20:28:36 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rif
20:28:36 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/11/05-rif-irc
20:28:47 <Harold> ... Semantics of Uniterm: mapping function.
20:29:11 <Harold> Axel: No semantic difference between builtins and user-defined functions.
20:29:29 <Harold> csma: Currently, not distinguished in BLD.
20:29:40 <sandro> AxelPolleres, while we have subclassing in RDFS, do you think we can mandate that RIF Consumers do complete RDFS reasoning before extracting the RIF semantics structures?     That seems like a fairly hard sell to Gary.  :-)
20:29:45 <ChrisW> Chair: Christian de Sainte-Marie & Chris Welty
20:29:45 <Harold> ... in PRD we have fixed interpretation functions.
20:29:52 <ChrisW> Scribe: Harold
20:30:15 <ChrisW> Meeting: RIF Face to Face Nov 5 2007
20:30:17 <Harold> Gary: Plus: all args of builtins must be ground.
20:30:27 <Harold> csma: Yes, that was in the patterns.
20:30:30 <ChrisW> zakim, list attendees
20:30:30 <Zakim> sorry, ChrisW, I don't know what conference this is
20:30:57 <AxelPolleres> For Gary, nothing changes, I don't say that the XML syntax for PR needs to accept <smsnaf> in place of <naf>
20:31:03 <Harold> Gary: So we have no universal semantics that tells us for every expression if it's true or false.
20:31:27 <Harold> ... Would be nice to have a more general semantics for both.
20:31:59 <AxelPolleres> but a stratified datalog dialect should maybe accept sms-rulesets, as long as they are stratified.
20:32:21 <ChrisW> Present: PaulVincent, MichaelKifer, AdrianPaschke, HaroldBoley, GaryHallmark, StellaMitchell, MikeDean, IgorMozetic, BobMoore, josDeBruijn, AxelPolleres, sandroHawke, ChrisWelty, Christian de Sainte-Marie
20:32:31 <ChrisW> rrsagent, make minutes
20:32:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/11/05-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
20:32:34 <AxelPolleres> At least by subclassing , you can define some trivial fallbacks.
20:32:43 <Harold> csma: That this is not (only) a model-theoretic semantics is even clearer for the And: works also for operat. semantics. 
20:32:49 <sandro> Attendance note -- observing for the afternoon has been Carine Bournez, http://www.w3.org/People/carine/     (The RIF meeting is listed on the conference schedule as being open to observers, by accident.)
20:33:11 <AxelPolleres> i.e. if a dialect supports the conceptual superclass semantically, the default fallback would be replacing the special with the more general one.
20:33:11 <Harold> MichaelK: You have to be careful where you are talking formally and where informally.
20:33:12 <ChrisW> rrsagent, make logs public
20:33:47 <Harold> ... We prioritized model-theor., then fall back to operational, then to procedural.
20:34:03 <Harold> ... But this is none of these, it's mixed.
20:34:21 <Harold> csma: It's formal (although written in English).
20:34:33 <Harold> ... Define when a condition is true.
20:34:45 <Harold> ... then execute the actions.
20:35:11 <Harold> MichaelK: OK, but it's kind of confusing. Suppose I read this, but wont understand.
20:35:21 <sandro> AxelPolleres, so the subclass relationships in the abstract model automatically generate some fallback substitutions?     My guess is that's reasonable and somewhat helpful, but I'm not sure.
20:35:22 <Harold> csma: This is why put sem on top.
20:35:31 <Harold> ... Dont see why this is not formal.
20:35:48 <Harold> MichaelK: First do syntax, then semantics.
20:36:16 <AxelPolleres> that would be the idea... also not 100% sure, needs some dialect examples, which I still owe, admitedly.
20:36:21 <Harold> ... E.g. it's not interpreted as a function from to, everything is regarded as matching.
20:36:40 <AxelPolleres> ... but it sounds appealing to try to me
20:36:41 <Harold> csma: The pattern matching mechanism gives me the function.
20:37:03 <Harold> Chris: What do you regard as the interpretation function?
20:37:14 <Harold> csma: A mapping  to a domain element.
20:37:40 <Harold> ... What does pattern matching do? Tells you what's the interpretation!
20:37:58 <Harold> ... Tells you what's and what's not in the interpretation.
20:38:20 <Harold> ... But what I get from discussion: This is confusing. Not the right way to put it in a spec.
