IRC log of rif on 2007-11-27

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:41:23 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
15:41:23 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:44:27 [csma]
Topic: 27 November RIF telecon agenda:
15:44:49 [csma]
15:45:01 [csma]
Scribe: Leora Morgenstern
15:45:13 [csma]
csma has left #rif
15:45:19 [csma]
csma has joined #rif
15:46:01 [csma]
csma has changed the topic to: 27 November RIF telecon qgendq:
15:46:21 [csma]
Zakim, list agenda
15:46:21 [Zakim]
I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
15:46:22 [Zakim]
8. Issue 40 [from csma]
15:46:32 [csma]
zakim, close agenda
15:46:32 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'close agenda', csma
15:46:39 [csma]
zakim, reset agenda
15:46:39 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'reset agenda', csma
15:46:53 [csma]
zakim, delete agenda
15:46:53 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'delete agenda', csma
15:48:39 [csma]
zakim, clear agenda
15:48:39 [Zakim]
agenda cleared
15:49:12 [csma]
agenda+ Admin
15:49:35 [csma]
agenda+ Liaisons
15:49:48 [csma]
agenda+ F2F9
15:50:18 [csma]
agenda+ OWL compatibility
15:51:03 [csma]
agenda+ Issue 41 (membership)
15:51:28 [csma]
agenda+ Issue 43 (classification)
15:51:56 [csma]
agenda+ Issue 44 (named arguments uniterm)
15:52:17 [bijan]
bijan has joined #rif
15:52:22 [csma]
agenda+ Issue 45 (lists)
15:52:54 [csma]
agenda+ AOB (pick scribe for next time!)
15:54:02 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
15:54:03 [Zakim]
15:54:12 [bijan]
zakim, ??p7 is me
15:54:12 [Zakim]
+bijan; got it
15:54:18 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
15:54:18 [Zakim]
sorry, bijan, muting is not permitted when only one person is present
15:54:31 [bijan]
You mean I have to listen to myself talk?
15:54:33 [bijan]
15:54:54 [PaulaP]
PaulaP has joined #rif
15:57:24 [LeoraMorgenstern]
LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
15:57:57 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
15:59:14 [Darko_A]
Darko_A has joined #rif
15:59:14 [Zakim]
15:59:15 [Zakim]
15:59:17 [Zakim]
15:59:29 [Zakim]
15:59:31 [csma]
Paula, did n't you post regrets? I changed the agenda because of that!
15:59:39 [Harold]
zakim, NRCC is me
15:59:40 [Zakim]
+Harold; got it
15:59:51 [IgorMozetic]
IgorMozetic has joined #rif
15:59:52 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Hi ... is anyone on the phone?
15:59:58 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
16:00:02 [bijan]
I am
16:00:09 [bijan]
But last I checked I was all alone
16:00:12 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
16:00:12 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
16:00:20 [PaulaP]
I'm online for the first part of the telecon...but on the call
16:00:30 [Zakim]
16:00:35 [Zakim]
16:00:41 [PaulaP]
but NOT on the call...sorry
16:00:52 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
16:01:05 [csma]
zakim, ??P36 is me
16:01:05 [Zakim]
+csma; got it
16:01:15 [csma]
zakim, who is the phone?
16:01:15 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, csma.
16:01:17 [Zakim]
16:01:25 [IgorMozetic]
zakim, ??P42 is me
16:01:25 [Zakim]
+IgorMozetic; got it
16:01:32 [csma]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:01:32 [Zakim]
On the phone I see bijan (muted), Harold, Leora_Morgenstern, Sandro, csma, IgorMozetic
16:01:34 [Zakim]
16:01:44 [IgorMozetic]
zakim, mute me
16:01:44 [Zakim]
IgorMozetic should now be muted
16:01:53 [sandro]
zakim, agenda?
