13:31:06 RRSAgent has joined #rif 13:31:06 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-rif-irc 13:31:11 rrsagent, make minutes 13:31:11 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/27-rif-minutes.html ChrisW 13:31:21 csma: e.g. the AEBNF might be normative with the asn07 as informative because it is more readable 13:31:36 Sandro: would lean to only having the XML Schema as normative, all else informative 13:32:00 Jos: but the semantics ties to a specific syntax and so that syntax also has to be normative 13:32:35 Harold: the semantics is given in presentation syntax so need semantics-preserving xform from ps to xml syntax 13:33:12 csma: does the semantics need presentation syntax rather than abstract syntax? 13:33:14 rrsagent, make logs public 13:33:57 Michael: order by awkwardness - asn, abstract, presentation from hardest to easiest 13:34:18 s/awkwardness/akwardness/ 13:34:27 csma: are we sure they are equivalent? 13:34:45 Sandro: no sure, believes so, not implemented converters for all cases 13:34:52 s/no/nnot/ 13:35:33 csma: don't need complete equivalence just that the specification of RIF is same in each case 13:35:55 +Hassan_Ait-Kaci 13:36:54 Harold: As Axel pointed out, there were problems with asn07 for things like fixed cardinality for equals 13:37:31 Sandro: it is the mapping from presentation syntax to XML syntax is the core thing that has to be normative, all else is just editorial 13:37:46 +??P12 13:37:55 zakim, ??P12 is me 13:37:55 +IgorMozetic; got it 13:38:01 zakim, mute me 13:38:01 IgorMozetic should now be muted 13:38:04 csma: does semantics need to be explained only for the presentation syntax? 13:38:47 Jos: if have an abstract syntax would expect that to be normative, define syntax in terms of that, but can equiv specify semantics in PS and have formal xform from AS to PS 13:39:27 csma: if we need a normative AS do we have concensus on AEBNF? 13:39:29 THe problem with devising an abstract syntax notation and its semantics is not really necessarily the scope of RIF, honestly. I think of what we want to do with asn, we could still do it with OWL, see: 13:39:29 http://www.w3.org/mid/45DC13B1.4010404@urjc.es 13:39:35 Sandro: depends on its purpose 13:39:47 Michael: asn is more like a data model 13:39:51 Sandro: right! 13:39:54 (my slides presented in a previous F2F) 13:40:24 Michael: don't need an AS just a syntax for defining the semantics, if also want a data model then do that separately 13:40:34 csma: what would be need a normative data model for? 13:40:53 Jos: isn't that for extensibility 13:41:13 Sandro: would accept asn not normative for now 13:41:39 csma: extensibility would be a argument in favour of having normative data model 13:42:04 Michael: thought is more like metaprogramming - manipulate rule syntax by rules, looks more like an API 13:42:12 Jos: in that case doesn't need to be normative 13:42:32 Axel: comes back to the ontologisation of RIF, does similar job to asn 13:42:56 Axel: so do we fix problems in asn or fall back to OWL? 13:43:07 Sandro: asn just subset of OWL with simpler syntax 13:43:15 Axel: need more formal specification of that 13:44:16 Dave: PRR is specified in terms of data model, is the reason for keeping a data model rep of RIF 13:45:09 csma: XML syntax of RIF must be a concrete syntax of PRR metamodel, doesn't require RIF has it's own metamodel but do want RIF XML syntax to be compatible with the PRR metamodel 13:45:49 Axel: whenever we make changes at the moment have to change both asn and syntax, better to keep them apart 13:46:40 csma: maybe come back to PRR alignment when we talk about the rule syntax 13:47:39 csma: if motivation of asn is extensibility couldn't it be that in BLD xml is normative, then in arch document explain how to go back to AS extend then go forward again 13:48:00 csma: then would need to decide now if AS is normative or not 13:48:14 q+ 13:48:26 Sandro: fine with talking asn and UML out of next draft, or say informative 13:48:51 ack hassan 13:49:32 Hassan: any programming language design regards the abstract syntax is the normative one, it is the one for the semantics - any surface syntax will then be OK 13:50:17 csma: many implementers will only look at the XML schema and implement it, so it has to be normative 13:50:31 Hassan: the semantics is about the essential constructs which means the abstract syntax 13:50:38 sandro has joined #rif 13:51:12 csma: ANSI std for C etc don't they include the surface syntax in the standard? 