20:38:31 <Harold> ... However, the earlier approach also seemed confusing.
20:38:43 <Harold> ... Wanted to keep it as close to BLD as possible.
20:39:04 <Harold> Harold: Much better than earlier version.
20:39:48 <Harold> MichaelK: What's wrong: You say here's a program, I determine from a procedure what the meaning is. The wrong way round.
20:40:11 <Harold> csma: Perhaps misunderstanding.
20:40:19 <Harold> ... Removed pattern section.
20:40:28 <Harold> ... Actions have to be worked on.
20:41:16 <Harold> ... Gary's point is valid that top-level of Rule syntax is different unnecessarily from BLD.
20:41:32 <Harold> ... But this is because BLD is not frozen yet.
20:42:45 <Harold> ... Could perhaps just one CONDITION rather than two. Historical from earlier patterns and the 'else' parts. But it may be good to keept both.
20:43:01 <Harold> Restart at 4PM.
21:08:31 <StellaMitchell> ScribeNick: StellaMitchell
21:08:45 <StellaMitchell> zakim, next item
21:08:45 <Zakim> agendum 7. "PRD" taken up [from ChrisW]
21:09:03 <StellaMitchell> zakim, show agenda
21:09:03 <Zakim> I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
21:09:04 <Zakim> 7. PRD [from ChrisW]
21:09:30 <StellaMitchell> Topic: Builtins and Metadata
21:10:22 <StellaMitchell> csma: we didn't consider carefully which xsd datatypes to pick
21:10:42 <StellaMitchell> Chris:  Yes, we settled on a set during one of our meetings
21:11:25 <StellaMitchell> Chris:  (projecting list of  xpath functions and operators)
21:11:53 <StellaMitchell> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/List_of_functions_and_operators
21:12:28 <StellaMitchell> jos: will these be predicates or functions in BLD?
21:12:50 <StellaMitchell> Chris: do we have notion of builtin as external call?  are all predicates, all functions ?
21:13:26 <StellaMitchell> Harold: telecon with DARPA demo group - we chose a fixed interpretation for builtins
21:13:59 <StellaMitchell> Harold:  the point is - we have equality in RIF
21:14:49 <StellaMitchell> mk: if we assume URI's identify functions, we can
21:15:33 <StellaMitchell> Harold:  mode declaration of functions
21:15:54 <StellaMitchell> Harold: for now, it would be very nice to have builtins as functions
21:16:10 <StellaMitchell> axel: for predicates, it is not so clear what is input and output
21:16:28 <sandro> binding patterns == modes
21:16:44 <sandro> Harold: non-deterministic builtins
21:16:51 <StellaMitchell> Harold: (something is) then you would have non-deterministic functions
21:17:19 <StellaMitchell> Sandro:  trying to clarify between functions and predicates
21:17:58 <StellaMitchell> Sandro: you might have extension that has more builtins (that the dialect it extends)
21:18:07 <Harold> Because in RIF we have Equal, we can finally come back to builtins being functions, not (artificially) relations. Advantage: uniform mode declarations.
21:18:40 <StellaMitchell> .. can lead to a language conflict  (syntax has different meaning)
21:19:01 <StellaMitchell> Chris: Also, datatype extensibility is an open issue
21:19:04 <sandro> Sandro: It should be a syntax error to use a builtin that's not in some dialect.
21:19:25 <StellaMitchell> ...I don't think it makes sense to assume the list of builtins is fixed
21:20:10 <StellaMitchell> Jos:  xpath uses namespaces, but we use curies...
21:20:31 <StellaMitchell> csma: functions as relations, means uniterms of the atomic kind?
21:20:53 <StellaMitchell> ... so the only uniterm of the term kind are logical functions
21:20:56 <AxelPolleres> AxelPolleres has joined #rif
21:21:03 <mdean> mdean has joined #rif
21:21:55 <StellaMitchell> mk: asking about xpath urls, namespaces, what is behind it?
21:22:04 <StellaMitchell> axel: reads definition from xpath spec
21:22:30 <StellaMitchell> Sandro: they are available to users as other symbols
21:22:39 <Harold> For example, NumericAdd has uniform mode In x In -> Out as used in ?Result = 23 + 17 or <Equal><Var>Result</Var><NumericAdd><Const>23</Const><Const>17</Const></NumericAdd></Equal>.
