IRC log of rif on 2007-09-28

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:06:45 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #rif
13:06:45 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/09/28-rif-irc
13:08:15 [Zakim]: Zakim has joined #rif
13:08:26 [DaveReynolds]: DaveReynolds has joined #rif
13:09:06 [StellaMitchell]: StellaMitchell has joined #rif
13:09:08 [josb]: josb has joined #rif
13:09:20 [sandro]: Zakim, who is here?
13:09:20 [Zakim]: sorry, sandro, I don't know what conference this is
13:09:21 [Zakim]: On IRC I see josb, StellaMitchell, DaveReynolds, Zakim, RRSAgent, bmoore3, sandro, rifbot
13:09:24 [sandro]: zakim, this is rif
13:09:24 [Zakim]: sandro, I see SW_RIF(f2f)8:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be rif".
13:09:26 [ChrisW]: ChrisW has joined #rif
13:09:36 [ChrisW]: zakim, this is rif
13:09:36 [Zakim]: ChrisW, I see SW_RIF(f2f)8:00AM in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be rif".
13:09:46 [mdean]: mdean has joined #rif
13:09:50 [AdrianPa]: AdrianPa has joined #RIF
13:09:51 [CGI396]: CGI396 has joined #rif
13:10:11 [patranja]: patranja has joined #rif
13:10:33 [StellaMitchell]: ScribeNick: StellaMitchell
13:10:49 [ChrisW]: Scribe: Stella Mitchell
13:10:56 [StellaMitchell]: csma: showing current abstract syntax for rules
13:10:57 [ChrisW]: who is CGI396
13:11:17 [ChrisW]: zakim, this will be rif
13:11:17 [Zakim]: ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF(f2f)8:00AM scheduled to start 71 minutes ago
13:11:53 [StellaMitchell]: csma: problem with extensibility (for example for existential quantification), with the current scheme
13:12:08 [Harold]: Harold has joined #rif
13:12:23 [StellaMitchell]: csma: another issue: a ground class it still enclosed in a forall
13:12:41 [StellaMitchell]: harold: we resolved to enclose every clause in forall
13:12:53 [StellaMitchell]: csma: no, not every clause, every variable
13:13:20 [StellaMitchell]: csma: and, it we did resolve it, it was a bad decision
13:13:31 [IgorMozetic]: IgorMozetic has joined #rif
13:13:53 [StellaMitchell]: sandro: we can change our minds only if we get new information
13:14:14 [Zakim]: SW_RIF(f2f)8:00AM has now started
13:14:21 [Zakim]: +??P8
13:14:33 [IgorMozetic]: zakim, ??P8 is me
13:14:33 [Zakim]: +IgorMozetic; got it
13:14:39 [IgorMozetic]: zakim, mute me
13:14:39 [Zakim]: sorry, IgorMozetic, muting is not permitted when only one person is present
13:14:46 [StellaMitchell]: csma: in summary, it is not extensible, ground clauses are enclosed in forall, and a minor issue that metadata is attached to a forall
13:14:50 [MichaelKifer]: MichaelKifer has joined #rif
13:14:52 [sandro]: We're calling now IgorMozetic
13:14:56 [Zakim]: +[IBM]
13:15:23 [IgorMozetic]: zakim, mute me
13:15:23 [Zakim]: IgorMozetic should now be muted
13:15:32 [StellaMitchell]: csma: in June, I proposed an alternative, that doesn't change the semantics and only changes syntax a little
13:16:35 [StellaMitchell]: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/Horn_Rules_Alternative
13:17:49 [StellaMitchell]: harold: we cannot syntactically enforce that the forall contains the approproate varialbes, because the syntax is context free
13:17:58 [StellaMitchell]: csma: that problem exists in both designs
13:18:30 [StellaMitchell]: csma: GaryH agreed that my proposal is acceptable
13:18:32 [ChrisW]: zakim, ibm is temporarily meeting_room
13:18:32 [Zakim]: +meeting_room; got it
13:19:00 [ChrisW]: CGI396 who are you?
13:19:12 [ChrisW]: IgorMozetic, can you hear OK?
13:19:50 [StellaMitchell]: BobM: asking about cardinality constaint on clauses
13:20:27 [IgorMozetic]: yes, I hear fine
13:20:45 [StellaMitchell]: csma: because of the design, if you have a rule, you must have a clause
13:22:16 [sandro]: CGI396? Hello?
13:22:39 [StellaMitchell]: csma: (presents a minor change to his original proposal)
13:24:22 [StellaMitchell]: csma: clause was renamed to conditionalWithQuantifiedVariables and it moves above the forall
13:24:45 [StellaMitchell]: csma: I propose we adopt this symtax in place of the current one
13:25:05 [StellaMitchell]: jos: question - if there is implies without forall, do all vars still have to be quantified
13:25:24 [StellaMitchell]: jos: i.e. will free variables be allowed?
13:25:42 [StellaMitchell]: csma: the situation with free variables is the same in current syntax and this one
13:26:53 [StellaMitchell]: jos: I don't agree with the text of the proposed resolution - because of the particular wording
13:27:14 [StellaMitchell]: jos: but I have no objection to the design
13:28:36 [StellaMitchell]: harold: rule is a word that is too specific to FOL
13:29:46 [StellaMitchell]: csma: 1. we have to have that stretch anyway 2. this proposal only means the structural model, not the exact wording
13:30:43 [StellaMitchell]: daver: there is a use case for having metadata at the top level, and it doesn't hurt anything
13:31:01 [StellaMitchell]: harold: it violates a minimalist design
13:31:30 [StellaMitchell]: csma: our discussion time for this item is over, and we weren't able to resolve, so we will raise an issue
13:31:34 [ChrisW]: action: harold to raise issue about new structural model for syntax of BLD rules
13:31:35 [rifbot]: Created ACTION-353 - Raise issue about new structural model for syntax of BLD rules [on Harold Boley - due 2007-10-05].
13:32:00 [StellaMitchell]: (csma will send slides to the group)
13:32:38 [StellaMitchell]: Topic: XML Syntax
13:33:38 [ChrisW]: sandro is on Arch/XML_Syntax on the wiki
13:33:45 [StellaMitchell]: sandro: (presenting slides)
13:34:05 [CGI396]: CGI396 has joined #rif
13:34:07 [StellaMitchell]: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Arch/XML_Syntax_Issues_2
13:34:54 [BobMoore]: BobMoore has joined #rif
13:35:01 [ChrisW]: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Arch/XML_Syntax_Issues/Root_Element
13:35:17 [StellaMitchell]: sandro: issue: what should root of BLD look like?
13:37:01 [ChrisW]: harold suggested rif:RIF for the root element name
13:37:37 [csma]: csma has joined #rif
13:38:25 [ChrisW]: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Arch/XML_Syntax_Issues/Root_Element
13:38:30 [StellaMitchell]: jos: why did you use curie and not uri?
13:39:05 [StellaMitchell]: michaelK: and you didn't define "rif:" but you don't need it anyway
13:39:18 [StellaMitchell]: sandro: curie: I made it optional
13:39:28 [StellaMitchell]: jos: xml tools will not know about curies
13:39:41 [StellaMitchell]: sandro: but they will not know about dialects either
13:40:04 [StellaMitchell]: michaelk: it's ambiguous, because xml will think it's a namespace
13:40:15 [StellaMitchell]: daver, jos: no, that isn't right
13:40:56 [StellaMitchell]: harold: suggestion:
13:41:11 [StellaMitchell]: harold: about identifying dialet
13:41:32 [StellaMitchell]: axel: awkward for inter-dialect interchange
13:42:37 [StellaMitchell]: (writing overview of issues on the board);
13:42:41 [StellaMitchell]: 1. use of curies
13:42:43 [StellaMitchell]: 2.
13:43:06 [StellaMitchell]: s/2./2. structure of uri's for dialect identification
13:43:19 [StellaMitchell]: 3. how to identify dialect
13:44:00 [StellaMitchell]: sandro: my assumption was that I should use curies wherever possible
13:44:06 [ChrisWelty]: ChrisWelty has joined #rif
13:45:18 [StellaMitchell]: options for 3:
13:45:23 [StellaMitchell]: a: dialect attribute
13:45:51 [StellaMitchell]: b: rif: dialect document
13:45:52 [ChrisWelty]: ChrisWelty has joined #rif
13:46:35 [ChrisW]: ChrisW has joined #rif
13:46:43 [AxelPolleres]: AxelPolleres has joined #rif
13:47:05 [ChrisW]: rrsagent, make minutes
13:47:05 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/28-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
13:47:08 [StellaMitchell]: MikeDean: we datatype attribute instead of object property for dialect
13:47:17 [StellaMitchell]: s/we/why/
13:47:20 [AxelPolleres]: Side remark: CURI -> CIRI ?