13:51:18 Hassan: disagrees 13:51:42 csma: RIF is about interchange so the interchange syntax has to also be normative 13:52:18 Sandro: the abstract syntax doesn't have to be visible to the rest of the world, doesn't go over the network 13:53:19 Hassan: talking about any tree representation of AS - asn07, KM3, whatever - so long as it is 2D and directly corresponds to the tree 13:54:16 csma: concrete syntax used to explain the semantics, concrete syntax used for the interchange, abstract could be hidden as part of the arch document 13:54:36 Hassan: I as implementer would implement the abstract syntax 13:55:21 Harold: engine implementer is interested in the schema, but the users are interested in the instance documents which are in XML 13:56:33 Hassan: how are you going to guarantee the surface syntax is correct if you hide the abstract syntax 13:58:32 As for "exhange is usually done in XML"... there are counterexamples... starting, but happening: People actually do start using things like Turtle to exchange RDF, look at pingthesemanticweb.com people *do* publish/exchange RDF in Turtle/N3 as well. (just a comment, I know we have XML in our charter ;-)) 14:00:16 Axel: Hassan saying the exchange syntax must reflect the abstract model 14:00:28 q- 14:00:47 Bob: are you saying we should use the abstract syntax as the mean of communication? 14:01:44 Bob: as a programmer I have to work with the concrete syntax 14:01:55 josb has joined #rif 14:02:51 Bob: what do I translate my rules to an abstract or a concrete syntax? 14:06:13 [Clarification the Hassan is indeed talking about abstract syntax in the sense of tree structured reprsentation as in AHU et al, so XML schema is isomorphic to that] 14:07:07 I would like propose some fixes in the abstract syntax/UML if we make it normative. E.g. the ordered/cardinality issue. 14:07:13 csma: raise an issue to capture this discussion on which is normative, need editor for the issue 14:09:06 Michael: you agree that giving semantics direct to XML syntax is painful, so need linear concrete syntax for writing down the semantics, but XML syntax has to be nomative so the mapping from the concrete syntax using in spec to the XML needs to also be normative 14:09:17 ...OWL seems to address cardinality. What about ordered attributes (like ordered paramterers in terms)? This could be, instead of an "ordered" flag, be tackled with a "position" property for paramerters. (getting already to technical detail here.) 14:09:21 s/using/used in/ 14:10:08 MoZ has joined #rif 14:10:18 Michael: for the mapping to be "correct" need semantics on both sides to verify the mapping is correct 14:10:23 ... if we'd use that, I think I'd be fully happy with the abstract model. 14:14:24 Discussion on the AS/PS/XML triangle which mappings between them are needed 14:15:00 Michael: the PS is the one that has the semantics so that is the only one that has to be normative 14:16:00 Hassan: the semantics is on the AS, even if written down on PS, there is an arrow from PS to AS 14:16:15 Hassan: what is binding is how to treat the AS constructs 14:16:37 csma: Hassan the XML schema is one representation for the AS 14:16:48 s/Hassan/Hassan is saying/ 14:17:29 Let me summarize my overall understanding of RIF rule interchange: 14:17:29 1) We have a *GENERIC* abstract model for conditions, rules, etc. 14:17:29 2) syntactically, the XML exchange syntax MUST reflect/express this abstract model 