16:01:53 [Zakim]
I see 9 items remaining on the agenda:
16:01:57 [Zakim]
1. Admin [from csma]
16:02:05 [Zakim]
2. Liaisons [from csma]
16:02:12 [Zakim]
3. F2F9 [from csma]
16:02:12 [csma]
scribenick: Leora_Morgenstern
16:02:21 [PaulaP]
I didn't know that the wireless connection will be ok here, we are on a small island for our annual project meeting
16:02:22 [Zakim]
4. OWL compatibility [from csma]
16:02:26 [Zakim]
5. Issue 41 (membership) [from csma]
16:02:32 [Zakim]
6. Issue 43 (classification) [from csma]
16:02:38 [Zakim]
7. Issue 44 (named arguments uniterm) [from csma]
16:02:42 [Zakim]
8. Issue 45 (lists) [from csma]
16:02:50 [Zakim]
9. AOB (pick scribe for next time!) [from csma]
16:02:56 [Zakim]
16:03:01 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #rif
16:03:04 [Zakim]
+ +1.919.541.aaaa
16:03:04 [LeoraMorgenstern]
zakim, next item
16:03:10 [Zakim]
+Dave_Reynolds (was Guest P46 74394)
16:03:16 [Zakim]
16:03:26 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Admin" taken up [from csma]
16:03:49 [Hassan]
Hassan has joined #rif
16:03:52 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Action review:
16:04:22 [Zakim]
16:04:55 [LeoraMorgenstern]
LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
16:05:00 [csma]
action-383 done
16:05:39 [LeoraMorgenstern]
PROPOSED: Accept minutes of telecon of 11-20-07
16:05:51 [LeoraMorgenstern]
RESOLVED: Accept minutes of telecon of 11-20-07
16:06:10 [LeoraMorgenstern]
PROPOSED: Accept minutes of F2F8
16:06:35 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Actually, that should be in 3 parts (first day, second day, breakout sessions)
16:06:47 [LeoraMorgenstern]
RESOLVED: Accept minutes of F2F8
16:06:47 [ChrisW]
I can't access the WG web pages - "Forbidden due to abuse"
16:07:08 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Christian: Discussing responses to public comments
16:07:37 [csma]
16:07:55 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: There was one question about negation and disjunction on public comment list
16:08:05 [csma]
16:08:06 [Zakim]
16:08:11 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #rif
16:08:30 [LeoraMorgenstern]
cmsa: Axel proposed a reply; if there's no objection, I propose we send Axel's reply.
16:09:53 [Zakim]
16:09:53 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: Can Axel send the reply?
16:10:09 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: Sandro: yes, as long as others have read it and are comfortable with it
16:10:24 [LeoraMorgenstern]
16:10:37 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: I have read it, and I'm comfortable
16:10:52 [PaulaP]
+1 for Axel's reply
16:11:28 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: Also, Peter Palel-Schneider had some comments regarding BLD on the public list
16:11:53 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: Three actions on Michael relative to this comment
16:11:55 [josb]
16:12:04 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: Michael not here; we need to defer the discussion
16:12:09 [LeoraMorgenstern]
zakim, next item
16:12:09 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Liaisons" taken up [from csma]
16:12:25 [LeoraMorgenstern]
No news on liaisons
16:12:29 [LeoraMorgenstern]
zakim, next item
16:12:29 [Zakim]
agendum 2 was just opened, LeoraMorgenstern
16:12:41 [LeoraMorgenstern]
zakim, next item
16:12:41 [Zakim]
agendum 2 was just opened, LeoraMorgenstern
16:12:48 [LeoraMorgenstern]
zakim, close agendum 2
16:12:48 [Zakim]
agendum 2, Liaisons, closed
16:12:49 [Zakim]
I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:12:51 [Zakim]
3. F2F9 [from csma]
16:12:54 [Harold]
16:13:05 [IgorMozetic]
zakim, unmute me
16:13:05 [Zakim]
IgorMozetic should no longer be muted
16:13:16 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: Very few people have responded to Sandro's questionnaire.
16:13:24 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: Action 380, on me, has been done
16:13:43 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: Actions on Igor and Axel with regard to posting date preferences for F2F9
16:13:58 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: Action 379 on Igor has been done too.
16:14:32 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: Problem with dates: can only be in the last 2 weeks in February; moreover, Harold can only make the last week in February.
16:14:38 [IgorMozetic]
16:15:02 [sandro]
16:16:21 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: Michael can't make the 26th; Chris can't make the 28th; Dave and Harold can't make the previous week.
16:17:17 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: Perhaps we need to move F2F9 to March or January?