13:47:29 [StellaMitchell]: s/dialect/dialect?/
13:47:51 [ChrisW]: ChrisW has changed the topic to: RIF F2F7 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F7
13:48:05 [ChrisW]: rrsagent, make logs public
13:50:14 [Harold]: Option F: <rif:RIF xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2007/rif/BLD" xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#"> . . . </RIF>
13:50:49 [Harold]: <rif:RIF xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2007/rif/BLD" xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#"> . . . </rif:RIF>
13:51:30 [StellaMitchell]: sandro: rif:Document vs. rif:BLDDocument
13:51:45 [StellaMitchell]: harold: and I proposed another option above in irc
13:52:11 [ChrisW]: Chair: Chris Welty
13:52:18 [ChrisW]: Chair: Christian de Sainte-Marie
13:52:22 [AxelPolleres]: I think we should not use different namespaces per dialect, that seems to lock out reuse of common elements between dialects.
13:52:28 [StellaMitchell]: sandro: what would use the default namespace?
13:53:00 [StellaMitchell]: harold: the second namespace is for extensions
13:53:22 [StellaMitchell]: michaelK: but it would be difficult to identify the dialect
13:53:48 [StellaMitchell]: harold: we need a modular approach
13:53:53 [ChrisW]: zakim, meeting_room contains Stella Mitchell, Mike Dean, Adrian Paschke, Axel Polleres, Jos de Bruijn, Paula Patranjan, Dave Reynolds, Bob Moore, Harold Boley, Michael Kifer, Sandro Hawke, Christian de Sainte-Marie, Chris Welty
13:53:53 [Zakim]: +Stella, Mitchell, Mike, Dean, Adrian, Paschke, Axel, Polleres, Jos, de, Bruijn, Paula, Patranjan, Dave, Reynolds, Bob, Moore, Harold, Boley, Michael, Kifer, Sandro, Hawke,
13:53:56 [Zakim]: ... Christian, de, Sainte-Marie, Chris, Welty; got it
13:54:03 [ChrisW]: zakim, list attendees
13:54:03 [Zakim]: As of this point the attendees have been IgorMozetic, Stella, Mitchell, Mike, Dean, Adrian, Paschke, Axel, Polleres, Jos, de, Bruijn, Paula, Patranjan, Dave, Reynolds, Bob, Moore,
13:54:07 [Zakim]: ... Harold, Boley, Michael, Kifer, Sandro, Hawke, Christian, Sainte-Marie, Chris, Welty
13:54:53 [StellaMitchell]: axel: concern (?)
13:55:07 [ChrisW]: zakim, meeting_room contains StellaMitchell, MikeDean, AdrianPaschke, AxelPolleres, JosdeBruijn, PaulaPatranjan, DaveReynolds, BobMoore, HaroldBoley, MichaelKifer, SandroHawke, ChristiandeSainte-Marie, ChrisWelty
13:55:07 [Zakim]: +StellaMitchell, MikeDean, AdrianPaschke, AxelPolleres, JosdeBruijn, PaulaPatranjan, DaveReynolds, BobMoore, HaroldBoley, MichaelKifer, SandroHawke, ChristiandeSainte-Marie,
13:55:10 [Zakim]: ... ChrisWelty; got it
13:55:17 [ChrisW]: zakim, who is here?
13:55:17 [Zakim]: On the phone I see IgorMozetic (muted), meeting_room
13:55:18 [Zakim]: meeting_room has StellaMitchell, MikeDean, AdrianPaschke, AxelPolleres, JosdeBruijn, PaulaPatranjan, DaveReynolds, BobMoore, HaroldBoley, MichaelKifer, SandroHawke,
13:55:22 [Zakim]: ... ChristiandeSainte-Marie, ChrisWelty
13:55:23 [Zakim]: On IRC I see AxelPolleres, ChrisW, csma, BobMoore, MichaelKifer, IgorMozetic, Harold, PaulaP, AdrianPa, mdean, josb, StellaMitchell, DaveReynolds, Zakim, RRSAgent, sandro, rifbot
13:55:32 [ChrisW]: zakim, list attendees
13:55:32 [Zakim]: As of this point the attendees have been IgorMozetic, Stella, Mitchell, Mike, Dean, Adrian, Paschke, Axel, Polleres, Jos, de, Bruijn, Paula, Patranjan, Dave, Reynolds, Bob, Moore,
13:55:35 [Zakim]: ... Harold, Boley, Michael, Kifer, Sandro, Hawke, Christian, Sainte-Marie, Chris, Welty, StellaMitchell, MikeDean, AdrianPaschke, AxelPolleres, JosdeBruijn, PaulaPatranjan,
13:55:38 [Zakim]: ... DaveReynolds, BobMoore, HaroldBoley, MichaelKifer, SandroHawke, ChristiandeSainte-Marie, ChrisWelty
13:55:50 [StellaMitchell]: (back to issues lists)
13:55:57 [StellaMitchell]: 4. namepsaces
13:56:30 [StellaMitchell]: harold: do we want a tree of dialects or a deck (lattice) of them?
13:56:45 [StellaMitchell]: sandro: the issues we need to solve today are:
13:56:56 [StellaMitchell]: A. RDF?
13:57:13 [StellaMitchell]: B. Root = Dialect Specific
13:57:34 [StellaMitchell]: C. Root is "Document or RIF"
13:58:01 [AxelPolleres]: Harold: Exactly what you say is why I want the core components to be labeled rif and not rifBLD... BLD already makes some restictions on the use of the core components (e.g. no forall in bodies, etc. which other languages would maybe want to allow)
13:58:11 [StellaMitchell]: sandro: any objectsion to making it not dialect specific?
13:58:26 [StellaMitchell]: s/objectsion/objections/
13:58:48 [StellaMitchell]: harold: wants it be dialect specific
13:59:33 [StellaMitchell]: straw poll: should the root element be dialect specific?
13:59:43 [StellaMitchell]: any strong opinions on this?
13:59:53 [StellaMitchell]: show of hands
14:00:44 [StellaMitchell]: proposed: for WD2, the root element will not be dialect specific
14:01:02 [sandro]: resolved: for WD2, the root element will not be dialect specific
14:01:14 [ChrisW]: rrsagent, make minutes
14:01:14 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/28-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
14:01:52 [ChrisW]: RESOLUTION: for BLD WD2, the root element will not be dialect specific
14:01:55 [ChrisW]: rrsagent, make minutes
14:01:55 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/28-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
14:02:20 [ChrisW]: Meeting: RIF F2F8 - 28 Sept 2007
14:02:57 [StellaMitchell]: sandro: discussing name of root element
14:03:12 [StellaMitchell]: harold: "document" is too general
14:03:35 [StellaMitchell]: sandro: no, it would be rif:Document or rif:RIFDocument
14:04:01 [StellaMitchell]: sandro: because I want to know what it is from an object perspective
14:04:28 [StellaMitchell]: MichaelK: let's be compatible with the other standards
14:05:55 [IgorMozetic]: I vote for rif:RIF (for consistency with others)
14:07:32 [StellaMitchell]: proposed: root element will be rif:Document
14:07:45 [sandro]: RESOLVED: root element is rif:Document
14:07:56 [ChrisW]: RESOLUTION: root element is rif:Document
14:08:07 [StellaMitchell]: vote outcome:
14:08:17 [ChrisW]: rrsagent, make minutes
14:08:17 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/28-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
14:08:32 [StellaMitchell]: rif:Document - 4 for, 0 against
14:09:13 [StellaMitchell]: rif:RIFDocument 2 for, 4 against
14:09:23 [StellaMitchell]: rif:RIF 5 for, 1 against
14:09:46 [Zakim]: -IgorMozetic
14:13:26 [StellaMitchell]: sandro: issue about identifying rulesets
14:13:42 [StellaMitchell]: csma: suggests "name" instead of "id"
14:15:34 [Harold]: ID/IDREF in XML: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#ID
14:17:47 [Harold]: <length
14:17:47 [Harold]: fixed = boolean : false
14:17:47 [Harold]: id = ID
14:17:47 [Harold]: value = nonNegativeInteger
14:17:47 [Harold]: {any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
14:17:47 [mdean]: http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-id/
14:17:48 [Harold]: Content: (annotation?)
14:17:50 [Harold]: </length>
14:18:28 [StellaMitchell]: sandro: we decided at f2f4 to use IRI
14:19:30 [StellaMitchell]: daver: re: options b, typcially they can still be relative uri's
14:22:26 [StellaMitchell]: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Arch/XML_Syntax_Issues/Identifying_Rulesets
14:23:56 [StellaMitchell]: sandro: and I want to add another option to this list, for xml:id
14:26:27 [StellaMitchell]: daver: use relative uri's not ids
14:26:51 [StellaMitchell]: daver: will make rule merging easier
14:27:07 [ChrisW]: zakim, who is on the phone?