14:17:29 3) What is a dialect: 14:17:29 a) it MUST restricts/define which parts of the abstract model you are allowed to use and how 14:17:31 b) it MUST assign a semantics to this restricted part (model-theoretic, proof-theoretic, operational in that order of preference) 14:17:33 c) it MAY assign "roundtrippable" own syntaxes (arbitrary many, if you want ;-) ) ... and even define the semantics in terms of one of those special syntaxes 14:17:36 4) BLD should define a minimal dialect and other dialects should agree withthe semantics of BLD *on the part of the abstract model they share with BLD 14:17:53 Would I get a minute to present this on the projector? ;-) 14:21:06 I agree with Axel's approach! 14:22:46 Michael: what's wrong with the linear syntax? BNF specifies a tree right. 14:23:02 s/other dialects should/other dialects MUST 14:23:10 Hassan: the BNF specifies lots of irrelvant details that distract from the AS 14:23:25 Hassan: things like punctuation 14:25:17 Michael: so formally we'll have a tree but when we write it down we use this surface syntax, this is equiv to having a bidirectional mapping or at least map from PS to AS 14:25:33 Michael: but the mapping has to be normative to carry the semantics 14:26:10 Hassan: the semantics is attached to the AS, the PS is just a way to write it down but the semantics is being given to the tree 14:28:04 csma: propose that we resolve that the XML schema will be normative 14:28:11 AST (abstract syntax tree) are two-dimensional trees they can encode the structure (as determined by a parser) of the input as well as the input symbols. 14:28:26 csma: propose that we raise an issue how to link the semantics to the XML schema 14:28:58 Michael: objects to how long are going keep the issue open, surely we need a draft in October? 14:29:34 Axel: does not matter which syntax we define the semantics in, so long as it is round trippable 14:30:21 Axel: doesn't want to lock in the normative XML Schema for BLD if it locks the schema giving problems for other dialects 14:30:57 Sandro: the opposite would be to say that the mapping from PS to XML is normative 14:31:30 Jos: agrees 14:33:31 Jos: XML schema is not a complete specification of the syntax of the language (scribe is confused) 14:34:47 Sandro: a long time ago we had a algorithm for mapping from PS (in BNF) to XML, perhaps we should just back to that 14:35:07 Here is a simple example why we use the presentation syntax for the semantics: It's easier, in the semantics, to state, on the presentation syntax level, I |= head :- body than, on the abstract syntax level, I |= Implies(then->head, if->body). Even harder, in the semantics, to state this on the XML syntax level. 14:35:08 csma: then you don't have an XML Schema 14:35:40 Hassan: this the approach I'm taking 14:36:05 The only misconception which we still have is how tightly coupled the abstract model is to the presentation syntax... that means that the "simple" mapping to the abstract model, ie. deriving the abstract model to possibly limiting assumptions in BLD seems to possibly create lock-in situations for later extensions. That's my whole point. 14:36:39 +1 to Harold, that is in the spirit of 3)c) above. 14:36:45 Michael: any example of giving semantics to 2D language? 14:37:01 [not as scribe] -1 to Harold, saving a few characters is irrelevant 14:38:43 -1 to Harold; agree with Dave; a few characters more or less doesn't matter 14:38:57 Michael: both sides of the translation must be normative 14:39:06 csma: have to put this on paper 14:39:20 Action: Hassan to clarify the relationship between AS, PS and semantics 14:39:20 Created ACTION-346 - Clarify the relationship between AS, PS and semantics [on Hassan Ait-Kaci - due 2007-10-04]. 