21:22:51 <AxelPolleres> AxelPolleres has joined #rif
21:23:17 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/#namespace-prefixes
21:23:48 <StellaMitchell> Chris: back to questions - builtins as relations or external calls?
21:23:57 <StellaMitchell> csma: what is the difference?
21:24:31 <StellaMitchell> sandro: diff between interpreted and logical functions - for interpreted, you have to call some other piece of code to evaluate it
21:25:02 <StellaMitchell> csma:  ??
21:25:12 <StellaMitchell> sandro: that wouldn't allow for extensibility
21:25:28 <StellaMitchell> csma: producer and consumer have out of band agreement on what it is
21:26:23 <StellaMitchell> csma: function names are iris, so if you can't recognize it, you don't handle that external functions
21:26:36 <StellaMitchell> sandro: no, in that case it could be a logic function
21:27:05 <StellaMitchell> csma: I can't think of any concrete case where it would be a problem
21:27:16 <StellaMitchell> sandro: append - would be reasonable as either
21:27:43 <StellaMitchell> Chris: what is the status of functions on BLD
21:27:49 <StellaMitchell> s/on/in/
21:28:04 <StellaMitchell> Chris: how does a user define a logic function?
21:28:15 <StellaMitchell> Gary, MK: they just use it
21:28:18 <sandro> "logic functions that are term constructors"   vs   "evaluable" or "interpretable" functions, ....?
21:28:55 <Harold> In my example, NumericAdd as a relation would have hetereogeneous mode Out x In x In.
21:29:00 <StellaMitchell> sandro:   an "eval" function
21:29:22 <sandro> "external call", "procedural attachment", ...
21:29:26 <StellaMitchell> sandro: it's a little confusing that an external call is a builtin
21:29:55 <StellaMitchell> sandro: issue is, if you can tell from the syntax whether it is a builtin or a logical function
21:30:22 <StellaMitchell> Chris: is anyone opposed to having a special syntax to distinguish 
21:30:32 <Harold> We already can define functions using ATOMIC Equality facts based on ATOMIC ::= Uniterm | Equal.
21:30:42 <StellaMitchell> s/distinguish/distinguish?/
21:31:13 <StellaMitchell> csma: if we want fully stripped xml syntax, we need elment
21:31:50 <StellaMitchell> mk: builtins are supposed to have a uri, and in semantic web uri already has a meaning, so from that point of view we don't have to say anything
21:32:19 <StellaMitchell> sandro: gives example showing it is more complicated
21:32:37 <StellaMitchell> mk: uris are supposed to be self-denoting
21:32:58 <StellaMitchell> sandro: op:numeric-add is self denoting
21:34:07 <StellaMitchell> Chris: is it possible to define syntax and that would indicate which it is?
21:34:15 <Harold> We can user-define as an equational fact fatherOf(Mary) = John or <Equal> <Uniterm><Const>fatherOf</Const><Const>Mary</Const></Uniterm> <Const>John</Const> </Equal>.
21:34:19 <StellaMitchell> mk: no, I don't think so
21:34:49 <StellaMitchell> sandro: dereference argument and get documentation and links to downloads
21:35:12 <StellaMitchell> sandro: but from point of view of semantics, it is just an opaque string that denotes a funciton
21:35:39 <StellaMitchell> Chris: syntax that denotes builtins, and spec says which ones have to be supported
21:35:52 <StellaMitchell> ... and people would be able to add more
21:36:31 <StellaMitchell> mk: we can't control what is at the URL of fn:compare
21:36:42 <GaryHallmark> GaryHallmark has joined #rif
21:37:27 <StellaMitchell> sandro: uri goes to the text description
21:38:01 <AxelPolleres> <Uniterm> vs <Builtinterm>
21:38:03 <StellaMitchell> Chris: advantage of having an explicity syntax is that it is open - people can add more
21:38:53 <StellaMitchell> Chris: who thinks we should special syntax to identify builtins?
21:39:12 <StellaMitchell> (people on both sides, there is disagreement)
21:39:44 <StellaMitchell> Harold: in lisp there is a uniform way to call user defined functions
21:40:00 <StellaMitchell> Chris: but in lisp, it is not open
21:40:49 <StellaMitchell> BobM: ??