16:17:25 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: Seems so.
16:17:48 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Sandro: Too late for January. We can try for March; it may turn out to be worse.
16:18:02 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: And March is very late relative to the end of the WG
16:19:19 [LeoraMorgenstern]
harold: I could do February 20-22
16:19:26 [LeoraMorgenstern]
igor: I can't make it those days.
16:20:15 [LeoraMorgenstern]
dave: I can't make it those days either.
16:21:25 [LeoraMorgenstern]
dave: But I could attend by phone.
16:21:57 [josb]
16:22:06 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: There seems to be a consensus to have F2F9 on February 21-22, either in Galway or Paris.
16:22:25 [josb]
+1 for Paris :)
16:22:43 [Zakim]
16:22:55 [PaulaP]
+1 for Paris (sorry Axel :) )
16:23:05 [Zakim]
16:23:28 [IgorMozetic]
zakim, mute me
16:23:28 [Zakim]
IgorMozetic should now be muted
16:23:29 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: Let's have the meeting in Paris.
16:23:33 [LeoraMorgenstern]
zakim, next item
16:23:33 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "F2F9" taken up [from csma]
16:23:55 [ChrisW]
zakim, close item 3
16:23:55 [Zakim]
agendum 3, F2F9, closed
16:23:56 [Zakim]
I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:23:58 [Zakim]
4. OWL compatibility [from csma]
16:24:00 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
16:24:00 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "OWL compatibility" taken up [from csma]
16:24:30 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Back to liaison:
16:25:21 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: There's supposed to be a formal announcement from W3C on the extension of the Working Group.
16:25:44 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: Which would one hope, bodes well, but we don't know, and we have to wait.
16:25:56 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Back to OWL compatibility:
16:26:06 [markproctor]
markproctor has joined #rif
16:26:16 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: Checking for actions ... no actions
16:26:22 [josb]
16:26:28 [markproctor]
markproctor has joined #rif
16:27:02 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: I've drafted several issues. There are several decisions that have to be made to enforce compatibility with OWL.
16:27:21 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: Similar issues as arose with ensuring compatibility with RDF.
16:27:25 [Zakim]
16:28:02 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: First issue : the different versions of OWL.
16:28:39 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: If we specify compatibility wiht OWL-DL, we automatically have compatibility with OWL-Lite, but not with OWL-Full, which has a different semantics.
16:29:00 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: So we have to specify which version we're compatible with.
16:29:30 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: If we just decide to go with OWL-DL, we can just ignore all the issues that arise from OWL-Full
16:29:56 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: Syntax of OWL-Full and RDf are exactly the same.
16:30:19 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: In case of OWL-DL, syntax is not the same. Abstract syntax specification is quite different from RDF.
16:30:20 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
16:31:18 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: But there is an RDF representation of abstracft syntax of OWL-DL.
16:31:41 [Zakim]
16:31:48 [Zakim]
16:32:07 [bijan]
I wonder how the fact of a new version of owl affects this deliverable
16:32:15 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: <Discussion of different options in blue highlighted box in link just posted.>
16:32:16 [sandro]
Zakim, who is on the call?
16:32:18 [bijan]
I'll note that OWL DL is a fairly significant fragment of OWL Full, so workign with OWL DL gets *some* Full joy
16:32:24 [Zakim]
... Gary_Hallmark, Mark_Proctor, Sandro
16:33:54 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: that's as far as syntactic compatibility.
16:34:14 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: Semantic compability is a thornier issue.
16:34:19 [bijan]
Both semantics are normative
16:34:29 [Harold]
Maybe the OWL Full species is not a main issue for RIF compatibility with a new version of OWL (based on OWL 1.1):
16:34:45 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: Various issues have to be faced, whether we go for compatibility with OWL-Full or Owl-DL.
16:34:45 [Zakim]
16:34:54 [ChrisW]
16:35:21 [Zakim]
16:35:27 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: Decision has to be made to go for straightforward correspondence of models
16:36:00 [csma]
16:36:02 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: or as results obtained from questioning an external oracle.
16:36:08 [IgorMozetic]
zakim, unmute me
16:36:08 [Zakim]
IgorMozetic should no longer be muted
16:36:52 [csma]
ack chrisw
16:37:02 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: If we go with the second option (external oracle), do we get a pass on the syntactic compatibility issues?