14:40:04 clarification: with my +1 I wanted to state that defining the semantics in whatever is most convenient is perfectly fine for me. Not whether the first or the latter of his was this most convenient one. 14:40:18 ScrribeNick: BobMoore 14:40:22 Scribe: Bob Moore 14:40:27 ScribeNick: BobMoore 14:41:06 Sandro - should we have a break 14:41:15 csma - only if you agree with me 14:41:57 Dave - does not think that having all 3 syntaxes without defining which is normative is a good idea 14:42:27 csma - need to have XML schema in next draft 14:42:34 DaveR and Jos, as you know, the semantics is often given to pieces of text, inline. It would be much harder to use the abstract syntax, inline, in this way. However, the Abstract EBNF is at least textual and *could* be used for the semantics. 14:43:03 micheal - can't be all normative without proof of equivalence 14:43:28 Dave - could do 14:44:02 csma - thinks we can leave this open in the draft 14:48:22 Chris would like to figure out what the issue is as far as all are concerned and what people think the options are 14:48:35 Yes we'll let you know 14:48:41 -Hassan_Ait-Kaci 14:53:16 After the break, answer: 14:53:17 What are we talking about? 14:53:17 What are the choices? 14:53:17 Which choices do you prefer? 15:02:54 Hassan, we are reconvening 15:03:29 Chair: Chris Welty 15:04:30 +Hassan_Ait-Kaci 15:05:43 Chris summary - Michael wants a contcrete syntax to define the formal semantics because he has issues about doing this within an abstract syntax 15:07:51 Michael comments specific example with regard to repeated argumetns only using DTD to work with 15:08:29 Chris has no particular view as to which is the best way of doing it 15:09:58 josb has left #rif 15:10:06 josb has joined #rif 15:10:12 csma: three roles: 1 xml syntax, 2 presentation syntax, 3 syntax for data model 15:10:20 (my words, not his) 15:10:25 csma - three roles to be achieved - something to define XML, something to define semantics, somththing for data model 15:11:29 csma - could use XML to stand for both XML and semantics 15:14:05 csma - translation from rules to RIF should be a secure process - ie translation process should ensure that output XML is syntactically and sematically valid 15:14:31 Sandro: We are talking about the PS-AS-XS triangle 15:14:31 Sandro: The choices are whether to us an AS, and if so, what the AS is like 15:14:31 Sandro: My preference if I were doing this alone would be to us asn07; but in the context of this WG let's just use the PS-XS line. 15:16:07 My preference would be to use the XML schema to specify the semantics as well, so that we would have only one norm (the XML schema); we may keep other (informative) representations for readibility 15:16:37 Dave - basically not sure that the abstract syntax is necessary, but it has some advantages and could be used to provide a single point of support 15:17:45 preference is to keep all three and keep the abstract syntax as the focal point 15:18:06 If specifying the semantics for the XML schema is impossible or too much of a burden, I would support having a concrete syntax (EBNF) to specify the semantics, and a mapping between AS and CS 15:19:47 BobMoore: concrete syntax, with semantics attached, and a mechanism for moving from that to XML. The AS doesn't seem to play an enormous role. Whenever you're implementing, you'll use some sort of AS, but in fact you can use different AS's -- the AS doesn't have to be unique. If the semanics hang off the PS, then let's start there. 15:20:09 BobMoore - so the PS has warts, but people can build up from it. 15:21:05 BobMoore: so the PS has warts, but people can build up from it. we still need the XML Schema eventually. We're always going to be a position of generating things which are semantically meaningless but syntactically correct. At best we can avoid having things be syntactically problematic. 15:21:32 BobMoore: If we work from the assumption that the rules are valid in the first place, then we don't need to worry too much about making the schema restrictive. 15:22:15 BobMoore: there may be no semantics for some Syntactically Valid XML documents. 15:22:33 Chris: Well -- there may be restriction you want to put on a DIALECT. 