14:27:07 [Zakim]: On the phone I see meeting_room
14:27:08 [Zakim]: meeting_room has StellaMitchell, MikeDean, AdrianPaschke, AxelPolleres, JosdeBruijn, PaulaPatranjan, DaveReynolds, BobMoore, HaroldBoley, MichaelKifer, SandroHawke,
14:27:10 [Zakim]: ... ChristiandeSainte-Marie, ChrisWelty
14:27:16 [StellaMitchell]: harold: it's legal to attach an id to any element
14:27:24 [Zakim]: -meeting_room
14:27:25 [Zakim]: SW_RIF(f2f)8:00AM has ended
14:27:26 [Zakim]: Attendees were IgorMozetic, Stella, Mitchell, Mike, Dean, Adrian, Paschke, Axel, Polleres, Jos, de, Bruijn, Paula, Patranjan, Dave, Reynolds, Bob, Moore, Harold, Boley, Michael,
14:27:31 [Zakim]: ... Kifer, Sandro, Hawke, Christian, Sainte-Marie, Chris, Welty, StellaMitchell, MikeDean, AdrianPaschke, AxelPolleres, JosdeBruijn, PaulaPatranjan, DaveReynolds, BobMoore,
14:27:34 [Zakim]: ... HaroldBoley, MichaelKifer, SandroHawke, ChristiandeSainte-Marie, ChrisWelty
14:27:55 [StellaMitchell]: harold: mikedean pointed us to a 2005 draft about ids, above in ird
14:28:04 [StellaMitchell]: s/ird/irc/
14:28:46 [StellaMitchell]: daver: suggested using rdf:about or something similar, instead of xml:id
14:29:05 [StellaMitchell]: daver: (and would not use curies, because they are more controversial)
14:29:30 [StellaMitchell]: daver: rdf:about is an attribute
14:30:34 [StellaMitchell]: daver: but I was not suggesting rdf:about exactly - just a relative uri in general
14:31:45 [StellaMitchell]: sandro: the basic choice is between ids (incl xml machinery) and uris
14:33:13 [StellaMitchell]: csma: ids restricting to one per document
14:33:48 [StellaMitchell]: daver: ids are a problem for merging
14:34:10 [StellaMitchell]: mikedean: rules should be uniquely named only within a ruleset?
14:34:18 [StellaMitchell]: csma, sandro; no
14:36:03 [StellaMitchell]: daver: with rdf syntax, we would get some processing for free - but that is a different issue
14:36:19 [StellaMitchell]: csma: poll between relative uris, and ids
14:36:30 [StellaMitchell]: vote outcome:
14:36:51 [StellaMitchell]: relative uris: 8
14:37:01 [StellaMitchell]: ids: 0
14:37:23 [StellaMitchell]: s/8/8 for/0 against/
14:37:44 [StellaMitchell]: s/ids: 0/for 0/against 1/
14:52:52 [mdean]: scribenick: mdean
14:56:35 [mdean]: continue ArchXML Syntax Issues
14:57:08 [mdean]: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Arch/XML_Syntax_Issues/Identifying_Rulesets
14:58:18 [Zakim]: SW_RIF(f2f)8:00AM has now started
14:58:25 [Zakim]: +Gary_Hallmark
14:58:47 [mdean]: discussion of attribute names rdf:about or rif:<something>
14:58:48 [Zakim]: -Gary_Hallmark
14:58:49 [Zakim]: SW_RIF(f2f)8:00AM has ended
14:58:50 [Zakim]: Attendees were Gary_Hallmark
14:58:59 [Zakim]: SW_RIF(f2f)8:00AM has now started
14:59:06 [Zakim]: +[IBM]
14:59:07 [mdean]: rif: options: about, id, ident, uri, iri, oid
14:59:28 [mdean]: rif:iri is used elsewhere, which could cause confusion
14:59:36 [mdean]: globalID, globalName
15:00:04 [mdean]: Harold: also need attribute to refer to ruleset or rule?
15:00:25 [DaveReynolds]: DaveReynolds has joined #rif
15:00:25 [mdean]: Harold: or is this only a handle for metadata?
15:00:40 [mdean]: name
15:01:17 [mdean]: Harold: oid is for frames only
15:01:39 [mdean]: take out uri and iri
15:01:51 [mdean]: Jos: identifier or id, not ident
15:02:33 [mdean]: Harold: possible confusion between id and xml:id
15:03:07 [mdean]: MichaelKifer: uniqueness requirements?
15:04:56 [mdean]: Chris: architecture of Semantic Web assumes URI are unique - not our problem that we can't enforce it
15:06:16 [mdean]: csma: could we use rif:about and express equivalence to rdf:about?
15:06:46 [mdean]: Sandro: mapping required, but not automatic
15:08:46 [mdean]: name: 6 prefer, 0 object
15:09:09 [mdean]: globalId: 1 prefer, 1 object
15:09:17 [mdean]: about: 1 prefer, 0 object
15:09:28 [mdean]: identifier: 3 prefer, 0 object
15:10:48 [mdean]: Chris: nobody expects names to be unique, but do expect identifiers to be unique
15:15:03 [mdean]: reconsider id?
15:15:09 [mdean]: Sandro: hasIRI?
15:15:47 [mdean]: Harold: metadataAttachmentPoint
15:16:01 [AxelPolleres]: i like rif:tafkab
15:18:12 [mdean]: straw poll #2
15:18:35 [Zakim]: +Gary_Hallmark
15:18:48 [mdean]: name: 1 prefer, csma objects
15:19:24 [mdean]: id: 2 prefer, jos and chris object
15:19:33 [mdean]: identifier: 8 prefer, 0 object
15:19:48 [mdean]: hasIRI: 1 prefer, Adrian and Axel object
15:19:56 [Harold]: Harold has joined #rif
15:20:05 [mdean]: metadataAttachmentPoint: 1 prefer, various object
15:22:46 [sandro]: PROPOSED: To identify rules and rulesets (and other syntactic objects needing identifiers) we'll use rdf:about or rif:identifier in the next draft.
15:23:50 [sandro]: PROPOSED: To identify rules and rulesets (and other syntactic objects not otherwise having identifiers) we'll use rdf:about or rif:identifier in the next draft.
15:24:41 [sandro]: PROPOSED: To identify rules and rulesets (and other syntactic objects not otherwise having identifiers) we'll use rdf:about or rif:identifier in the next draft. This is envisioned for metadata and should not affect the semantics.
15:25:56 [sandro]: RESOLVED:: To identify rules and rulesets (and other syntactic objects not otherwise having identifiers) we'll use rdf:about or rif:identifier in the next draft. This is envisioned for metadata and should not affect the semantics.
15:26:39 [Harold]: Comment: So, as we discussed, the identifier attribute is not meant for names within the language.
15:26:58 [mdean]: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Arch/XML_Syntax_Issues/Positional_Arguments
15:27:17 [Zakim]: -Gary_Hallmark
15:28:49 [AxelPolleres]: I propose: To identify order/position of arguments in uniterms (and other syntactic objects needing order) we'll use an rdf:position attribute in the next draft.
15:30:28 [AxelPolleres]: ... seems to be option E.
15:31:34 [AxelPolleres]: <arg position="1"> ... </arg>
15:31:53 [mdean]: Sandro: doesn't fit normal striping
15:33:31 [mdean]: Chris: perhaps fold position into parameter names
15:33:37 [Harold]: Axel, Yes, we have in the draft that Opt. A is interpreted as
15:33:43 [Harold]: <Uniterm>
15:33:43 [Harold]: <op>...</op>
15:33:43 [Harold]: <arg index="1"><...></arg>
15:33:43 [Harold]: <arg index="2"><...></arg>
15:33:43 [Harold]: <arg index="3"><...></arg>
15:33:44 [Harold]: </Uniterm>
15:33:44 [mdean]: Axel: precludes named positional arguments
15:34:33 [mdean]: Michael: order is determined by semantics, can be done in XML Schema, why do we need it in instances?
15:36:08 [mdean]: csma: can imagine cases in other dialects where order of rules matters, e.g. production rules
15:36:17 [AxelPolleres]: s/precludes named/using the same attribute for name and position precludes named/
15:36:21 [Harold]: In http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/Positive_Conditions, section "XML serialization" we have
15:36:21 [Harold]: - arg (argument role, positional/non-positional without/with optional 'index' attribute)
15:36:56 [DaveReynolds]: Possibly helpful discussion of issues of ordering in XML: http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-eleord.html
15:36:59 [AxelPolleres]: another argument against using the same attribute for position and name nedds care excpluding position names as slot names.
15:37:31 [mdean]: csma: production rules typically distinguish sequential or not - necessary for round-tripping
15:38:20 [mdean]: Chris: issue: does order need to be indicated in RIF document?
15:38:44 [Harold]: So like OPTION C2 and HTML reads <li><...></li> in sequence, so does the current draft reads <arg><...></arg> as <arg index="i"><...></arg>.
