csma: any objection to discuss UC8, although it wasn't on agenda... none
<StellaMitchell> daver: link is above. I wrote this a long time.
<StellaMitchell> daver: so much of the syntax is out of date.
<StellaMitchell> daver: this uc is about vocabulary mapping - typical use of rules with RDF
<StellaMitchell> daver: the rules are simple: take triple patterns, and deduce a new type or new set of values in the target ontology
<StellaMitchell> daver: I represented the rules in Jena Rules and then did the analysis
<StellaMitchell> daver: issues: rules are mostly horn, so no issues
<StellaMitchell> daver: some syn sugar in head <??>
<StellaMitchell> daver: quantification over rdf predicates - with frames there is now no restriction on quantifying over rdf predicates - no longer an issue
<StellaMitchell> daver: datatypes - also resolved
<StellaMitchell> daver: builtins: we still need some nore, but shouldn't be too controversial
<StellaMitchell> daver: bNodes: in examples like this (which are realistic), people are treating bnodes as skolem constants
<Harold> Re builtins: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/List_of_functions_and_operators
<StellaMitchell> daver: would need gensym equivalent to do what jena rules does
<StellaMitchell> daver: metadata: I had based my example on my proposal at that time, but that's not the way we're going now
<StellaMitchell> daver: the xml syntax doesn't match what we have right now, but it won't be hard to redo once the xml syntax is solidified
<StellaMitchell> sandro: did you do this by hand, or automate?
<StellaMitchell> daver: largely hand editied, but some generated
<StellaMitchell> sandro: do you have a sense of how hard it would be to automate the translation
<StellaMitchell> daver: handling the covered items wouldn't be too difficult, but there is much that isn't covered by RIF
<StellaMitchell> csma: rule where condition would check against RDF data set, and modify the data set?
<StellaMitchell> sandro: it would be nice to go between N3 and JenaRules by November as a demonstration
<StellaMitchell> daver: that would be difficult for me to do by then
<StellaMitchell> sandro: anyone else you work with who could do it?
<StellaMitchell> daver: maybe
<StellaMitchell> sandro: I started with a strawman.
<sandro> Proposed Naming Conventions
<StellaMitchell> sandro: naming conventions make it easier for everyone to work with a vocabulary
<StellaMitchell> sandro: easier for users, and easier for the people coming up with new names
<StellaMitchell> sandro: In my proposal, I followed conventions of java
<StellaMitchell> sandro: CamelCase for class names, and don't abbreviate
<Harold> We had a WG decision to rename Con into Const.
<StellaMitchell> sandro: property names are more controversial: start with lowercase, and other than that are CamelCase noun phrases
<StellaMitchell> sandro: convention of industry is to keep them singular
<StellaMitchell> ScribeNick: StellaMitchell
sandro: I propose that we don't use all caps for any names
csma: any questions?
daver: I think these are useful
things, but not critical, and I'm happy with this
... but I would add one thing
<Harold> In our fully striped XML syntax we followed the Java convention.
daver: for ambiguous things, add something to clarify
harold: we have followed java conventions in the BLD
<josb> +1 to proposal Sandro and suggestion daver
harold: we have fully striped
syntax with two types of stripes: classes and properties
... had a wg decision to change con to const
csma: so, you are agreeing with Sandro?
harold: yes, basically
<agiurca> we notice this to the WG for a long time. +1 to Sandro proposal
csma: complete phrases can result in excessively long names for classes and properties
<Harold> only the basic java convention.
<GaryHallmark> then compress it
harold: things are never completely unambiguous anyways
sandro: I see your point
csma: I think UniversalTerm is much more clear than Uniterm
<Harold> Christian, yes we dont want to expand Uniterm into UniversalTerm
<Harold> since UniversalTerm is *still* ambigous
<sandro> Maybe amend: If an abbreviated term is no more confusing or misleading than a longer term -- without external explanation -- to the target audience, then it may be used.
csma: So, we should keep and
refine this page that Sando has started
... people can propose, and when we agree on them, we will resolve to adopt
<Hassan> I second Sandro's point
harold: in BLD we are only following Java conventions; not everything Sandro proposed
sandro: no, you don't completely
- e.g. noun phrases
... this item (naming conventions) is critical for usable exchange format
... I strenously object to not using noun phrases in the naming conventions
<GaryHallmark> +1 naming conventions
<sandro> PROPOSED: we will have naming conventions; people edit the page to propose theirs.