15:23:13 csma: If you know the semantics of a dialect ..... garbage in garbage out. 15:25:22 Chris: it's not about correctness, it's about the boundaries of a dialect which can or cannot be expressed. 15:25:40 MichaelKifer: eg DTDs are CF, but FOL is not a CF language. 15:26:49 DaveReynolds: things like declaration/use are part of syntax specification of a language, but not in the BNF 15:27:07 (various): where is the syntax / semantic line here? 15:28:17 paula - need a presentation syntax, but also need an abstract syntax if we want to extend things, and the XML is also needed so she would like to keep all three syntaxes 15:29:44 Harold has some slides to show his ideas 15:30:54 Basically his view is that the instances are effectively isomorphic so the "correctness" of all the syntaxes/semantics is implicit 15:33:34 Is any presentation of an abstract syntax still abstract? 15:34:20 Are the examples of the use of the Abstract Syntax actually a concrete syntax? 15:37:23 Harold - we need the abstract syntax to keep in tune with the way other groups are going 15:37:45 Everybody agrees about the triangle and maintaining each three reps consistent with one another. The point is which is normantive! 15:37:59 s/normantive/normative/ 15:38:37 Harold - since he has demonstrated a translation process between abstract and concrete syntaxes they are essentially isomorphic 15:39:49 Dave position summary: 15:39:51 Issue: Need linear notation for writing down semantics (PS), XML syntax 15:39:52 (XS) for interchange and link between the two. 15:39:53 Harold - could in theory "lift" the semantics from the concrete syntax to the abstract layer 15:39:54 Desirable to have one point of maintenance (AS) to similify extensions, 15:39:55 from which both PS and XS can be mechanically derived. 15:39:57 Options: 15:39:58 (1a) No AS, direct mapping for PS to XS. 15:40:00 (1b) As (1a) but make PS as minimalist as possible, close to abstract 15:40:01 syntax (i.e. in style of OWL) rather than half-way to syntax in which 15:40:03 people would actually like to write down rules 15:40:04 (2) Have a abstract (tree, 2D) model with a bidi map to PS, map to 15:40:06 XS. Notation for directly writing down AS (KM3, asn) as a single point 15:40:07 of maintenance. 15:40:09 Preference: for (2) would accept (1b). Prefer 2 partly for maintenance 15:40:10 argument. Concered that current spec has lots of things about escaping 15:40:12 and mangling representations (e.g. handling of rif:text) which are 15:40:13 only relevant to PS and not to XS or processing. 15:42:01 Michael - his thinking is to make the concrete syntax more abstract (to the point at which it becomes painful to use) 15:42:01 Michael - his thinking is to make the concrete syntax more abstract (to the point at which it becomes painful to use) 15:42:35 Effectively the idea seems to be to merge the concrete and abstract 15:43:28 Jos - thinks it might be an idea to raise the issue of linear vs non-linear syntaxes 15:46:21 Jos - XML schemas are not linear (?) 15:48:53 Alex - happy with EBNF presentation syntax for semantics, have an abstract model with several abstract syntaxes 15:49:12 s/Alex/Axel/ 15:49:41 Alex - he doesn't really see that there is a real difference between the EBNF, ans07 and XML schema syntaxes 15:50:54 s/Alex/Axel/ 15:51:14 Alex - some issues arise in the abstract model with regard to ordering and cardinality 15:52:35 Alex - these are possibly because we are trying to base the realisations of the abstract syntax too closely on the presentation syntaxes 15:53:08 Alex - only need to have a mapping from presentation syntax to XML 15:53:45 Alex - don't really need to make the presentation EBNF more abstract 15:54:11 s/Alex/Axel/ 15:54:20 Mike - thinks the XML must be "normative" as this is what people will actually use 15:54:31 I paste my views in irc now... (sorry, this is a bit lengthy): 15:54:32 I) EBNF (presentation) syntax and defining semantics of BLD 15:54:32 in terms of it, is perfect for me. (maybe trying to minimize 15:54:32 punctuation as far as possible, as proposed by Dave) 15:54:32 15:54:32 This should be normative! 