15:39:23 [Zakim]: +Gary_Hallmark
15:41:07 [mdean]: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Arch/XML_Syntax_Issues/Positional_Arguments
15:41:25 [GaryHallmark]: GaryHallmark has joined #rif
15:41:30 [mdean]: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Arch/XML_Syntax_Issues/Positional_Arguments
15:41:53 [mdean]: Dave: XML parser can reorder arguments, though most don't
15:42:09 [csma]: Gary, the discussion is whether (and how) to indicate order in documents, when the schema contains that information and the semantics as well
15:42:11 [mdean]: Dave: InfoSet is ordered
15:42:28 [mdean]: Bob: XML Schema can specify order
15:43:13 [csma]: Chris: we are dealing with the case where the schema specify order
15:43:44 [GaryHallmark]: +1 for option A.
15:44:14 [mdean]: Bob: implicit ordering of arguments
15:44:52 [mdean]: Sandro: consider rule set where rules are not ordered
15:45:58 [mdean]: csma: support schemaless parsing into unordered structures
15:46:26 [mdean]: Harold: preserve editing order
15:46:35 [mdean]: ... e.g. as in Protege
15:46:51 [GaryHallmark]: +1 for Harold's point. XML *is* ordered, and that's often a good thing
15:47:13 [mdean]: csma: assume ordered until semantic level
15:47:55 [mdean]: Axel: ruleset implies unordered
15:49:33 [mdean]: ... should we use ruleprogram instead :-)
15:50:27 [mdean]: Dave: may impact ruleset merging - motivates unordering of RDF
15:51:20 [GaryHallmark]: I want my rules in an XML document that I can edit, store, transmit, etc. Not in some unordered pile of triples...
15:52:21 [mdean]: csma: ordered for parser not semantics
15:54:01 [Harold]: As I said, the Protege group at SMI, had the same discussion about whether to preserve class-definition order: although the semantic will *interpret* the definitions in an unordered manner (the order does not matter semantically), the Protege group decided to preserve the editing order so people can roundtrip through the tool without losing their editing order information (very helpful for documentary purposes).
15:54:15 [mdean]: Gary: XML is ordered
15:54:57 [mdean]: Dave: concerned about assuming everything is ordered
15:55:24 [mdean]: Michael: just make sure you preserve the semantics
15:56:08 [mdean]: csma: want some rules to be processed as ordered, property of ruleset not schema
15:57:26 [Harold]: For multiple 'includes' the inclusion order could also be preserved for inspection and editing purposes, again without affecting the unordered semantic *interpretation* of the merged ruleset.
15:58:19 [mdean]: csma: what if new parser lost order?
15:59:01 [Harold]: Bob, right, the repeated arg elements in
15:59:03 [Harold]: <Uniterm>
15:59:03 [Harold]: <op>...</op>
15:59:03 [Harold]: <arg><...></arg>
15:59:03 [Harold]: <arg><...></arg>
15:59:03 [Harold]: <arg><...></arg>
15:59:04 [Harold]: </Uniterm>
15:59:15 [Harold]: are read as
15:59:15 [Harold]: <Uniterm>
15:59:15 [Harold]: <op>...</op>
15:59:15 [Harold]: <arg index="1"><...></arg>
15:59:15 [Harold]: <arg index="2"><...></arg>
15:59:16 [Harold]: <arg index="3"><...></arg>
15:59:18 [Harold]: </Uniterm>
16:00:16 [mdean]: Sandro: doesn't make sense to order properties
16:01:17 [mdean]: Axel: assuming XML syntax close to abstract model
16:01:32 [mdean]: ... UML doesn't provide good way to indicate order
16:02:35 [mdean]: Chris: is redundancy need in document so it can be processed without syntax specification
16:03:05 [mdean]: Sandro: ASN specifies ordered in some cases where it's not necessary
16:03:26 [mdean]: s/need/needed/
16:04:33 [mdean]: Dave: RDF is such an unordered representation
16:05:25 [mdean]: Sandro: output of RDF mapping is horrendous with lots of lists
16:06:33 [mdean]: straw poll: indicate order or not
16:06:40 [AdrianPa]: AdrianPa has joined #RIF
16:08:41 [mdean]: Gary: how to tell from schema?
16:08:52 [mdean]: Bob: sequence vs. all
16:09:08 [mdean]: Gary: some restrictions on all
16:09:16 [mdean]: Michael: repeating elements OK
16:10:20 [Harold]: "The all group (which provides a simplified version of the SGML &-Connector) is limited to the top-level of any content model. Moreover, the group's children must all be individual elements (no groups), and no element in the content model may appear more than once, i.e. the permissible values of minOccurs and maxOccurs are 0 and 1. "
16:10:31 [Harold]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-0-20010502/
16:11:09 [Harold]: (more precisely: http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-0-20010502/#groups)
16:12:01 [mdean]: Gary: editor could provide presentation order e.g. by label
16:12:22 [AxelPolleres]: scribe: Axel Polleres
16:12:35 [AxelPolleres]: scribenick: Axel Polleres
16:13:41 [AxelPolleres]: michael: restriction on order in XML not "severe" (michael: pls post a link?)
16:14:52 [AxelPolleres]: ... discussing XML schema ALL directive.
16:15:36 [AxelPolleres]: Bob: ALL doesn't indicate that the elements should be *treated* unordered
16:16:38 [AxelPolleres]: Chris: Do we want to preserve order where not necessary by semantics, e.g. slotted terms?
16:18:01 [AxelPolleres]: Axel: I am worried about extensibility if we now go for the order to be always reflected.
16:18:04 [Harold]: Axel, like in HTML you are allowed to say
16:18:05 [Harold]: <li><...></li>
16:18:05 [Harold]: <li><...></li>
16:18:05 [Harold]: <li><...></li>
16:18:13 [AxelPolleres]: Chris: this is not the question here.
16:18:32 [Harold]: we can say
16:18:33 [Harold]: <arg><...></arg>
16:18:33 [Harold]: <arg><...></arg>
16:18:33 [Harold]: <arg><...></arg>
16:18:44 [Harold]: and parse it as
16:18:52 [Harold]: <arg index="1"><...></arg>
16:18:52 [Harold]: <arg index="2"><...></arg>
16:18:52 [Harold]: <arg index="3"><...></arg>
16:19:00 [AxelPolleres]: Sandro (whiteboard): Is the semantics that it's not ordered to be reflected in every instance document?
16:19:42 [AxelPolleres]: scribe-hat off: Harold, I like that option, it caters for both sides in some sense.
16:20:30 [AxelPolleres]: Michael and Sanrdo: further arguing whether this plays a role for parsers, e.g. reading into a database.
16:20:46 [AxelPolleres]: michael: sql databases are ordered (rela alg. is not)
16:21:30 [AxelPolleres]: Bob: if we stick the information in the xml, what benefit do we get?
16:23:05 [AxelPolleres]: Christian: Sandro, if you want to put it in a triple store, it is not a question of the parser.
16:24:01 [AxelPolleres]: Sandro: unordered saves trouble in storing in triplestores, whereas order needs to be encoded in lists or by assitional sequence attributes.
16:24:02 [Harold]: Axel, Yes, this is part of OPTION A.
16:24:39 [AxelPolleres]: scribe-hat off: Harold, but one is on pro and the second is on con side.
16:25:12 [AxelPolleres]: chris: who prefer to have order indicated?
16:25:29 [AxelPolleres]: 4 pro / 8 against
16:25:57 [AxelPolleres]: chris: who would object order being indicated?
16:26:08 [AxelPolleres]: 1 (bob)
16:26:52 [AxelPolleres]: chris: who would object to not indicate order?
16:27:00 [AxelPolleres]: 2 (sandro, axel)
16:27:02 [Harold]: Axel, as you said "it caters for both sides in some sense".
16:27:16 [AxelPolleres]: sandro: i can't do the implementation I want, then.
16:28:53 [AxelPolleres]: harold: It is not so tragic, in reality.
16:30:30 [AxelPolleres]: christian: bob's objection is different from sandro's objection, since bob said it doesn't make sense, whereas sandro says he cannot use his tools anymore.
16:31:05 [AxelPolleres]: chris (chairhat off): the fact that you can indicate oreder in XML (schema) seems a stronger argument for me.
16:31:33 [AxelPolleres]: sandro: but you don't know when order doesn't meatter then.
16:31:47 [Harold]: Sandro's tool, which disregards the order of rules in a Ruleset etc, can still be used, but people will often also keep the original input Ruleset document because they cannot roundtrip through that tool.
16:32:27 [Harold]: (So, the problem is a kind of duplication of the Ruleset, not that the tool is unusable.)
16:35:16 [ChrisW]: gary - if you want to get on the queue, do it on IRC and the scribe will tell me
16:35:24 [AxelPolleres]: michael: ordered case is the more common one.