21:41:02 <Harold> s/uniform way to call user defined functions/uniform way to call user defined and builtin functions/
21:41:29 <StellaMitchell> axel: you are saying builtin terms must always have fixed interpretations
21:41:32 <sandro> "ExternalUniterm"
21:42:04 <StellaMitchell> mk: I think we can make it extensible
21:42:49 <StellaMitchell> Chris: but you are signalling it syntactically, like with defun
21:43:34 <StellaMitchell> mk:  I would use "require"  (the list of bld functions)
21:44:10 <StellaMitchell> sandro: that is not extensible
21:44:38 <StellaMitchell> mk: we only care that a symbol is used consistently
21:44:46 <StellaMitchell> ... if not, things are broken anysay
21:44:53 <StellaMitchell> s/anysay/anyway/
21:45:11 <StellaMitchell> sandro: "append" example, where it could be either builtin or logical function
21:45:30 <StellaMitchell> mk: but it would have different uris for different uses
21:45:58 <StellaMitchell> axel: what if the builtin is in the head (conclusion)?
21:46:27 <StellaMitchell> Chris: we can discuss that later, after we resolve this questions
21:47:13 <bmoore3> bmoore3 has joined #rif
21:47:56 <StellaMitchell> Chris: if we syntactically mark builtins, it is very clear how it would work
21:48:32 <StellaMitchell> Chris: but some people here think it's cleaner to not have to syntactically indicate it
21:49:16 <caribou> caribou has left #rif
21:49:25 <StellaMitchell> Chris: proponents of not syntactially marking can try to come up with a suggestion, maye in a break out tomorrow
21:49:33 <StellaMitchell> s/maye/maybe
21:50:08 <sandro> Chris: Result --- default is External Calls In Syntax; people who want something else (including him) need to come up with a proposal.
21:50:10 <StellaMitchell> ....that group will come up with a proposal or agree to the other method
21:50:14 <Harold> Looking at
21:50:15 <Harold>               <Uniterm>
21:50:15 <Harold>                 <op><Const type="rif:local">fn:subtract-dateTimes-yielding-dayTimeDuration</Const></op>
21:50:15 <Harold>                 <arg><Var>deliverydate</Var></arg>
21:50:15 <Harold>                 <arg><Var>scheduledate</Var></arg>
21:50:15 <Harold>                 <arg><Var>diffduration</Var></arg>
21:50:17 <Harold>               </Uniterm>
21:50:25 <StellaMitchell> Chris: metadata
21:51:06 <StellaMitchell> Chris:  meta means "after"
21:51:26 <StellaMitchell> Chris: what metadata do we need?
21:51:52 <Harold> the "fn:" in fn:subtract-dateTimes-yielding-dayTimeDuration shows that we have an external call here.
21:51:54 <StellaMitchell> Chris: which syntactic terms can have metadata?
21:52:59 <Harold> However there are some ways to mark this more explicitly as a builtin call:
21:53:01 <StellaMitchell> Sandro: and other questions about metadata:  is the metadata fixed for a given dialect?
21:53:14 <StellaMitchell> Chris: you mean is there a finite set of preset tags?
21:53:16 <StellaMitchell> sandro: yes
21:53:32 <StellaMitchell> PaulV:  is it extensible?
21:53:33 <Harold> * Use <Const type="rif:builtin">
21:53:54 <StellaMitchell> Sandro: or rather, if you want new metadata, do you need to make an extension?
21:54:14 <StellaMitchell> Gary: can you always ignore the metadata and get the same result?
21:54:21 <Harold> * Use <Const type="rif:local" builtin="yes">
21:54:23 <sandro> s/new metadata/a new metadata item/
21:54:37 <StellaMitchell> PaulV: what is an example of metadata that cannot be ignored?
21:54:47 <sandro> csma: is rule priority metadata?
21:54:54 <sandro> csma: it affects semantics.
21:54:59 <StellaMitchell> jos: if you refer to a datamodel using metadata, and that datamodel affects the semantics
21:55:26 <StellaMitchell> Sandro: this is why I advocate having no metadata
21:56:23 <StellaMitchell> Adrian: example of using RI F document as data
21:56:31 <sandro> no metadata mechanism --- just more extensions.
21:56:36 <StellaMitchell> s/RI F/RIF/
21:56:53 <StellaMitchell> Chris: do we want to talk about a class of metadata that cannot be ignored?