15:54:35 15:54:36 II) Abstract model needs re-thinking at some points (order, cardinality), which 15:54:38 I think are easy to fix... (I can try to work my concrete proposal out till tomorrow.) 15:54:40 3 concrete technical problem in the current abstract model: 15:54:42 1) order, cardinality 15:54:44 2) no distinction between 15:54:46 c 15:54:46 Mike - he's not really sure what "normative" means 15:54:46 Mike - he's not really sure what "normative" means 15:54:48 and 15:54:50 c() 15:54:52 ( not even in presentation EBNF, while we do have a distinction 15:54:54 on the semantics level, easy to fix, allow 15:54:56 Uniterm ::= Const 15:54:58 ) 15:55:00 III) We can (and probably should!) fix these issue in the abstract model/syntax 15:55:02 and proceed to an XML exchange syntax now for BLD from it along with back 15:55:04 and forth mappings for representation EBNF. This exchange syntax 15:55:06 could/should(?? to be discussed) leave out BLD specific restrictions. 15:55:08 I would rather like to keep the abstract model presentation at UML diagrams 15:55:10 at this point for the WD 15:55:12 If we get it fixed, we should make the syntax and the EBNF/XML 15:55:14 mappings normative as well (leaving open possible changes 15:55:14 Mike - He is happy with triangle approach for future things 15:55:16 see next point). 15:55:18 IV) The final (interdialect) exchange syntax should be based on the 15:55:20 earlier mentioned mentioned points. particularly we should leave 15:55:22 the door open to add such an interdialect exchange XML later on 15:55:24 (we might still find more missing points when we focus on other dialects) 15:55:26 V) BOTH XML and EBNF could IMO be allowed exchange syntaxes for BLD. 15:55:28 XML will play a role mainly for interdialect stuff later on. 15:55:30 VI) Triangle is rather two levels: 15:55:32 PS: EBNF 15:55:34 AS: asn, aEBNF, UML and derived XML 15:56:20 P.S.: I personally think that the XML does not need to be convenient, but extensible in first place, see V) above. 15:56:28 Stella - XML is required, does not think that the abstract EBNF is very useful 15:57:06 csma - wants clarification on if we "need" a syntax - does it mean that the syntax is normative 15:57:22 general view is "need" means "normative" 15:58:59 Zakim, who is on the phone? 15:58:59 On the phone I see Meeting_Room, IgorMozetic (muted), Hassan_Ait-Kaci 15:59:00 q+ 15:59:01 Meeting_Room has AdrianPa, AxelPolleres, BobMoore, ChrisW, csma, DaveReynolds, Harold, jdebruijn, mdean, MichaelKifer, PaulaP, StellaMitchell, sandro 15:59:13 Adrian - concern is that to build translation tools we need to have some keep some kind of normative syntaxes 15:59:17 zakim, unmute me 15:59:17 IgorMozetic should no longer be muted 16:00:57 Hassan - of view that the normative syntax should be the abstract one 16:01:04 ack igor 16:01:28 zakim, unmute me 16:01:28 IgorMozetic was not muted, IgorMozetic 16:01:29 Igor - would like to stick with the presentation syntax as the normative core syntax 16:02:44 Hassan: shares Dave Reynolds's point (summed up above on IRC) and Mike Dean's XML being normative. The triangle three reps are simple to keep consistent by operational means. 16:03:57 Chris: everyone agreed we need a presentation syntax in the BLD document? 16:04:06 Chris - summarize so far - everybody thinks we "need" a presentation syntax in the document (need not be normative) 16:04:41 Chris: We need an XML syntax for interchange 16:04:49 Chris: We need an XML syntax for interchange (everyone seems to agree) 16:04:57 Chris - summarise so far - everybody thinks we need an XML schema (this will need to be "normative") 16:05:13 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 16:05:45 Chris - summarise so far - not everyone thinks we need an abstract syntax (though a lot do!) 16:06:25 Chris - summarize so far if we have two syntax there is (potentially) a consistency problem 16:06:46 +Gary_Hallmark 16:07:00 -Hassan_Ait-Kaci 16:07:47 Harold: instead of "abstract syntax" we could call it "intermediate syntax" or "intermediate language". 