16:35:57 [AxelPolleres]: axel: would you then indicate unordered explicitly?
16:36:36 [AxelPolleres]: gary: order for AND is important, if we allow built-ins!
16:37:22 [Harold]: Reading/Parsing <arg><...></arg> as <arg index="i"><...></arg> for the ith element is like HTML's use of <li><...></li>: a position-dependent default value for the index attribute.
16:38:07 [AxelPolleres]: bob: you may want to preserve the order for some cases
16:38:19 [AxelPolleres]: sandro: then don't use BLD
16:38:39 [AxelPolleres]: christian: OMG PRR has ben voted an alpha specification
16:39:06 [AxelPolleres]: chris: lunchbreak!
16:39:07 [Zakim]: -Gary_Hallmark
16:39:09 [Zakim]: -[IBM]
16:39:10 [Zakim]: SW_RIF(f2f)8:00AM has ended
16:39:11 [Zakim]: Attendees were [IBM], Gary_Hallmark
17:32:59 [ChrisW]: rrsagent, make minutes
17:32:59 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/28-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
17:38:58 [sandro]: PROPOSED: In WD2 there will be no indication of whether order has semantics in XML instance documents. The issue remains open for future drafts.
17:40:11 [AxelPolleres]: sandro/axel: we resolved a workaround for the implementation issue which sandro mentioned before the break during lunch, which we can live with for the moment.
17:40:13 [GaryHallmark]: GaryHallmark has joined #rif
17:40:51 [Zakim]: SW_RIF(f2f)8:00AM has now started
17:40:58 [Zakim]: +Gary_Hallmark
17:41:17 [GaryHallmark]: call Zakim when you start...
17:41:27 [AxelPolleres]: sandro: we still need a strawpoll: how many people prefer an XML/RDF syntax?
17:41:57 [AxelPolleres]: 2 pro votes
17:42:16 [AxelPolleres]: s/votes/hands up
17:42:24 [AxelPolleres]: s/votes/hands up/
17:42:40 [sandro]: we're dialing you in Gary
17:42:45 [Zakim]: +[IBM]
17:42:58 [ChrisW]: zakim, ibm is temporarily meeting_room
17:42:58 [Zakim]: +meeting_room; got it
17:43:13 [sandro]: PROPOSED: In WD2 there will be no indication of whether order has semantics in XML instance documents. The issue remains open for future drafts.
17:43:27 [sandro]: Note that this implies WD2 will not have an RDF/XML syntax.
17:43:36 [AxelPolleres]: christian: (explaining to gary what we did before he dialed in)
17:44:06 [sandro]: RESOLVED: In WD2 there will be no indication of whether order has semantics in XML instance documents. The issue remains open for future drafts.
17:44:18 [AxelPolleres]: no objections against proposed resolution.
17:44:41 [ChrisW]: action: Sandro to open an issue on where order has semantics in XML instance docs
17:44:41 [rifbot]: Created ACTION-354 - Open an issue on where order has semantics in XML instance docs [on Sandro Hawke - due 2007-10-05].
17:44:43 [AxelPolleres]: sandro: 4th and last issue
17:44:54 [AxelPolleres]: ... How do we derialize constants?
17:45:19 [AxelPolleres]: s/derialize/serialize/
17:45:49 [AxelPolleres]: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Arch/XML_Syntax_Issues/Constants
17:47:31 [Harold]: Currently, we have "abc"^^xsd:string
17:47:32 [Harold]: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Arch/XML_Syntax_Issues/Constants
17:48:25 [AxelPolleres]: sandro: explaining the options outlined on that page.
17:50:17 [AxelPolleres]: sandro: Opt A vs. Opt B: type as attribute vs. type as element, (Options to be read with respect to previous resolution )
17:50:50 [AxelPolleres]: sandro: Opt C: special distinction for Literals
17:52:07 [AxelPolleres]: michael: tag names matter, because schema definition becomes complicated.
17:52:16 [AxelPolleres]: sandro: may hamper extensibility.
17:52:56 [AxelPolleres]: michael: what about unknown types?
17:53:31 [AxelPolleres]: (meta remark: discussing option B)
17:54:01 [AxelPolleres]: jos: technically any allowed tag can be done in XML schema.
17:55:52 [AxelPolleres]: michael: in Option A type could be anything
17:58:00 [AxelPolleres]: dave: ANY doesn't seem to be a solution
17:58:52 [AxelPolleres]: jos: in Opt you can say that type is a URI and a STRING inside ...
17:59:18 [AxelPolleres]: jos: ... but in Option B, using ANY you cannot restrict the content to be a STRING
18:02:13 [AxelPolleres]: chris: how do you indicate in Option B a variable?
18:02:39 [Harold]: From Michael's email, in response to Jos, "Re: comments on BLD draft part I":
18:02:42 [AxelPolleres]: scribe: Adrian Paschke
18:02:42 [Harold]: > 17- section 2.1.2: it is unclear to me why the list of datatypes is
18:02:42 [Harold]: > fixed. By fixing this list, every implementation needs to support all
18:02:42 [Harold]: > mentioned data types, and no other data types can be used in
18:02:42 [Harold]: > meaning-preserving fashion. I propose to make a list of datatypes which
18:02:42 [Harold]: > need to be supported by every RIF implementation (e.g. xsd:string,
18:02:43 [Harold]: > xsd:integer), and a list of additional data types which are recommended
18:02:45 [Harold]: > for use with RIF (e.g. xsd:gYearMonth)
18:02:47 [Harold]: The list of data types is not fixed. It is in flux.
18:02:49 [Harold]: It is a minor issue, but I am not against recommended data types.
18:02:51 [Harold]: Or, maybe, we could use a more general mechanism.
18:02:53 [Harold]: We need to think what does it mean for an exchange language to "support" a
18:02:53 [AxelPolleres]: scribenick: AdrianPa
18:02:55 [Harold]: data type. Is it a matter of issuing an error when the lexical space is
18:02:57 [Harold]: violated? To support certain inferences? If the latter, then I fail to see
18:02:59 [Harold]: what does it mean to be a type "recommended" for use with RIF.
18:04:33 [AdrianPa]: Christian: Opt C seperates seperates lterals from global and local
18:04:45 [AdrianPa]: Michael: They are already seperated
18:05:44 [AdrianPa]: Jos: Opt C makes a distinction between Local, Global and typed literals
18:06:34 [AdrianPa]: Sandro: Does the XML Schema for BLD hard code and check the datatypes?
18:07:22 [AdrianPa]: Jos: needs to fixed in the language and changes to the language are needed
18:08:32 [AdrianPa]: Sandro: Define BLD for unknown datatypes
18:08:52 [AdrianPa]: Chris: Decide if we need other datatypes?
18:10:40 [AdrianPa]: Christian: Are datatypes extensible in BLD?
18:10:47 [AdrianPa]: everyone but Sandro; no objection
18:11:04 [ChrisW]: PROPOSED: Datatypes are extensible in BLD
18:12:16 [AdrianPa]: Sandro: Two parties want to interchange some datatype not defined in BLD
18:12:31 [AdrianPa]: Sandro: we could make a new dialect
18:13:13 [AdrianPa]: Sandro: the parties should make a new dialect
18:13:51 [AdrianPa]: Christian: BLD can be used easily if datatype are extensible
18:14:39 [AdrianPa]: Christian: your rule system will tell you if it can not understand the datatype
18:15:11 [AdrianPa]: Sandro: BLD should not have a custom extension mechanism
18:16:10 [AdrianPa]: Christian: Without a extension mechansimn you always needs to deploy a new dialect
18:16:54 [AdrianPa]: Michael: Deployment of new dialects will be hard
18:17:39 [AdrianPa]: Dave: OWL and RDF already adopted this approach and it was successful
18:18:52 [AdrianPa]: Sandro: Which built-ins
18:19:27 [AdrianPa]: Christian: Update issue about datatype exentsibility
18:20:04 [AdrianPa]: Christian: Reject option B, we are left with C and option A
18:21:18 [AdrianPa]: Jos: We need to be consistent in presentation syntax, abstract syntax
18:21:51 [Harold]: We adopted a uniform element name <Const> and don't even have element names <Rel>, <Fun>, and <Ind> distinguishing, respectively, the top-level entities of relations, functions, and individuals. OPTION C seems to introduce redundant distinctions Global, Local, Literal that are already in the rif:type attribute.
18:23:29 [AdrianPa]: Sandro: Global, local, literal are only syntactic sugar for <const type="iri">
18:23:55 [AdrianPa]: Michael: People will look at the presentation syntax
18:24:51 [Harold]: While <Global>http://example.com/#r</Global> is indeed global, <Global>#r</Global> is not.
