14:33:58 RRSAgent has joined #rif 14:33:58 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/09/25-rif-irc 14:34:08 zakim, this will be rif 14:34:09 ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 26 minutes 14:34:29 Meeting: RIF Telecon 25 June 2007 14:34:37 Chair: Chris Welty 14:34:58 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Sep/0143.html 14:35:15 ChrisW has changed the topic to: 25 Sept RIF Agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Sep/0143.html 14:35:35 zakim, clear agenda 14:35:35 agenda cleared 14:35:40 agenda+ Admin 14:35:44 agenda+ Liason 14:35:50 agenda+ F2F 14:35:57 agenda+ BLD 14:36:02 agenda+ Arch 14:36:05 agenda+ AOB 14:36:28 rrsagent, make minutes 14:36:28 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/25-rif-minutes.html ChrisW 14:48:37 Hassan has joined #rif 14:57:52 Harold has joined #rif 15:01:04 SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started 15:01:08 josb has joined #rif 15:01:12 DaveReynolds has joined #rif 15:01:13 +josb 15:01:18 StellaMitchell has joined #rif 15:01:26 +Dave_Reynolds (was Guest P42 74394) 15:01:29 +Dave_Reynolds 15:02:52 +[IBM] 15:02:58 zakim, [ibm] is temporarily StellaMitchell 15:02:59 zakim, ibm is temporarily me 15:03:03 Christian: +1 617 761 6200 15:03:08 thanx 15:03:13 +[IBM.a] 15:03:16 oops 15:03:28 zakim, [ibm.a] is temporarily me 15:03:29 +StellaMitchell; got it 15:03:31 sorry, ChrisW, I do not recognize a party named 'ibm' 15:03:33 +Hassan_Ait-Kaci 15:03:41 +[NRCC] 15:03:49 AxelPolleres has joined #rif 15:03:50 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:03:53 zakim, [NRCC] is me 15:04:02 +StellaMitchell; got it 15:04:22 On the phone I see +39.047.1.aaaa, Dave_Reynolds, StellaMitchell, StellaMitchell.a, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), [NRCC] 15:04:27 +Harold; got it 15:04:34 zakim, mute StellaMitchell 15:04:49 yes 15:04:53 yes 15:04:57 StellaMitchell was already muted, ChrisW 15:05:09 +??P63 15:05:09 zakim, StellaMitchell.a is me 15:05:15 Zakim, who's on the phone? 15:05:29 +ChrisW; got it 15:05:33 On the phone I see josb, Dave_Reynolds, StellaMitchell (muted), ChrisW, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), Harold, ??P63 15:05:43 + +1.904.588.aaaa 15:05:45 Zakim ??P63 is me 15:05:50 zakim, aaaa is me 15:05:51 Zakim, ??P63 is me 15:05:57 +csma; got it 15:06:01 +AxelPolleres; got it 15:06:16 Zakim, mute me 15:06:24 AxelPolleres should now be muted 15:06:34 zakim, mute me 15:06:36 csma should now be muted 15:07:05 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:07:05 On the phone I see josb, Dave_Reynolds, StellaMitchell (muted), ChrisW, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), Harold, AxelPolleres (muted), csma (muted) 15:07:43 I can scribe, if hassan just did... 15:07:55 scribenick: Hassan 15:08:07 Scribe: HassanAitKaci 15:08:09 ok, also good ;-) 15:08:11 zakim, next item 15:08:11 agendum 1. "Admin" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:08:39 Action review ... 15:08:39 +Sandro 15:08:58 Action 242 ctd 15:09:17 IgorMozetic has joined #rif 15:09:37 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Sep/att-0136/18-rif-minutes.html 15:09:38 Minutes from last week to approve ... Adrian sent the latest version ... 15:09:54 the version in the agenda is the last one 15:10:07 Minutes accepted ... 15:10:08 RESOLVED: accept sept 18 minutes 15:10:22 Agenda amendments? 15:10:25 zakim, next item 15:10:25 agendum 2. "Liason" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:10:29 None ... 15:10:36 Liaison ... 15:10:58 OMG? CSMA? 15:11:01 PRR was voted for being voted for adoption yesterday 15:11:23 zakim, unmute me 15:11:23 csma should no longer be muted 15:11:23 metavoting ... :-) 15:11:29 +Gary_Hallmark 15:12:14 CSMA: the PRR voted to send the prop to the Architecture board - that will decide this Friday if it is to be adopted or not (he hopes it will be!) 15:12:15 zakim, mute me 15:12:15 csma should now be muted 15:12:24 +??P75 15:12:27 zakim, next item 15:12:27 agendum 3. "F2F" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:12:37 zakim, ??P75 is me 15:12:37 +IgorMozetic; got it 15:12:43 zakim, mute me 15:12:43 IgorMozetic should now be muted 15:12:52 F2F meeting questions? 