16:07:49 +1 Harold 16:08:49 -> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-semantics-20040210/mapping.html#4.1 Example of mapping from PS to .... 16:09:29 Jos - we don't "need" semantics on the XML 16:09:34 Harold - yes we do 16:10:48 Sandro - looking at OWL have mapping table for mapping syntax (and hence semantics) between presentation and XML bypassing abstact syntax 16:10:55 In order to show that the translator is semantics PRESERVING we need to define the semantics of the XML syntax, too, which is not so easy technically. 16:11:02 Sandro - this is not exactly elegant 16:11:36 q? 16:12:30 s/Harold: instead of "abstract syntax" we could call it "intermediate syntax" or "intermediate language"./Harold: instead of "abstract syntax" we could call it "intermediate syntax" or "intermediate language", and such an intermediate language is very helpful to define semantics and translators./ 16:12:39 Jos - can specify semantics without covering off all the tokenisation issues in the EBNF 16:15:23 Chris - celar we need two syntaxes - is there a translation process between the two? 16:15:50 AxelPolleres has joined #rif 16:15:55 Suggestion is that the process should be "not difficult" but not "trivial" 16:16:21 Jos, about your 2nd point, the Concrete EBNF for the presentation syntax goes down until, but does not include, the 'leaves' of the presentation syntax trees: these can be easily added WITHOUT CHANGING ANYTHING ON THE HIGHER LEVELS. 16:17:24 How can we be sure that the translation is bidirectional 16:18:24 Ojo! THe OWL<->RDF mapping is, btw, NOT injective! 16:20:14 Several XML documents may map to same presentation (ie semantics) 16:21:07 there ought to be a canonical XML document which is the output of a particular presention syntax 16:22:00 Harold - the abstract syntax can act as a bridge between these which makes proving the mapping is easier to do by breaking it down into two stages 16:22:10 -IgorMozetic 16:24:59 Jos has some doubts on how "trivial" translation from PS to XML even if we modify the PS 16:25:02 class2token('Equal','='), class2token('type','^^'), class2token('Var','?'), class2token('Implies',':-'), class2token('slot','->'), class2token('Instance','#'), class2token('Subclass','##'). 16:25:34 there is no "name" or value" token 16:26:10 for consts... this contracidcts the full-striping in some extent, I think. (just a remark) 16:26:53 OPTION 1: Change PS to have a simple mapping 16:27:25 OPTION 2: Use AS (abstract model) as Interlingua XS <-> PS 16:27:42 OPTION 3: Readable PS with complex XS mapping table 16:28:13 (OPTIONS for mapping XS <-> PS) 16:28:36 1 -- gives a verbose PS 16:28:52 2 -- lets us have terse PS 16:28:57 3 -- lets us have a terse PS 16:31:43 I have doubts about the difference between 1 and 3, unless 3 means that the PS cares about encoding of symbols 16:33:44 Option 1- 2 people 16:34:19 Option 2- 6 people 16:35:14 Option 3- Option 3- 3 people 16:35:41 Option 3- 4 people 16:36:35 Votes 2 for number 1, Votes 7.5 for number 2, Votes 4 for number 3 16:36:47 Gary only gets half a vote 16:38:18 Break for lunch 16:41:55 The question we are talking about seems to me: 16:42:11 2) PS <-> intermedaite abstract syntax <-> XML 16:42:27 3) PS <-> XML <-> abstract model 16:44:29 s/abstract model/abstract model (e.g. in UML)/ 16:46:14 -Gary_Hallmark 16:46:21 -Meeting_Room 16:46:23 SW_RIF(f2f)8:00AM has ended 16:46:24 Attendees were AdrianPa, AxelPolleres, BobMoore, ChrisW, csma, DaveReynolds, Harold, jdebruijn, mdean, MichaelKifer, PaulaP, StellaMitchell, sandro, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, IgorMozetic, 16:46:25 Yes, and you just said an intermediate abstract syntax, ie. 2), could be helpful? 