18:25:56 [AdrianPa]: Prefer Opt A: 7; Prefer Opt C: 1.5;
18:26:29 [DaveReynolds]: Harold: not true, a relative URI will be resolved relative to the xml:base
18:26:57 [AdrianPa]: Sandro: Resolve RDF issue implicitly
18:28:16 [AdrianPa]: Christian: What needs to be resolved for XML syntax?
18:28:41 [AdrianPa]: Sandro: Const types are Curies, QNames, IRI?
18:29:15 [AdrianPa]: Dave: Curies are not official
18:30:44 [Harold]: http://www.w3.org/TR/curie/
18:30:53 [AdrianPa]: Dave: types are all curies
18:31:10 [AdrianPa]: Christian: but curries are not official
18:31:31 [AdrianPa]: Michael: full URI
18:33:42 [AdrianPa]: Mike: What about local?
18:33:55 [AdrianPa]: Dave: it is rif:loca
18:34:16 [mdean]: s/loca/local/
18:36:19 [AdrianPa]: Christian: We have to specify meaning of curies
18:36:29 [AdrianPa]: Dave: if we pick IRIs we are done
18:40:02 [AdrianPa]: Curies prefer:0; full IRI prefer:9; curie+iri prefer:0; special syntax prefer:0/object: Jos
18:41:25 [sandro]: PROPOSED: In the XML syntax, we'll use full IRIs (not qnames or curies) for Const types, etc. Of course, XML entities can be used.
18:42:36 [AdrianPa]: Michael: QNames and IRIs are syntactically incompatible
18:43:39 [Harold]: DaveR, but #r refers to the current document, say http://current.org, so is local to http://current.org: http://current.org#r.
18:43:52 [sandro]: RESOLVED: In the XML syntax, we'll use full IRIs (not qnames or curies) for Const types, etc. Of course, XML entities can be used.
18:46:59 [AdrianPa]: Christian: Issue on "Identify Dialects in the XML document"
18:47:13 [sandro]: PROPOSED: dialect is identified by an IRI, in the document as an attribute rif:dialect on the root element
18:48:35 [AdrianPa]: objection: Bob
18:49:08 [AdrianPa]: Bob: Several different dialects for rule sets
18:49:43 [AdrianPa]: Christian: Keep this question in draft 2
18:50:20 [sandro]: PROPOSED: dialect is identified by an IRI, which appear in the document as an attribute rif:dialect on the root element (for WD2, until we figure out extensibility)
18:50:38 [sandro]: PROPOSED: dialect-of-author is identified by an IRI, which appear in the document as an attribute rif:dialect on the root element (for WD2, until we figure out extensibility)
18:50:45 [sandro]: PROPOSED: dialect-of-authoring is identified by an IRI, which appear in the document as an attribute rif:dialect on the root element (for WD2, until we figure out extensibility)
18:51:29 [sandro]: RESOLVED: dialect-of-authoring is identified by an IRI, which appears in the document as an attribute rif:dialect on the root element (for WD2, until we figure out extensibility)
18:54:06 [AdrianPa]: Christian: Issues from yesterday; syntaxt questions about triangle
18:55:22 [AdrianPa]: Christian: Shows summary from yesterday
18:55:39 [AdrianPa]: Christian: Need PS and XS
18:55:51 [AdrianPa]: Christian: Need mapping between XS and PS
18:59:20 [AdrianPa]: Harold: Shows mapping table
19:00:05 [ChrisW]: Christian dropped Gary
19:00:24 [GaryHallmark]: but I bounced back
19:01:47 [AxelPolleres]: AxelPolleres has left #rif
19:02:30 [sandro]: Harold: okay to have table from PS to XML, in WD2
19:03:23 [AdrianPa]: Michael: Make abstract syntax more abstract
19:03:35 [sandro]: MK: I'd like to change the constant syntax in PR to Const(...) or something.
19:03:49 [sandro]: DR: maybe uniterm goes to Uniterm(op arg arg arg)
19:04:22 [AdrianPa]: Axel: Why do we want abstract syntax
19:05:27 [AdrianPa]: Christian: Which options require many changes wrt draft?
19:05:38 [AdrianPa]: Harold: option 1 requires most changes
19:06:03 [AdrianPa]: Harold: option 3 is easy
19:06:11 [AdrianPa]: Harold: table already exists
19:06:32 [GaryHallmark]: harold, is your table online or in email?
19:06:47 [AdrianPa]: Michael: two is easiest
19:08:44 [AdrianPa]: Michael: One and three are the same
19:10:25 [AdrianPa]: Michael: We want a structural model
19:11:14 [AdrianPa]: Michael: Structural model was shown by Christian for illustration
19:12:29 [AdrianPa]: Christian: Do we want also diagrams
19:13:09 [AdrianPa]: Sandro: Diagram is only editorial work
19:13:42 [AdrianPa]: Christian: diagrams are for illustrations
19:14:18 [AdrianPa]: Sandro; How is head distinguished from body in presentation syntax in the table
19:14:31 [AdrianPa]: Jos: Can be figured out in document
19:15:01 [AxelPolleres]: AxelPolleres has joined #rif
19:16:40 [sandro]: "Structural Model Diagram"
19:18:49 [sandro]: Option 1: AS as interlingua beetween PS & XML -- no prefer
19:20:29 [sandro]: Option 2: PS++ and Direct Mapping -- no prefer
19:20:30 [AdrianPa]: Option 2: PS++ and direct Mapping - one
19:20:48 [sandro]: Option 3: 1 _ diagreams
19:21:09 [sandro]: Option 3: 1 + diagrams == 2 people prefer
19:21:19 [AdrianPa]: Option 4: Opt 2 + diagram: 9 prefer
19:21:24 [sandro]: Option 4. 2 + diagrams = 9 prefer
19:22:18 [sandro]: PROPOSED: We will use Presentation Syntax, with minor changed, with a mapping table to the XML syntax, with structural model diagrams. In WD2 the diagrams are "for illustration".
19:22:51 [sandro]: MK: Let's not mention normativity in this draft.
19:23:55 [AdrianPa]: Sandro: Seperate diagrams from question about presentation syntax
19:24:25 [sandro]: PROPOSED: We will use Presentation Syntax, with minor changes, with a mapping table to the XML syntax.
19:24:33 [sandro]: RESOLVED: We will use Presentation Syntax, with minor changes, with a mapping table to the XML syntax.
19:26:01 [sandro]: PROPOSED: BLD WD2 will have structural model diagrams (which look like UML).
19:26:14 [sandro]: RESOLVED: BLD WD2 will have structural model diagrams (which look like UML).
19:26:32 [AdrianPa]: Christian: Do we include ASN version in the document
19:27:00 [AdrianPa]: Axel: Currently it is enough to have the structural model diagrams
19:27:35 [GaryHallmark]: -1 for ASN: it's not a standard (is it?) and would be the 4th way to present the syntax
19:28:12 [AdrianPa]: Harold: We wanted to simply fine things
19:28:21 [PaulaP]: +1 to Gary's comment...and Axel's
19:28:51 [josb]: +1
19:29:11 [sandro]: PROPOSED: Remove ASN from BLD WD2.
19:29:13 [AdrianPa]: Christian: Our diagrams are only UML like but not really correct UML
19:29:57 [AdrianPa]: Harold: ASN is not expressive enough
19:30:14 [AdrianPa]: Harold: that was the reason for introducing AEBNF
19:31:45 [AdrianPa]: Dave: Our ambition is to have a clear UML meta model in WD2
19:31:57 [Harold]: s/Harold: We wanted to simply fine things/Harold: We just simplified things, so omitted Abstract EBNF (as the intermediate language in the translation table) as well as ASN06 and 07/
19:33:10 [AdrianPa]: Christian: We currently only have illustrative diagram
19:33:35 [AdrianPa]: Christian: currentl diagram is not a meta model
19:34:29 [AdrianPa]: Christian: We must be very careful in the wording in the document
19:34:41 [AdrianPa]: Chris: We use UML
19:34:47 [AdrianPa]: Chris: not MOF
19:34:48 [Harold]: The current cautionary note is "The above abstract syntax can be illustrated with a UML diagram, as shown below."
19:35:01 [sandro]: Christian: Large label, "THIS IS UML NOT MOF."
19:35:56 [AdrianPa]: Dave: Diagram is not equivalent to the syntax
19:36:38 [AdrianPa]: Christian: Does somebody want to have ASN as well?
19:37:14 [AdrianPa]: Bob: It is confusing to have all these representations
19:37:35 [AdrianPa]: Dave: +1 for Axel and Bob
19:38:35 [sandro]: RESOLVED: Remove ASN from BLD WD2.
19:41:25 [ChrisW]: scribe: Michael Kifer
19:41:33 [ChrisW]: scribenick: MichaelKifer
19:44:04 [MichaelKifer]: discussion of structural model of rules
19:44:09 [sandro]: PROPOSED: change structural model so that Forall, Implies, and Atomic are three parallel subclasses of Rule.