csma: any objections to above
... if you modify or object to someone else's proposal, say why
<sandro> PROPOSED: we will have naming conventions; people edit the page to propose theirs (with explanation and reasons for any differences from what's already on page)
csma: any objection to above? none
<sandro> RESOLVED: we will have naming conventions; people edit the page to propose theirs (with explanation and reasons for any differences from what's already on page)
<DaveReynolds> I thought I voiced some reservation
csma: ill-typed literals
... do you have a counter proposal, Dave?
daver: it has to do whether this
applies to embedding or combined case
... it's ok in the embedding case, but not in combined case
... should be a flag that says whether it's ok to let an ill-typed literal through the translation
csma: in the combining situation, it doesn't make sense because you would not translate rdf graph into rules
jos: in combining you migtht
encounter this type of thing if you query
... but you would not have it in the rules themselves
csma: you would query to check entailment of the condition, and would never have that with ill-typed literal
jos: you can think of any type of query one might write. there might be variables and one of the variables subs could be an ill-typed literal
daver: e.g. rule that queuies an
rdf graph to query type of literal (and the literal is
... if I queury rdf graph in it's native form...
jos: syntactic correspondence between symbols in rdf and symbols in rif
csma: if rif is used only for
interchange, then this is not an issue
... issue when embed an rdf graph in a rule set, but not when you have rules that are about rdf graphs
jos: there are still entailments
sandro: you could have a rule
that says ' if x worked for ilog then x works in france'
... if x is an ill-typed literal... then the conclusion will have one
csma: in RIF, you will never have
an instance of that in RIF, because it will be translated to a
rule language before being applied to the RDF data
... RIF has an entailment relation beccause it tells you how to translate
... so you can presever the entailment relation
sandro: you are saying that that aspect should be left up to the implementation
jos: I don't understand - how can
you specify part of entailment relation and not another
... entailment either holds or doesn't hold
daver: (something about well-formed document)
csma: my points is that it is specified in rdf, and the rif semantics doesn't have to handle that case
hassan: I strongly support csma
and what mk has been advocating
... making the combined model normative is not a good idea
csma: I'm confused: I though in
the combined model, we do not care about ill-typed
... but in the embedding case (which mk supports) we would have to deal with ill-typed literal
hassan: i'm not sure about ill-typed. But, the semantics of RDF is not relevent here
csma: I would like to ask if others are confused?
daver: hassan is addressing the question of embedding vs. combined model, not specificall ill-typed
csma: am I right that ill-typed is issue in embedded and not in combined models?
jos: it is an issue in both cases
csma: I agree with Dave then,
that a flag (for whether ill-typed literals are ok) is a good
... any more on this topic?
<Harold> As I mentioned in the previous telecon, handling ill-typed literals need to be dealt with at least in the (partial) interoperability part of RIF.
csma: it talks about correspondence between rdf triples and rif molecules
dave: ok, I hadn't seen that
daver: but I think bnode discussion is only in informative part
jos: re: bnodes the embedding is
only used for reasoning, and when you reason
... you can skolemize existentially quantified varialbes
... if you want to use them for representation and not reasoning, then you are deviated from the semantics of bnodes
daver: but we need rules that
operate over RDF data
... and such rules will need builtins such as sparql has, to test various things about the data
csma: adjourn? any objections?
csma: frozen BLD draft will be available by Friday
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128 of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: Paul Vincent WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <Paul\ Vincent> ... Found ScribeNick: PaulVincent Found ScribeNick: StellaMitchell ScribeNicks: PaulVincent, StellaMitchell Default Present: Dave_Reynolds, Harold, csma, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, +49.892.1.aaaa, StellaMitchell, PaulaP, PaulVincent, +39.047.1.aabb, agiurca, Deborah_Nichols, josb, +1.512.342.aacc, IgorMozetic, DougL, Gary_Hallmark, LeoraMorgenstern, Michael_Kifer, Sandro-A, Sandro Present: Dave_Reynolds Harold csma Hassan_Ait-Kaci +49.892.1.aaaa StellaMitchell PaulaP PaulVincent +39.047.1.aabb agiurca Deborah_Nichols josb +1.512.342.aacc IgorMozetic DougL Gary_Hallmark LeoraMorgenstern Michael_Kifer Sandro-A Sandro Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Sep/0067.html Got date from IRC log name: 11 Sep 2007 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/09/11-rif-minutes.html People with action items: harold sandro WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]