15:12:55 can you pls stop issuing new frozen drafts every second minutes? 15:12:57 None ... 15:13:30 q+ 15:13:55 October 3, I think 15:13:59 Sandro: making hotel reservation - will send forms . expire october 6th 15:14:26 I confirm October 3 15:14:39 CSMA: deadline is Oct 3 ! 15:14:45 s/6th/6th (maybe even 3rd!)/ 15:15:36 ack jos 15:15:55 action: sandro to create/update f2f8 wiki page 15:15:55 Created ACTION-344 - Create/update f2f8 wiki page [on Sandro Hawke - due 2007-10-02]. 15:16:08 Jos: Sandro pls put up info re: schedules on the wiki ... 15:16:13 zakim, next item 15:16:16 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 15:16:17 agendum 4. "BLD" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:17:09 Rview comments on the BLD drafts - MK making corrections. Need to document what the open issues are and make sure they are on the agenda for the F2F 15:17:36 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Arch/XML_Syntax_Issues_2 15:17:44 s/Rview/Review/ 15:18:01 -IgorMozetic 15:18:19 ChrisW: thinks we have to contention ... ? are there any ... ? 15:18:26 Related to semantics 15:18:53 Jos: yes - I raised the issue related extensibility of data types 15:19:49 Jos: Not clear what the semantics for (1) symbols and (2) extensibility of data type support 15:19:54 +??P9 15:19:59 ... is . need to discuss at the F2F 15:20:05 zakim, ??P9 is me 15:20:05 +IgorMozetic; got it 15:20:22 Sandro: issue on whether data type should be extensible within the dialect ... 15:20:25 -IgorMozetic 15:20:34 MichaelKifer has joined #rif 15:20:39 s/type/types/ 15:20:42 What does "extensiility of data types in a dialect" mean? 15:20:46 IgorMozetic has joined #rif 15:21:17 Shall we put an action on collectign the ALL comments for a session in the F2F to be able to effectively go through them? 15:21:25 Jos : Extensibilty of data type, yes, but also restrict some data types ... 15:21:30 Is tha related to application-specific data types? 15:21:31 +??P6 15:21:42 zakim, ??P6 is me 15:21:42 +IgorMozetic; got it 15:21:57 zakim, mute me 15:21:59 IgorMozetic should now be muted 15:22:18 Jos: can use many types but can implement only a part 15:22:38 Jos: should open an issue on this point 15:22:58 ChrisW will schedule an issue on this point 15:23:56 Sandro: argues that data types make up a fixed set in BLD and that's it ! 15:24:03 From Jos' first email today: 15:24:04 17- section 2.1.2: it is unclear to me why the list of datatypes is 15:24:04 fixed. By fixing this list, every implementation needs to support all 15:24:04 mentioned data types, and no other data types can be used in 15:24:04 meaning-preserving fashion. I propose to make a list of datatypes which 15:24:04 need to be supported by every RIF implementation (e.g. xsd:string, 15:24:06 xsd:integer), and a list of additional data types which are recommended 15:24:08 for use with RIF (e.g. xsd:gYearMonth) 15:24:32 Would that forbid specific application to import data types? 15:24:32 ChrisW: action on Jos to open two issues... 15:24:36 Any others? 15:24:45 None ... 15:25:18 ChrisW: See URL of the syntax issues ... 15:25:34 q+ 15:25:36 Any missing syntax issues? 15:25:43 action: jdebruij to open 2 issues on datatype extensibility and symbol spaces 15:25:43 Created ACTION-345 - Open 2 issues on datatype extensibility and symbol spaces [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2007-10-02]. 15:25:45 q+ 15:25:57 ack d 15:25:58 DaveReynolds: there are issues on the XML serialization ... 15:26:15 DaveReynolds: also abstract syntax issues being confused ... 15:26:18 This is on the agenda 15:26:30 ChrisW: Also how many syntaxes do we have ? 15:27:00 DaveReynolds: that - yes - but how do me manage all these syntaxes ... 15:27:03 Second discussion 15:27:09 s/me/we/ 15:27:14 Zakim, unmute me 15:27:15 AxelPolleres should no longer be muted 15:27:20 Any other point? 