21:57:15 <StellaMitchell> csma: I think Sandro had a good point.  We don't call it metadata, just data
21:57:35 <Harold> * Both of the above are much better than using a totally different calling method such as <ExternalUniterm>, because the transition from user-defined to builtin should be kept as simple as possible (see above discussion about lisp and prolog).
21:57:39 <StellaMitchell> Sandro: I suggested pushing this off until we understand extensibility better
21:58:11 <StellaMitchell> Chris:  It should not be that you need an extension to add author metadata
21:59:06 <StellaMitchell> csma: isn't metadata the things that don't have to do with semantics
21:59:12 <StellaMitchell> mk: dublin core
21:59:25 <StellaMitchell> PaulV: and that (dublin core) would be a good starting point for RIF
21:59:58 <StellaMitchell> jos: we shouldn't have a fixed set of metadata - it's just a set of attribute value pairs
22:00:25 <StellaMitchell> sandro: so properties are iris and values are strings?
22:00:52 <StellaMitchell> mk: sandro, what did you want?
22:01:05 <StellaMitchell> sandro: import dublin core wholesale
22:01:27 <Harold> I think metadata should be non-prescriptive annotations, i.e. not change the normative semantics of a ruleset.
22:01:28 <PaulVincent> http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-xml-guidelines/ 
22:01:34 <StellaMitchell> mk: how does owl do it?
22:01:54 <StellaMitchell> jos: they say you can use any metadata you want, as long as it is an annotation property
22:02:42 <StellaMitchell> Chris: I think that agreeing on specific metadata tags should not be part of dialect defintion - just say how to include metadata
22:03:37 <StellaMitchell> Chris: who thinks the set of metadata for a dialect is fixed? 
22:03:42 <StellaMitchell> ...strawpoll
22:04:41 <StellaMitchell> csma: can we have both?  a required set and a way to add more?
22:04:51 <StellaMitchell> Chris: 3 proposals:
22:04:54 <StellaMitchell> ...1 fixed
22:04:57 <StellaMitchell> ...2 open
22:04:58 <Harold> Metadata thus act just like comments from the perspective of the normative semantics, although non-semantics-preserving processing such as in AdrianP's author-filtering example will be possible.
22:05:08 <StellaMitchell> ...3 required, plus a way to add more
22:05:13 <StellaMitchell> fixed:  1
22:06:05 <StellaMitchell> open:  6
22:06:32 <StellaMitchell> sandro: I object to passing a resolution now because we having settled on our extensibility mechanism
22:06:45 <sandro> s/ing set/ not set/
22:06:57 <StellaMitchell> mixed: 7 (gary voted for open and mixed)
22:07:29 <StellaMitchell> official count:  fixed: 1,  open:4, mixed: 6
22:08:07 <StellaMitchell> Chris:  We will put on hold the question of where we can put metadata (which elements to attach it to)
22:08:50 <sandro> Chris: Non-ignorable metadata is part of a dialect.    I think we have consensus.
22:09:09 <StellaMitchell> Chris:   non-ignorable metadata is part of a dialect definition
22:09:28 <StellaMitchell> bobm:  i'd say non-ignorable metadata is not metadata
22:09:35 <sandro> Sandro: So the question is whether to have an annotation mechanism for ignorable content.
22:10:39 <sandro> Gary: 'this rule is effective during the month of november' --- is that metadata?
22:11:26 <StellaMitchell> Chris: the mechanism we are talking about is the annotations that don't affect the semantics
22:11:42 <StellaMitchell> ...( the ignorable metadata)
22:11:52 <Harold> +1 to bobm
22:12:18 <sandro> The issue here is whether to provide a syntactic mechanism for including structured annotations which have no effect on the semantics.   And if so, how?
22:13:00 <sandro> (Avoids the term metadata)
22:13:45 <sandro> general consensus on that issue statement.
22:13:58 <PaulVincent> Paul: proposes some use cases for metadata eg RIF for execution won't need metadata eg RIF for rules mgmt will find metadata significant
22:14:06 <sandro> Sandro: I'm not convinced we need this, yet.   I think light-weight extensions might cover these use cases.