19:44:36 [sandro]: csma: to resolve issues about extensibility and ground facts. ground facts don't need to be in a forall.
19:44:41 [MichaelKifer]: csma re-proposed a UML diagram where ground clauses are not under Forall
19:44:52 [sandro]: csma: simplifies BNF, too.
19:45:10 [MichaelKifer]: Also proposes to hang metadata off of Rule
19:46:06 [sandro]: PROPOSED: For WD2, change structural model so that Forall, Implies, and Atomic are three parallel subclasses of Rule (shown on Christian;s diagram labeled "BLD Rule: alternative")
19:51:58 [Harold]: PROPOSED: For WD2, change structural model so that Forall, Implies, and Atomic are three parallel subclasses of RULE (shown on Christian;s diagram labeled "BLD Rule: alternative")
19:52:34 [sandro]: Prefers current SM - 0
19:52:42 [sandro]: prefers suggests SM - 8
19:53:31 [GaryHallmark]: the proposed change allows forall(forall(...))
19:53:39 [ChrisW]: yes
19:53:43 [sandro]: RESOLVED: For WD2, change structural model so that Forall, Implies, and Atomic are three parallel subclasses of RULE (as shown on Christian;s diagram labeled "BLD Rule: alternative")
19:54:42 [ChrisW]: action: Christian to update diagram in BLD draft
19:54:42 [rifbot]: Created ACTION-355 - Update diagram in BLD draft [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2007-10-05].
19:58:12 [sandro]: OCT 12 -- Frozen ED of WD2
19:58:20 [sandro]: OCT 12 -- Reviews
19:58:28 [sandro]: OCT 26 -- Freeze
20:12:54 [Zakim]: -Gary_Hallmark
20:15:16 [GaryHallmark]: gotta run, folks. nice job tying up the XML syntax issues. "see" you Tuesday.
20:24:07 [DaveReynolds]: DaveReynolds has joined #rif
20:28:24 [DaveReynolds]: ScribeNick: DaveReynolds
20:28:28 [DaveReynolds]: Scribe: Dave Reynolds
20:29:08 [DaveReynolds]: Discussion on newer primitive types in the current BLD draft that received some comments
20:29:33 [DaveReynolds]: ChrisW: shows slide of these - rif:local, rif:text, rdf:XMLiteral
20:29:52 [DaveReynolds]: Michael: rif:local is constant which is local to a rule set
20:30:17 [DaveReynolds]: Michael: in current draft no distinction to rif:iri because don't have modules, but once have modules the difference will be clearer
20:31:56 [DaveReynolds]: ChrisW: what is rif:text?
20:32:30 [DaveReynolds]: Jos: it is a literal we proposed to be equivalent to plain literals with language types in RDF, currently only in RDF section but will be added to the main text for next WD
20:33:07 [DaveReynolds]: ChrisW: what about rdf:XMLLiteral?
20:33:38 [DaveReynolds]: Michael: just a small fix was needed in text, done
20:36:40 [DaveReynolds]: csma: what are the consequences of this, is it an implementation burden?
20:37:29 [DaveReynolds]: [Discussion on this - if you want an xml literal you need something like this, we are just reusing the RDF approach]
20:38:41 [DaveReynolds]: Next topic: next F2F meetings
20:39:11 [DaveReynolds]: csma: closing data for room block booking for F2F8 is Oct 3
20:39:21 [DaveReynolds]: ChrisW: if in doubt, book it
20:40:16 [DaveReynolds]: ChrisW: what about F2F9
20:41:09 [DaveReynolds]: Paris and Ireland mentioned as possibilities
20:41:46 [DaveReynolds]: It will depend on the dates and the dates depend on the future of the WG, probably early 2008 (around Feb)
20:42:11 [DaveReynolds]: Next topic: future of the working group
20:42:30 [DaveReynolds]: ChrisW: WG is chartered to end of Nov, what happens after that..
20:43:04 [DaveReynolds]: ChrisW: Possibilities (1) we ask W3C for an extension
20:43:17 [DaveReynolds]: csma: for what puprose and for how long?
20:44:57 [DaveReynolds]: Phases: WD, Last Call WD (4-12 weeks), Candidate Rec (CR = call for implementations, time depends on implementations), Proposed Rec (PR = W3C member orgs vot on it, largely pro forma, 4-6 weeks), Rec
20:45:19 [DaveReynolds]: s/vot/vote/
20:46:02 [DaveReynolds]: ChrisW: Possibilities are ...
20:46:11 [DaveReynolds]: (1) terminate
20:46:20 [DaveReynolds]: (2) extend (n months)
20:46:24 [DaveReynolds]: (3) recharter
20:46:36 [DaveReynolds]: Sandro: termination is the default
20:47:18 [DaveReynolds]: ... extension formally is at the discussion of the director but in practice Sandro asks the management committee which might lead to dialogue with us
20:47:31 [DaveReynolds]: ... recharter requires going back out to the whole membership
20:48:29 [DaveReynolds]: No one argued for option other than (2) extend
20:48:48 [DaveReynolds]: ChrisW: to do that week need reasons and new schedule and reasons we think we can make it
20:48:55 [DaveReynolds]: s/week/we/
20:49:43 [DaveReynolds]: csma: preference to ask for short extension (6m?) to aim to enter LC for BLD
20:50:26 [DaveReynolds]: ... then will know whether we are going somewhere or not and will then be able to put together realistic schedule for PRD and extension mechanism etc
20:51:01 [DaveReynolds]: ... then we either ask for second extension to finish BLD or longer one to cover PRD etc
20:51:55 [DaveReynolds]: Sandro: we give ourselves 6m to figure whether we can indeed tie business rules in
20:52:26 [DaveReynolds]: Sandro: so we need enough work done on PRD to know how they fit together and what that means, they don't need to be at public working draft
20:52:58 [DaveReynolds]: Sandro: one of the requirements for RIF is extensibility and don't want to go to last call untill have some answer to that
20:53:48 [DaveReynolds]: ChrisW: is 6m to do this is feasible?
20:54:36 [DaveReynolds]: Jos: charter also asks us to take OWL compatiblity seriously, and we would need to get concensus on that
20:54:49 [DaveReynolds]: Michael: also wants module mechanism
20:55:09 [DaveReynolds]: So list of requirements for getting BLD to LC are:
20:55:17 [DaveReynolds]: - provden extensibility
20:55:27 [DaveReynolds]: - OWL compatibility
20:55:33 [DaveReynolds]: - Modules
20:55:37 [DaveReynolds]: - builtins
20:55:45 [DaveReynolds]: - conformance
20:55:56 [DaveReynolds]: s/provden/proven/
20:57:28 [DaveReynolds]: - engine definition (i.e. need entailment definition and incusion/modules but NOT query language or API)
20:57:34 [DaveReynolds]: - UCR should go to LC
20:57:53 [DaveReynolds]: - test cases would be good
20:59:13 [DaveReynolds]: - extensibility mechanism rather than "proven" extensibility!
21:01:01 [DaveReynolds]: Sandro: charter defines what we have to say about extensibility, if someone asks how we would go a given extension we have to either indicate how to do this or why the extension is not necessary for rule interchange
21:01:29 [DaveReynolds]: Axel: arch and extensility sort of the same thing, so we need another one or two examples and how relates to BLD
21:01:34 [DaveReynolds]: csma: hence PRD
21:01:59 [DaveReynolds]: Sandro: would like so see Datalog and FO dialects
21:02:13 [DaveReynolds]: ... as examples of how to do extensibility
21:02:29 [DaveReynolds]: Michael: questions why want
21:02:51 [DaveReynolds]: s/questions why want/ /
21:03:49 [DaveReynolds]: Axel agrees to take on some of Arch edit with Sandro but wants to talk about timeline
21:04:06 [DaveReynolds]: ChrisW: editor's draft by next F2F?
21:04:28 [DaveReynolds]: Axel: if we can just trash the unnecessary bits and do the minimum then OK
21:05:22 [DaveReynolds]: csma: if we work on that then we'll have a better idea of the timescale for extensibility which is why a short 6m extension is sufficient to derisk the following schedule
21:06:15 [DaveReynolds]: ChrisW: adds "- Arch to LC" to the list of goals of the extension
21:07:07 [DaveReynolds]: ChrisW: concerned about having a whole other dialect on the path to extensibility, doesn't want that on critical path to BLD LC, a sufficient Arch LC would be good enough
21:07:26 [DaveReynolds]: Sandro: strawman/example dialects sufficient, not standard dialect
21:07:50 [DaveReynolds]: cmsa: in the first stage the PRD would be just a strawman/example
21:07:50 [sandro]: I want Datalog and FOL as example/straw dialects. PRD can be an example dialect OR a standard.