15:27:40 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:27:40 On the phone I see josb, Dave_Reynolds, StellaMitchell (muted), ChrisW, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Harold, AxelPolleres, csma (muted), Sandro, Gary_Hallmark, IgorMozetic (muted) 15:27:46 Sandro: should we spend some time on thise ? Just to have a feel ? 15:27:57 s/thise/these/ 15:27:59 +Michael_Kifer 15:28:07 zakim, mute me 15:28:07 Michael_Kifer should now be muted 15:28:10 Sandro: What AS do we use ? 15:28:40 ChrisW: any other points on syntax ? 15:28:58 zakim, unmute me 15:28:58 Michael_Kifer should no longer be muted 15:29:04 Sandro: there was a mail from MK that we should NOT talk about naming conventions? 15:29:24 MK: yes - I confirm - perhaps on the 2nd day 15:30:07 Sandro: I think it's important: we need to settle the syntax involves making up a convention for symbols. This is crucial! 15:30:16 +1 with Sandro: some of my comments are related to naming conventions 15:30:29 s/are/were/ 15:31:01 MK: sure - but that is not the most immediately needed. Also, the naming is not a big issue as opposed to othetr more pressing. If we have time, then ok ... 15:31:12 Sandro: I thinks this is critical path ! 15:31:31 MK: there are more important issues ... than naming conventions. 15:31:49 ChrisW: Is there a contention there on this issue? 15:32:13 ChrisW: Is there a contention on the naming convention? 15:32:16 I like Sandro's conventions 15:32:24 Sandro: yes - at least one point ... 15:32:37 MK: can do so by email etc... 15:32:51 q- 15:32:54 Sandro, Michael said it's less important than other, technical issues, because it's a matter of a 1-to-1 isomorphism. 15:32:57 ChrisW: I agree with MK 15:33:16 Sandro: yes - but we need a consensus and F2F is good for that 15:33:36 MK: There are more crucial issues ... (again!) 15:33:55 ChrisW: take this off line ... 15:34:08 ChrisW: any other point on syntax? 15:34:09 q? 15:34:11 q+ 15:34:14 None ... 15:34:37 ChrisW: any other point is the breakup of the document that has been suggested several times 15:34:48 ok, we can discuss my points on f2f, no prob 15:34:54 q- 15:34:54 ChrisW: Can we discuss this at the F2F? 15:35:18 ChrisW: Anyone thinks we should NOT? 15:35:45 Harold: it is just an editorial matter ... we can postpone the few details left by email 15:36:09 Sandro: When do we split the doc? 15:36:24 ChrisW: after the F2F 15:36:34 Sandro: So we should postpone 15:36:49 ChrisW: any other point on the F2F? 15:37:21 MK and ChrisW chatting about breakfast ... :-) 15:37:31 zakim, mute me 15:37:31 Michael_Kifer should now be muted 15:37:57 q? 15:37:57 ChrisW: Sandro more on issues on syntax ? 15:38:10 Sandro: ... ? 15:38:44 ChrisW: Sandro asked feedback on using EBNF syntax ... 15:39:00 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/asn07 15:39:30 Sandro: the mapping of presentation syntax to AS is not clear 15:40:09 Sandro: it is more of a style sort of thing ... 15:40:45 Sandro: that is related to Harold's proposal 15:41:19 Sandro: the new AS has no hand waving and make sense 15:41:21 q+ 15:41:58 Sandro: I prefer working with objects ... others may prefer othewise (BNF, ...) 15:42:39 Harold: justifies his notation as it supports order-independence ... makes a clear cut separation between the AS and the semantics 15:42:39 ack d 15:43:04 DaveReylnods: I like Sandro's proposal and his notation make sense to me 15:43:34 DaveReylnods: We need a linear notation so this one is good 15:44:11 q+ 15:44:20 DaveReylnods: the current prop with complicated mappings is to complex - need simpler schemes 15:44:28 ack h 15:44:40 zakim, unmute me 15:44:40 Michael_Kifer should no longer be muted 15:44:41 Harold: there is no formal mapping right now 15:44:42 q+ 15:45:01 MK: the EBNF is better because it is easy to map to XML 15:45:30 MK: also other notations makes examples bulky ... 15:45:38 s/ there is no formal mapping right now/ there was no formal mapping before (was hidden in implementation); only now we have made it explict/ 15:45:45 zakim, mute me 15:45:45 Michael_Kifer should now be muted 15:45:56 MK: the mappings should be straighforward from the EBNF syntax 15:46:09 zakim, unmute me 15:46:09 Michael_Kifer should no longer be muted 15:46:20 Jos: there is not real justification for the EBNF syntax (other than that it is a short hand) 15:46:40 Jos, The presentation syntax has been very convenient throughout 15:46:40 (principles, examples, semantics). 