16:37:11 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: No -- still must deal with them
16:37:31 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: several people on the irc have brought up the point that there will be a new version of OWL.
16:37:52 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
16:37:52 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
16:37:58 [bijan]
q+ to talk about owl 1.1
16:38:03 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: Perhaps we should have some liaison with the OWL group to come up with compatiblity with new standard.
16:38:20 [csma]
ack bijan
16:38:20 [Zakim]
bijan, you wanted to talk about owl 1.1
16:38:27 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: better than just picking one of the old versions and ensuring compatibility with that old version.
16:39:06 [LeoraMorgenstern]
bijan: Current status quo of OWL-DL 1.1 very advanced, but this is not ture of OWL-Full.
16:39:19 [LeoraMorgenstern]
s/not ture/not true/
16:39:33 [csma]
zakim, mute me
16:39:34 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
16:39:39 [josb]
16:39:46 [csma]
zakim, unmute me
16:39:46 [Zakim]
csma should no longer be muted
16:39:52 [LeoraMorgenstern]
bijan: There's a possiblitiy that eventually there will just be one OWL --- some of OWL-Full will be dropped.
16:40:44 [LeoraMorgenstern]
bijan: In terms of implementations: various implementations of OWL-DL, but implementations of OWL-Full seem to rely on a patchwork of various things, SWRL, RDF, etc.
16:40:48 [csma]
ack josb
16:40:53 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
16:40:53 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
16:41:26 [bijan]
I wouldn't mind transfering the owl compatibility to the OWLWG
16:41:43 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: Regarding OWL 1.1 --- Scenario Chris sketched of collaboration between OWL and RIF won't work, because if we're lucky enough to get an extension, it will only be for 6 months.
16:42:17 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: We shouldn't build anything into the language that make compatibility with further extensions impossible.
16:42:25 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: But that may be as far as we should go.
16:42:26 [bijan]
+1 to a lightest possible compatibility document!
16:42:50 [bijan]
There is also an OWLED TF on rule integration
16:42:51 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: That is, we should aim for the lightest possible compatibility document.
16:43:11 [csma]
16:43:35 [bijan]
16:43:39 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: We can make it very light by saying we extend RDF compatibility to OWL-DL and OWL-Full.
16:44:11 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: But that's not the lightest possible for the reader, who is more used to reading about a direct model-theoretic compatibility.
16:44:44 [LeoraMorgenstern]
(Reminds me of what Shaw said: If it's easy to write, it's usually hard to read, and vice versa.)
16:44:47 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
16:44:47 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
16:44:49 [csma]
ack bijan
16:45:40 [LeoraMorgenstern]
bijan: I would imagine that such a document wouldn't be picked up a whole lot by the OWL reasoner community. So, realize it would probably be ignored by the OWL implementors' community.
16:46:04 [LeoraMorgenstern]
bijan: If I just saw an extension of the RDF semantics, I would probably just ignore it.
16:46:15 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: And after all, we're doing this document for the OWL community.
16:46:25 [LeoraMorgenstern]
bijan: But I'm speaking for myself, not for the OWL community.
16:46:44 [csma]
ack sandro
16:46:45 [LeoraMorgenstern]
bijan: What I'm looking for from the RIF is an interoperable syntax.
16:46:55 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
16:46:55 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
16:46:56 [LeoraMorgenstern]
bijan: But if it came with a lot of baggage, I might ignore it.
16:47:29 [josb]
16:47:38 [csma]
ackm josb
16:47:40 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: Primary purpose of deliverable: There are users who want to use OWL and want to use rules, and they want to know how to use both together. E.g., Christine Golbreich. We need an answer for such people.
16:47:44 [Harold]
Perhaps we should interpret 'lightest' in the sense of the OWL species -- starting with OWL Lite and moving up to OWL DL (as used in SWRL), but postponing OWL Full to Phase 2?
16:47:46 [csma]
ack josb
16:47:55 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: May mean paying more attention to SWRL than we have recently.