21:08:43 [DaveReynolds]: ChrisW: be clear in minutes - that we agree that a second standard dialect is not a necessary requirement for meeting the extensibility requirement from charter
21:08:54 [sandro]: Chris: I want it recorded that we agree that The Extensibility requirement from the charter is NOT contingent on having a second (real) dialect.
21:09:44 [DaveReynolds]: What about "OWL compatibility"?
21:10:14 [DaveReynolds]: csma: not necessary part of BLD can be separate document on different timescale
21:11:12 [DaveReynolds]: Sandro: can't get out of CR without that doc, it would be a mistake to have that lag too much behind
21:11:26 [DaveReynolds]: Jos: would actually prefer the OWL (and RDF) in a separate document
21:11:36 [DaveReynolds]: s/OWL/OWL compatibility/
21:13:27 [DaveReynolds]: ChrisW: is that other document another dialect? the combination part extends the semantics, isn't that another dialect?
21:13:53 [DaveReynolds]: Michael: less clear now on exactly what the combination semantics implies
21:15:27 [DaveReynolds]: Discussion on whether need the OWL compatibility doc before taking BLD to last call
21:18:31 [sandro]: PROPOSED: The OWL Compatibility text will proceed to Last Call in sync with BLD.
21:18:48 [sandro]: RESOLVED: The OWL Compatibility text will proceed to Last Call in sync with BLD.
21:19:21 [sandro]: PROPOSED: No Modules! (mk out of room)
21:19:40 [DaveReynolds]: builtins - yes we need these
21:20:38 [DaveReynolds]: conformance? - yes need this
21:21:07 [DaveReynolds]: entailment? yes but we already have that
21:21:53 [DaveReynolds]: test cases?
21:22:05 [DaveReynolds]: ChrisW: would need someone to act as test case maintainer
21:22:42 [DaveReynolds]: Sandro: the test cases needed be a big deal
21:22:48 [DaveReynolds]: s/needed/need not/
21:23:29 [DaveReynolds]: ChrisW: the test cases need to be correlated with the issues in the design, especially on a language with inferential capability
21:24:08 [Zakim]: -meeting_room
21:24:09 [Zakim]: SW_RIF(f2f)8:00AM has ended
21:24:10 [Zakim]: Attendees were Gary_Hallmark, meeting_room
21:25:20 [DaveReynolds]: Adrian, Sandro volunteered to help with test cases (Sandro thought Gary might also have an interest in helping)
21:25:51 [DaveReynolds]: csma: data type extensibility is an example of thing that would need test cases
21:26:29 [DaveReynolds]: modules? just missing and intend to add or is it critical path for BLD?
21:27:11 [DaveReynolds]: Michael: needed whenever with have some form of include, what OWL did is not good enough for rules because rules interfere with each other a lot
21:28:01 [DaveReynolds]: Paula: offers to propose module system for BLD
21:28:20 [DaveReynolds]: Michael: there are already some such proposals in existence (e.g. from Rome(?) group)
21:29:18 [DaveReynolds]: Michael: well more important that some features we already have
21:29:53 [DaveReynolds]: Sandro: lists are also mentioned in the charter
21:31:13 [DaveReynolds]: ChrisW: so is a 6m extension to get to start of LC the right thing to ask for
21:33:19 [DaveReynolds]: DaveR: what about extension to end of LC so can get external feedback?
21:33:43 [DaveReynolds]: Sandro: sees extension more about internal, can we get to agreement
21:34:16 [DaveReynolds]: Sandro: a test is how much of WG can come to F2F and do the work through this extension
21:35:55 [sandro]: sense of group (unanamous) ask for 6 months extension..... (with some fuzziness :-) some sense of maybe ask for more.
21:36:09 [DaveReynolds]: strawpool on 6m extension? no one opposed, almost everyone in favour
21:36:27 [DaveReynolds]: s/pool/poll/
21:40:30 [DaveReynolds]: Next topic: RDF compatibility
21:41:40 [sandro]: scribeNick: StellaMitchell
21:42:07 [StellaMitchell]: Topic: RDF-RIF compatibility - embed or combine
21:42:29 [StellaMitchell]: s/combine/ combine: which is normative
21:43:17 [StellaMitchell]: jos: I have 2 use cases in mind, re: rdf compatibility
21:43:35 [StellaMitchell]: jos: 1. RIF rules + RDF data
21:44:06 [StellaMitchell]: 2. RIF rules with RDFS data model
21:45:27 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #rif
21:45:55 [StellaMitchell]: jos: (giving example, rdf graph that shows that rdf data and rdfs data model are similar)
21:46:22 [StellaMitchell]: jos: RDF semantics - semantics is defined in a similar way to RIF
21:47:02 [StellaMitchell]: jos:: RDF semantics defines 4 normative entailment regimes
21:47:20 [StellaMitchell]: jos: I will describe 2 of them: simple and RDFS
21:48:27 [StellaMitchell]: jos: simple doesn't take into account any special vocabulary
21:48:38 [StellaMitchell]: jos: rdfs takes into account rdfs vocabulary
21:49:01 [StellaMitchell]: jos: (describing blank nodes)
21:49:41 [StellaMitchell]: jos: so, the question is, given these entailments, how do we address the 2 use cases?
21:50:24 [StellaMitchell]: jos: at syntactic level, you have a RIF ruleset R and an RDF graph S, and the combination <R,C>
21:51:08 [StellaMitchell]: jos: then we have to define at the semantic level how those 2 things interact
21:51:31 [StellaMitchell]: jos: example: if x is student then x is poor
21:51:47 [StellaMitchell]: jos: need to have a way to relate above rule to an RDF graph
21:52:31 [StellaMitchell]: jos: at syntactic level, easy mapping between RDF triples and RIF frames
21:53:35 [StellaMitchell]: jos: so writing above example as: isPoor(?x) :- x[rdf:type --> student]
21:54:09 [StellaMitchell]: jos: but need to be precise for the specification
21:54:53 [StellaMitchell]: jos: so, interpret the RIF ruleset R with RIF interpretation, and the RDF graph S with the RDF interpretation
21:55:16 [StellaMitchell]: ...and add conditions on the interpreations
21:56:23 [StellaMitchell]: jos: if you use rdfs data in your rules, I think you must use the rdfs semantics
21:56:49 [StellaMitchell]: jos: now that we have semantics, we can specify entailment in the usual way through model inclusion
21:57:08 [StellaMitchell]: jos: and we can define it for each of the RDF types of entailment
21:57:54 [StellaMitchell]: jos: the receiver of the RIF rules that refer to an RDFS data model, you want to be able to process the rules (querying, entailment checking)
21:58:42 [StellaMitchell]: jos: and in order to do that, you must have an embedding so that you can check entailment with your rule engine
22:00:18 [StellaMitchell]: jos: so, we need to be able to check for satisfiability
22:01:48 [StellaMitchell]: jos: I defined a translation function to allow that to be done
22:02:42 [StellaMitchell]: chrisw: in the example rule, there is no entailment on the graph?
22:02:44 [StellaMitchell]: jos: right
22:03:03 [StellaMitchell]: michaelk: I now understand what Jos wants to do now, and I now
22:03:25 [StellaMitchell]: ...believe that combined semantics is required and the embedding is not
22:04:13 [StellaMitchell]: ... I now understand: there is a rule lang that works with rdf data, and another rule lang with diff syntax and also works with rdf data
22:04:31 [StellaMitchell]: ... so, I think we need a dialect to do this
22:04:44 [StellaMitchell]: ... an RDF dialect
22:05:03 [StellaMitchell]: ... to specify the dialect, we need to define syntax and semantics
22:05:24 [StellaMitchell]: ... note that the data is not exchanged via RIF; it has its own exchange language
22:06:14 [StellaMitchell]: axel: I think RDF data should stay in it's RDF form and not be embedded
22:06:20 [StellaMitchell]: MK: right
22:06:45 [StellaMitchell]: MK: so, in conclusion, I think we do not need the embedding
22:06:57 [StellaMitchell]: ... (just the combined semantics)
22:07:47 [StellaMitchell]: MK: (I am confused about it - about why we mignt need embedding)
22:07:58 [StellaMitchell]: chrisw: what if we have a ground entailment?
22:08:38 [StellaMitchell]: chrisw: what if you have non-ground entailment that cannot be expressed in RDF?
22:08:56 [StellaMitchell]: chrisw: it goes into the combination
22:09:17 [StellaMitchell]: chrisw: (entailments that cannot be encoded in a graph)
22:09:40 [StellaMitchell]: chrisw: what about ground frames in ruleset?
22:09:53 [StellaMitchell]: ....what is the correspondence between that and RDF graph?
22:10:33 [StellaMitchell]: jos: it would be in entailed graph and entailed condition also
22:11:55 [josb]: josb has left #rif
22:13:51 [StellaMitchell]: daver: I want to record that we need a way to treat RDF as data