22:14:31 <mdean> scribe:  Mike Dean
22:14:36 <StellaMitchell> Chris: we will discuss it more after we settle on the extensibility mechanism
22:14:37 <GaryHallmark> GaryHallmark has joined #rif
22:14:39 <mdean> scribenick:  mdean
22:14:58 <mdean> topic:  test cases
22:15:46 <mdean> action 361:  Stella to update test case wiki page
22:16:04 <Harold> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Nov/0000.html
22:16:06 <mdean> didn't mean to record new action
22:17:26 <mdean> ChrisW:  overview of test cases in WebOnt WG
22:17:48 <mdean> entailments for each operator
22:18:00 <mdean> resolution of issues often documented as test case
22:18:31 <Harold> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/
22:18:48 <mdean> ChrisW:  RIF could adopt this methodology
22:19:15 <mdean> Sandro:  consistency tests too?
22:20:33 <sandro> Agreement -- we need Inconsistency and Consistency tests too.
22:20:43 <mdean> csma:  have people submit cases where they think there is ambiguity
22:21:10 <mdean> csma:  what is the form of these tests?
22:22:08 <mdean> example test case in Stella's email above
22:22:54 <mdean> structured annotations wrapping OWL documents
22:23:10 <mdean> premise in one file, conclusions in another
22:23:41 <josb> owl example: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/byFunction#function-Restriction
22:23:55 <mdean> message uses example URIs - OWL tests were real
22:24:55 <mdean> Sandro:  likes .hrif for presentation syntax
22:26:16 <mdean> Sandro:  Jeremy wrote nice software to manage test cases for WebOnt
22:26:30 <mdean> ... recently asked to resurrect this for OWL WG
22:26:39 <mdean> s/Jeremy/Jeremy Carroll/
22:27:22 <mdean> ... Jeremy and Jos deRoo just did it
22:28:06 <mdean> Adrian:  need separate query language?
22:28:28 <mdean> ChrisW:  not needed - just specify in manifest
22:28:56 <mdean> ChrisW:  can we leverage JUnit?
22:29:16 <mdean> Sandro:  let's wait for a few weeks on OWL WG
22:29:27 <mdean> ChrisW:  need time limit
22:29:48 <mdean> Sandro:  ... unless someone else volunteers
22:30:17 <mdean> ... could still submit a test in natural language in email or Wiki page
22:30:30 <mdean> josb:  good to link to examples in document
22:30:53 <mdean> csma:  some tests should also be linked to use cases
22:31:11 <mdean> Sandro:  group seems to be comfortable mirroring what OWL did
22:31:39 <mdean> csma:  what about testing implementations?
22:32:09 <mdean> Sandro:  WebOnt generated table of tests by implementation, showing each was handled by at least 2
22:32:51 <mdean> csma:  could be a way to test that specification meets requirement, i.e. was implementable
22:33:04 <mdean> Sandro:  doesn't ring any bells
22:33:21 <mdean> topic:  compliance/
22:33:25 <mdean> Sandro:  prefer conformance
22:33:51 <mdean> csma:  yes/no test or degrees of conformance?
22:34:06 <mdean> ... define profiles/levels
22:34:40 <mdean> ChrisW:  based on test cases that implementation passed, not a formal thing
22:34:59 <mdean> josb:  normative OWL test cases section on conformance
22:35:11 <mdean> ... syntax and consistency checkers
22:35:43 <mdean> parking passes distributed
22:36:29 <Harold> We need to make entailment ( |- ) relative to the logic we are in. Eg in FOL p(a) :- q(a) |- ~q(a) :- ~p(a), but not so in Horn logic.
22:36:45 <mdean> breakfast options:  $10 for continental, or $15 full Zephyr buffet to go
22:38:16 <mdean> Sandro:  strawman conformance test:  phrase as some sort of action:  this software does this ...