16:47:55 [bijan]
There are several editors that generate SWRL syntax
16:48:06 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: Like making sure that SWRL is covered by BLD,
16:48:20 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: I think SWRL can be covered by a small extension to Core.
16:48:32 [DaveReynolds]
OWL Full more relevant to us than OWL DL in that our OWL work tends to be of the RDFS++ style that Bijan outlined
16:48:43 [bijan]
All reasoning implemetnations I know of interpret it as DL safe...with a few translation approaches in the offing (i.e., a prototype translation to FOL, and some translation to OWL 1.1 TBox axioms)
16:49:33 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: I agree with both Bijan and Sandro. Our goal shouldn't be to make the lightest possible document, but to make this easy for people ---those who want to use OWL and rules --- to use.
16:49:41 [bijan]
(All, nigh compelte OWL DL + SWRL rules implementations, i.e., Racer, KAON2, and Pellet.)
16:49:55 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: maybe have 2 documents, one for OWL-DL, and one for OWL-full
16:51:12 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: And for OWL-Full, just extend RDF compatibility?
16:51:12 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: Yes.
16:51:26 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: If BLD doesn't depend on OWL compatibility, then we have more time to work on OWL compatibility, and therefore we may hae the time to hook up with the OWL community.
16:51:50 [sandro]
sandro has joined #rif
16:52:08 [bijan]
I'm biased to something that supports existing and likely near-term implementations. It helps scope the problem; it provides immediate support to users; it's more or less testable
16:52:15 [Zakim]
16:52:28 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: If it's the case that we have to ensure these different types of compatibility
16:52:29 [josb]
16:52:40 [csma]
ack josb
16:52:41 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: <Fill in this later>
16:52:57 [bijan]
For example, I'm interested in supporting hex predicates in Pellet, but that's several years off.
16:52:58 [Zakim]
16:52:59 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: Should we talk to the OWL WG?
16:53:42 [bijan]
The OWLWG will *know* in the next 6-9 months :)
16:53:53 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: Maybe we can ask the OWL WG to ask us whether we should do the two types of compatibiltity separately or work on some sort of merged version
16:54:12 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: Yes, can't ignore the fact that OWL is changing.
16:54:18 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: We have an opportunity to do a nice job with integration with these two different things.
16:54:43 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: Especially, since although BLD will be final(ized) in May, there will be more time until the final recommendation.
16:54:49 [bijan]
16:54:58 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
16:54:58 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
16:55:01 [csma]
ack bijan
16:55:07 [LeoraMorgenstern]
s/the final recommendation/ it is a recommendation
16:55:22 [csma]
s/final(ized)/last call/
16:55:35 [LeoraMorgenstern]
bijan: OWL task force just got a surge of interest; possible we might be interested in getting people to work, review, support this effort.
16:56:00 [LeoraMorgenstern]
bijan: Peter is coming to Manchester before <?>, Boris ??? is coming; can get lots of stuff going.
16:56:21 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
16:56:21 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
16:56:35 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
16:56:35 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
16:56:36 [bijan]
16:57:01 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: It seems like we'd have to wait for the recommendation for OWL 1.1
16:57:20 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: No, I'm talking about jointly making a recommendation for OWL and BLD.
16:57:23 [Hassan]
16:57:35 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: Having a joint task force could influence the evolvement of these two.
16:58:25 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: I specifically don't want to be in the situation where subgroup of OWL tells us what to do, or vice versa.
16:58:30 [csma]
ack bijan
16:58:46 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: who will be on this task force from RIF?
16:59:31 [LeoraMorgenstern]
bijan: Lot of start-up overhead at the moment. No significan push possible until after the holidays/first f2f for owl 1.1.
17:00:12 [csma]
ack hassan
17:00:14 [bijan]
My survey:
17:00:23 [LeoraMorgenstern]
bijan: had 94 people at last owl get together (get exact name), but based on polling, many fewer people willing to actually work on this, because what they have works well enough.
17:00:27 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:00:27 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:00:28 [csma]
17:01:14 [LeoraMorgenstern]
hassan: I agree with what most of what's been said, but there's a bit of a chicken-and-egg argument here. OWL 1.1 isn't going to be that different fromcurrent OWL, so we can start looking at likely interesection between current OWL and OWL 1.1
17:01:17 [josb]
s/owl get together (get exact name)/owled/
17:01:28 [josb]
17:01:32 [Harold]
17:01:36 [JeffP]
17:02:08 [bijan]
I've seen task forces with members disjointly from each wg
17:02:09 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: how does it work? Does a member of such a task force have to be a member of both WGs?