15:46:40 It can be seen as a stripe-skipped, infix-operator version of 15:46:40 the abstract EBNF syntax, which is a striped, prefix EBNF syntax. 15:47:01 MK: sure - but a shorthand make it easy to manipulate things and make other notations derivable from it. So I agree 15:47:06 zakim, mute me 15:47:06 Michael_Kifer should now be muted 15:47:24 Sandro: this is only partially ok with me ... 15:47:45 Sandro: I still do not understand the objections expressed by Harold 15:48:17 Sandro: intuitively, what I need as a programmer should be there ... 15:48:17 q+ 15:48:29 q- 15:49:27 Sandro: not all things are mappable ... 15:49:40 Sandro, we would need to *interface* TWO semantics if the Abstract Syntax already requires a formal *semantics* (for unorderedness etc.) 15:51:18 Sandro: as an implementor I need to know that things are ordered or not 15:52:13 Sandro: With the right default, ordered="no", logics such as BLD can be easily represented in XML and can be conveniently modified to ordered dialects using an explicit ordered="yes" where required. For example, a BLD is equivalent to . For a Prolog-like dialect can be used. 15:52:20 ChrisW: Sandro: how is this related to ASN/EBNF notation 15:53:01 Harold: explains how he handles order of things ... 15:53:10 sandro has joined #rif 15:53:26 Sandro: argues that it is not clear 15:53:48 zakim, unmute me 15:53:48 Michael_Kifer should no longer be muted 15:53:57 Sandro: are args of uniterms ordered? Does the syntax reflect that? 15:54:25 q? 15:54:31 ack m 15:54:53 MK: = does distinguish between its args 15:55:37 MK: can only capture *some* properties - not all ... why choose some and not others ? 15:55:37 s/ Sandro: With/ Sandro, With/ 15:56:14 q+ 15:57:15 q+ 15:57:17 Sandro: finds these details (ACI of and or or) important 15:57:47 Sandro, There can also be advanced data structure support for semantic axioms other than commutativity, e.g. for associativity. 15:58:55 ChrisW: Sandro are you designing ans API? 15:59:30 Sandro: it is a matter regarding how this should be serialized ... 15:59:33 But isn't the diffrence, in the case of RIF, that there is a semantics? 15:59:38 zakim, mute me 15:59:38 Michael_Kifer should now be muted 15:59:51 In data formats, do you have a smeantics in the same sesne, 15:59:52 (No, dialects have semantics, RIF per se does not.) 15:59:59 ChrisW: OK - let us talk about this at the F2F 16:00:00 (oh, okay.) 16:00:11 Example: plus(2 5 plus(3 1 4) 6) can be represented in efficient data structures -- with associativity built in -- as plus(2 5 3 1 4 6). 16:00:12 ack h 16:00:13 ack d 16:00:45 DaveReynolds: MK said that it is a linear notation, but what Sandro is saying is correct 16:00:51 if the notation is non linear 16:00:52 DaveR, so far we only have one XML attribute: type 16:01:23 Gary cannot attend F2F 16:01:27 DaveReynolds: RDF/XML takes the non-linearity a lot farther, with xml elements also not ordered. 16:01:31 Will dial in ... 16:01:44 zakim, next item 16:01:45 agendum 5. "Arch" taken up [from ChrisW] 16:02:28 ChrisW: review actions ... 16:02:39 action 343 - complete 16:03:03 action 337 - harold? 16:03:23 action 337 - complete 16:03:46 action 336 - complete 16:04:01 continued (plan to do that today) 16:04:12 action 331 - continued 16:04:28 action 333 - completed 16:04:39 action 333 - awaiting discussion 16:04:57 action 305 - completed 16:05:05 action 305 - awaiting discussion 16:05:42 Asleep? 16:05:51 ChrisW: what the status of the architecture documents? 16:06:10 Sandro: between rough text and jumbled discussions (???) 16:06:32 Sandro: explains a convention of editing it ... 16:06:56 ChrisW: is anyone interested in being an editor? 16:07:30 Maybe Sandro just starts and other people will jump in? 16:07:30 Loud roar of volunteers ! :-) 16:07:36 I was hesitatin, since I am not sure where it goes at this moment... otherwise I would volunteer! 16:07:48 Axel just volunteered 16:08:23 Axel: I was just waiting to see where it is all going ... 