22:38:36 <mdean> csma:  prefer one level of compliance - must implement everything
22:38:56 <mdean> ... then could have compliance for specific extensions
22:39:24 <mdean> Michael:  most implementations probably won't implement full equality
22:39:42 <mdean> Michael:  OWL has not been fully implemented either
22:40:27 <mdean> josb:  Pellet isn't complete with nominals
22:41:04 <mdean> Sandro:  unfortunate that we don't have complete OWL implementations yet
22:41:36 <mdean> Michael:  same with SQL, thousands of pages of spec
22:42:15 <mdean> Michael:  don't exclude something just because it's hard to implement
22:43:10 <mdean> csma:  compliance is like conformance but not quite :-)
22:43:40 <mdean> ... want to promote adoption, motivate comfortant implementations
22:44:24 <mdean> Michael:  could be conformance level that doesn't include equality
22:44:42 <mdean> csma:  could end up with so many dialects and levels that OWL looks simple
22:45:13 <Harold> The paramodulation calculus is a refutational theorem proving method for
22:45:13 <Harold> rst-order logic with equality, originally presented in Robinson &Wos (1969)http://www.cs.bu.edu/fac/snyder/publications/BasicParamodulation.pdf
22:46:03 <sandro> Chris: Issues 1 - whether to have levels of conformance (vs just boolean) per dialect
22:47:27 <sandro> Chris: Issues 2 - whether to have lowest conformance level match implementations  (eg full equality).
22:48:38 <mdean> bob:  many features aren't implemented or implementable with reasonable time
22:48:54 <mdean> ... interoperability is most important
22:49:30 <mdean> ... don't define logic that can't be implemented
22:50:08 <GaryHallmark> GaryHallmark has joined #rif
22:50:44 <sandro> Chris: 4 square, levels vs expected.     
22:51:55 <mdean> csma:  boolean might not require equality
22:52:26 <mdean> profiles not the same as levels
22:53:12 <mdean> Chris:  boolean per dialect
22:53:36 <mdean> Michael:  profiles are kinds of dialects
22:53:53 <mdean> straw poll
22:53:53 <sandro> Chris: Levels + Expected: 0
22:54:19 <sandro> Chris: Booleans + Expected: looks like everyone
22:54:34 <sandro> Chris: Boolean + Not-Expected -- Michael
22:55:18 <sandro> Michael: There will be useful implementations which don't conform.
22:55:30 <Harold> The axioms for the equality relation need not be built into RIF (without it's easy to implement), because they can be 'loaded' as another ruleset: http://www.math.psu.edu/melvin/logic/node7.html
22:55:49 <mdean> Chris:  does everyone assume profiles?
22:56:21 <mdean> 6 of N-1 thought they were voting for profiles
22:56:29 <sandro> Voting for profiles: 6,    
22:57:33 <mdean> Sandro:  voting for compliance being something that's implementable
22:57:52 <mdean> Chris:  BLD - equality not a profile?
22:58:33 <mdean> Sandro:  change BLD to not include equality
22:58:42 <mdean> csma:  current BLD becomes an extension
22:59:05 <sandro> Sandro,Bob: define BLD as something that's implementable.
22:59:24 <mdean> +5 for Sandro
22:59:34 <sandro> 5 people agreeing with that view.
23:00:19 <mdean> csma:  same for PRD
23:00:33 <mdean> ... extensions could be harder to implement
23:00:45 <mdean> Sandro:  profile vs. extension is marketing difference
23:00:50 <mdean> csma:  important for adoption
23:01:16 <mdean> Sandro:  same for equality and negation
23:01:39 <mdean> Chris:  plenty of SQL operators are partially implemented
23:02:19 <mdean> Chris:  nobody needs the full implementation
23:02:26 <mdean> csma:  must jump start implementations
23:03:06 <mdean> Chris:  not ready for resolution, but consensus that we want boolean tests for conformance with some disagreement over what to test
23:03:19 <mdean> Michael:  could also use test cases
23:03:31 <mdean> Chris:  industry likely to do this, publish their test case results
23:04:10 <mdean> Sandro:  BLD querying system vs implementation
23:04:56 <mdean> Chris:  do we need issue regarding equality?
23:05:34 <mdean> Chris:  always boils down to test cases
23:06:23 <sandro> group of five who wants BLD changed to remove quality, so that it's practical to implement it fully
23:06:34 <mdean> ACTION (csma):  open issue on equality
23:07:14 <mdean> Google says dinner is 1.1 miles away
23:07:18 <mdean> reservation at 7pm
23:07:32 <mdean> walkers meet in lobby at 6:30
23:07:52 <mdean> otherwise contact Sandro
23:07:56 <sandro> ACTION: Christian to open issue about removing equality from BLD because it's  not so practical to implement.
23:07:56 <rifbot> Created ACTION-366 - Open issue about removing equality from BLD because it\'s  not so practical to implement. [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2007-11-12].
23:07:57 <mdean> adjourned
23:16:57 <sandro> "RIF Consuming Reasoner"