17:02:12 [DaveReynolds]
I'd like visibility at least since my concerns are different from the DL rule cluster
17:02:14 [bijan]
That's the norm
17:02:24 [bijan]
zakim, unmute me
17:02:24 [Zakim]
bijan should no longer be muted
17:02:25 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: I'd assume it's enough to be a member of one WG.
17:03:15 [bijan]
zakim, mute me
17:03:15 [Zakim]
bijan should now be muted
17:03:46 [josb]
at most 4 people? 2 from each WG?
17:03:53 [LeoraMorgenstern]
<some discussion of who would be interested>
17:04:23 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Shouldn't be too big.
17:04:29 [bijan]
Is the goal to produce a document?
17:05:11 [LeoraMorgenstern]
ACTION on Chris to talk to OWL Working Group Chairs, Alan and Ian
17:05:14 [josb]
I'd say, yes
17:05:27 [Hassan]
I suppose so Bijan (re: producing a document) - how else can it be?
17:05:28 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: will report next week
17:05:29 [csma]
17:05:55 [josb]
17:06:02 [csma]
ack josb
17:06:39 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: In this case, Current RDF and OWL compatibility document would just be a RDF compatibility document.
17:06:56 [ChrisW]
ok, bye
17:07:03 [Zakim]
17:07:03 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: In which case, this document is almost finished. (But we do have to note the change in document somewhere.)
17:07:10 [Zakim]
17:07:13 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: Action review
17:07:26 [LeoraMorgenstern]
ACTION 389 on Paula has been done.
17:07:28 [Zakim]
17:08:11 [LeoraMorgenstern]
ACTION 382 on Sandro to report any critical -path ssues related to extensibility --- continued until next week.
17:08:32 [LeoraMorgenstern]
s/continued until/due/
17:09:12 [LeoraMorgenstern]
ACTION 372,373,375,382 on Sandro -- also due next week
17:10:03 [Zakim]
- +39.047.1.aaaa
17:10:20 [LeoraMorgenstern]
ACTION 349 on Dave to write up a use case for membership formulae -- done
17:10:30 [DaveReynolds]
17:10:56 [Zakim]
17:11:31 [Zakim]
17:12:27 [josb]
?item[oftype -> eg:HardwareType^^rif:iri]
17:12:55 [josb]
or oftype(?item, eg:HardwareType^^rif:iri)
17:14:05 [josb]
+1 this is indeed not a use case for the membership formulas
17:15:48 [LeoraMorgenstern]
17:17:12 [LeoraMorgenstern]
<Discussion of Dave's use case, and whether this example is artificial, to the point, etc. Expand.>
17:17:17 [csma]
17:18:38 [josb]
17:18:55 [josb]
17:19:32 [Zakim]
17:19:36 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Dave: Axel's use case is neutral: doesn't argue for having a RIF member-of
17:19:50 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: because could equally well use type-of
17:19:58 [josb]
17:20:07 [csma]
ack josb
17:20:12 [Zakim]
17:20:14 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: so, we still don't have a use case arguing for a single member-of function.
17:20:46 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: that is use case for having one single way for representing different types of membership.
17:21:05 [LeoraMorgenstern]
s/member-of function/membership formula/
17:21:31 [LeoraMorgenstern]
harold: we have to view this in conjunction with classification as well.
17:21:55 [LeoraMorgenstern]
harold: look at slotted extensions, which have membership and classification.
17:22:09 [IgorMozetic]
17:22:16 [csma]
ack igor
17:22:22 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: we don't have use cases for classification formulae.
17:22:54 [LeoraMorgenstern]
igor: are we making the same mistake as we did in Core? Should we leave all these elements in BLD, and then define various profiles = subsets?
17:22:56 [DaveReynolds]
17:23:08 [LeoraMorgenstern]
igor: easier to define various profiles than to define extensions.
17:23:22 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: But the question is: does anyone need these even in BLD?