16:08:36 Axel: I'll decide by the F2F 16:08:50 ChrisW: will try to convince you ... 16:10:07 ChrisW: if we need to make the BLD doc simpler we need to trim things out ... Splitting into two part might make more sense, but need more editors 16:10:28 Axel: I will discuss this with Sandro ... 16:10:50 ChrisW: DavidReynolds pls feel free to participate as well 16:11:18 Dave is balancing extreme work overload with a desire to help :-( 16:11:23 q? 16:11:31 ChrisW: Comments? 16:11:37 None voiced ... 16:11:58 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Arch/XML_Syntax_Issues_2 16:11:58 ChrisW: Let us review the XML syntax document ... 16:12:27 ChrisW: Should we attack any now? 16:12:42 Sandro: I have not read the update 16:12:52 since yesterday 16:12:54 q+ 16:13:00 q+ 16:13:46 q+ 16:14:22 Axel: discusses his comments re: RDF ground facts being kept as is or not 16:14:33 Axel asks: s p o. (in RDF/XML) =?= s p o. (in RIF/RDF) 16:15:16 ack ax 16:15:29 Harold: Section 3 about orders was discussed 16:15:32 (Axel, I wonder if you can add some pro/con points?) 16:15:39 Harold: Section 4 structure sharing 16:15:53 (Sandr, good point!) 16:16:11 Harold: pointers should be avoided 16:16:14 4. Are there local pointers in the XML serialization? 16:16:34 Reasons for Local Pointers: 16:16:34 * Allows structure sharing (see below) 16:16:34 * Some dialects may have loop structures in their data 16:16:34 Reasons against: 16:16:35 * Makes serialization and deserialization more complicated 16:16:35 * Loop structures can also be represented using symbolic labels 16:16:37 * Pointers should be avoided on the level of rule interchange (specifying the "What"), as they can be introduced on the implementation level (realizing the "How") 16:16:40 * Reuse of rules is harder when they need to be disentangled from general graph structures, and easier when rules can be picked at the roots of their tree structures 16:16:43 * As far as we know, all practical rule languages use syntax that avoids local pointers. It is unclear as to why should an XML syntax radically depart from the established practice of defining syntaxes for rule languages. 16:16:48 I added Section 1.2, basically. 16:18:03 It would be useful to have examples (fragment of schema and instances) for the alternatives 16:18:50 Harold: using symbols for structure reuse is safer 16:19:10 Reasons to mandate structure sharing: 16:19:10 * Saves higher-level work on input processing (eg no symbol tables needed for rule variables) 16:19:10 * RIF documents will be smaller 16:19:10 Reasons to forbid it: 16:19:10 * Structure sharing is somewhat complicated and implementation-level (see above) 16:19:11 * 16:19:13 The Equal predicate of RIF BLD can be used as a declarative way to obtain small RIF documents by naming structures once and reusing their names as often as necessary 16:19:40 I do not understand that 16:19:46 can you give an example? 16:19:56 x = largetree 16:20:05 p(a x x) 16:20:49 Sandro: this functionality belongs in the syntax 16:22:07 Sandro: I am picking up a cultural difference between objects-people and tree-people 16:22:36 Harold: clarified issues of references, local constants 16:23:23 q? 16:23:29 ack h 16:23:31 Re issue 7 and 8: isn't that related to the question of data schemas? 16:23:31 More specifically isn't the serialisation of globally named variables (issue 8) dependant on how we handle externally specified data schemas? 16:23:41 CSMA? 16:23:47 zakim, unmute me 16:23:47 csma should no longer be muted 16:24:42 CSMA: issues 7 and 8 depend on how we define our data schema 16:25:39 Christian, if you regard http://example.com/books#LeRif as a data schema, then yes. 16:25:56 CSMA: metadata might also be used to disambiguate - how we serialize symbols etc ... Esp. when the data schema is externally specified 16:26:16 ChrisW: I do not understand ... 16:26:17 zakim, mute me 16:26:17 csma should now be muted 16:27:07 yes 16:27:07 DavidReynolds: issue is symbol matching between schemas 16:27:12 but not only 16:28:44 Sandro: expresses concerns about serialization procedure being BLD-specific ... 16:28:44