16:46:26 ... Gary_Hallmark 17:37:25 people are starting to trickle back into the room 17:37:36 we'll start in a few mins 17:42:04 restarting - anyone joining on the phone? 17:43:37 first subject: external data and RIF 17:44:05 csma asks Dave whether or not he prepared some slides 17:44:21 Dave: perhaps my slides are out of date 17:44:27 Scribe: PaulaP 17:44:33 Dave: but, yes I have some slides 17:44:37 Scribenick: PaulaP 17:44:59 Dave: data models, data sets, application data * 17:45:27 Dave: I tried to determine the requirements regarding these issues and RIF 17:45:45 Dave explains his slides 17:46:01 Dave: important questions are: 17:46:13 how to identify a data set? 17:46:20 how to identify the data model? 17:46:25 how to access the data? 17:46:37 and...how to access the data model? 17:47:07 Dave: probably we do not need to answer all these questions 17:47:26 Dave: most if our use case imply external data sets 17:47:33 s/if/of 17:47:50 MichaelK: except one or two use cases 17:48:19 Dave: Rif has to support access to data in non-Rif formats 17:48:47 Dave: formats are XML, RDF, and an object data model 17:49:26 Dave: probably many data models needed in a ruleset 17:50:13 Dave: so, we have a couple of non-requirements 17:50:44 Dave: exchanging rulesets working on different data models 17:50:51 Dave: exchanging data models 17:51:15 Dave: how many data models? what kind of object models? 17:52:42 Dave: probably suffiecient to support XML for exchanging data and XML Schema for defining the data model 17:53:23 Dave: then use an object model, which is to be accessed by the rules to be interchanged 17:54:00 csma: no need to interchange data if the object model is known 17:54:16 csma: most interesting case from the biz rules community 17:54:44 csma: other issues exist but are out of scope for Rif 17:55:31 Dave: for example MOF has been used in practice for applications 17:56:14 Dave: RDF/OWL...Jos did some work here but there are still open issues 17:56:41 Dave: combining the RDF semantics or just access RDF data? 17:57:03 Dave: this issue is to be discussed later on 17:57:19 Dave: let's look at the typical XML processing model 17:57:42 Dave: people provide data, a consortium provides the schema 17:57:54 Dave: usually a validation step 17:58:06 Dave: then connect your data to a processor 17:58:26 Dave: usually translate the XML data to an object model 17:58:42 Dave: to be used for processing 17:59:08 Dave: so, the four questions from the beginning are now a bit different 17:59:54 BobMoore: it should be irrelevant where the instance data comes from 18:00:16 Sandro: so the question is whether you can do that between different vendors 18:01:07 BobMoore: the problem regarding the source of instance data is completely outside the Rif mechanisms 18:01:39 csma: to write rules for an application you need a processor and an object model 18:02:57 BobMoore: but this should be outside Rif, so what is the scope of this proposal then? 18:03:41 csma gives an example to convince Bob 18:04:12 csma: of course it remains to be discussed if this is to be covered by Rif or not 18:05:03 csma: we need XML to object translator 18:05:22 Sandro: there are different ways to map XML to an object model 18:05:49 BobMoore: but what if I have different implementations of the translator? 18:07:11 csma: there is no problem in our setting 18:09:00 AdrianP: do we ask queries and answers? 18:09:18 csma: Rif is about interchanging queries and not evaluating them 18:10:09 Dave: going back to the original questions 18:10:48 Dave: the questions are not different, we look at how to answer them 18:11:07 Dave: metadata for identifying data set and data model 18:11:39 Dave: acces the data schema is not an important req at moment 18:12:23 Dave: we need to discuss how to specify this metadata for identification 18:12:53 Dave: accessing the data - we need a way of doing the mapping 18:13:13 Dave: map an external model to Rif 18:13:47