17:23:30 [LeoraMorgenstern]
igor: Seems like a basic construct.
17:23:54 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: But not in rules languages. The question is --- where in rules do you need to assert or test something about classiciation?
17:24:11 [DaveReynolds]
17:24:25 [LeoraMorgenstern]
igor: to me, seems like a nice bridge between rules languages and DL languages.
17:24:36 [Hassan]
In a way, Igor is saying that rules and data models are independent - and I agree : they are orthogonal
17:25:04 [LeoraMorgenstern]
I haven't thought about this too much ...
17:25:12 [LeoraMorgenstern]
but I could imagine this coming up when doing marketing
17:25:28 [josb]
17:25:34 [LeoraMorgenstern]
When developing new banking products, e.g,
17:25:39 [csma]
ack josb
17:25:48 [LeoraMorgenstern]
one would want to see if it can be classified in various ways ...
17:26:10 [LeoraMorgenstern]
e.g., finding out if there is something that can be considered both a savings product
17:26:11 [markproctor]
in Objects forward chaining engines tend to match against a hierarchy. So if someone does Collection() it'll match List, ArrayList, LinkedList etc. but thats as far as I know it goes.
17:26:16 [LeoraMorgenstern]
and an investment vehicle
17:26:21 [LeoraMorgenstern]
17:27:27 [LeoraMorgenstern]
17:27:38 [JeffP]
zakim, who is talking?
17:27:46 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Ignore what I just wrote.
17:27:50 [Zakim]
JeffP, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
17:27:56 [csma]
Mark Proctor
17:28:03 [LeoraMorgenstern]
MarkProctor: It seems one would need to check membership rather than classification
17:28:05 [csma]
(to jeff)
17:28:06 [JeffP]
thx, csma
17:28:06 [IgorMozetic]
17:29:29 [josb]
17:29:37 [Hassan]
17:29:56 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: Michael feels checking classification is necessary; should convince csma
17:30:25 [csma]
ack hassan
17:30:29 [LeoraMorgenstern]
17:30:47 [LeoraMorgenstern]
hassan: no difference, conceptually.
17:31:03 [josb]
in RIF, there is a difference
17:31:03 [LeoraMorgenstern]
hassan: can do with only classification, which is more general.
17:31:12 [josb]
(in OWL there is not)
17:31:17 [LeoraMorgenstern]
hassan: membership is equivalent to singleton being a subclass.
17:31:25 [csma]
ack leora
17:32:25 [Harold]
Hassan, because we are intensional here, a # S could be reduced to Nominal(a) ## S.
17:33:02 [DaveReynolds]
17:33:10 [josb]
17:33:11 [markproctor]
I don't think you would want to say match X if its a subclass of Y. as that information is implicit in your model.
17:33:13 [Hassan]
17:33:16 [JeffP]
17:33:23 [Zakim]
17:33:25 [JeffP]
17:33:26 [Zakim]
17:33:27 [Zakim]
17:33:28 [Zakim]
- +012242aabb
17:33:29 [Zakim]
17:33:30 [Darko_A]
17:33:31 [Zakim]
17:33:33 [Zakim]
17:33:40 [Zakim]
17:33:40 [csma]
zakim, who is on the phone
17:33:41 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on the phone', csma
17:33:41 [Zakim]
17:34:03 [csma]
zakim, zho is on the phone?
17:34:03 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, csma.
17:34:17 [csma]
rrsagent ;ake record public
17:34:30 [csma]
rrsagent, make record public
17:35:00 [csma]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:35:00 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate csma
17:36:27 [csma]
scribenick: LeoraMorgentstern
17:36:55 [csma]
scribenick: LeoraMorgenstern
17:37:10 [csma]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:37:10 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate csma
17:38:04 [Zakim]
17:39:03 [Zakim]
17:39:05 [Zakim]
17:39:06 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
17:39:07 [Zakim]
Attendees were bijan, Leora_Morgenstern, Harold, Sandro, csma, IgorMozetic, josb, [IBM], +1.919.541.aaaa, Dave_Reynolds, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Gary_Hallmark, JeffP, Mark_Proctor
17:44:26 [csma]
csma has left #rif
18:08:20 [sandro]
sandro has joined #rif