See also: IRC log
<csma> Scribe: Adrian Giurca
<csma> scribenick: agiurca
<csma> topic #rif 4 December RIF telecon, agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Dec/0001.html
<ChrisW> Scribe: agiurca
ChrisW: Minutes of last telecon, approved
csma: Axel has a formal action (not official) to send a reply to a public comment
AxelPoleres: I did not answer yet to the public question but I will do it immediate
<josb> Axel was not there last time
<Harold> If it's only one week till MichaelK is back, then we might wait.
ChrisW: Jos, can you reply to the Peter email?
JosB: I can answer to some questions but many of them are related to design questions (i.e. Michael and Harold)
ChrisW: Move to next agenda: Liaison
<PaulVincent> Liaison: might be of interest: OMG are holding a vocabulary management meeting next week
csma: Next F2F in Paris
<ChrisW> Feb 21-22 next F2F
ChrisW: We have to vote for Paris/Galway location
JosB: Which thinks will be sponsored by ILOG
csma: I have to complete with other info (such as dinner etc)
sandro: Do we have special rates for hotels?
csma: I have to check the rates too
<AxelPolleres> BTW: reply mail to public-rif-comments is sent.
<csma> ACTION: axel to reply to public-rif-comment [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-rif-minutes.html#action01]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-388 - Reply to public-rif-comment [on Axel Polleres - due 2007-12-11].
<ChrisW> action Jos de Bruijn to make a pass on the wiki page for responses to public comments
<ChrisW> ACTION: Jos de Bruijn to make a pass on the wiki page for responses to public comments [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-rif-minutes.html#action02]
<rifbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Jos
<rifbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jderoo, jdebruij)
<ChrisW> ACTION: Bruijn to make a pass on the wiki page for responses to public comments [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-rif-minutes.html#action03]
<rifbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Bruijn
<ChrisW> ACTION: jos_de_bruijn to make a pass on the wiki page for responses to public comments [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-rif-minutes.html#action04]
<rifbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - jos_de_bruijn
<ChrisW> rifbot, you are an idiot
<ChrisW> ACTION: jdebruijn to make a pass on the wiki page for responses to public comments [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-rif-minutes.html#action05]
<rifbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - jdebruijn
<ChrisW> ACTION: jdebruij to make a pass on the wiki page for responses to public comments [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-rif-minutes.html#action06]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-389 - Make a pass on the wiki page for responses to public comments [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2007-12-11].
ChrisW: Next item: Issue 42 (rif:text)
<csma> ACTION: christian to finish F2F9 proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-rif-minutes.html#action07]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-390 - Finish F2F9 proposal [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2007-12-11].
<csma> ACTION: to axel to finish F2F9 proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-rif-minutes.html#action08]
<rifbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - to
<csma> ACTION: AxelPolleres to finish F2F9 proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-rif-minutes.html#action09]
<rifbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - AxelPolleres
<csma> ACTION: apol to finish F2F9 proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-rif-minutes.html#action10]
<rifbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - apol
<ChrisW> ACTION: axel to finish f2f9 proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-rif-minutes.html#action11]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-391 - Finish f2f9 proposal [on Axel Polleres - due 2007-12-11].
<ChrisW> ACTION: sandro to set up wbs for f2f9 on friday [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-rif-minutes.html#action12]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-392 - Set up wbs for f2f9 on friday [on Sandro Hawke - due 2007-12-11].
<josb> issue 42: Conceptually a text constant is a pair of a unicode string and a language tag.
<josb> Currently we handle this by means of a rif:text datatype. By virtue of the
<josb> current definition of a datatype that means it needs a simple lexical space
<josb> which is currently described as "string@lang".
<josb> However, in the XML representation we will use the xml:lang attribute to carry
<josb> the language code and the string will be conveyed in the element content. So the
<josb> "string@lang" lexical form is not explicitly part of the XML representation and
<josb> a RIF processor, working from XML, would not be expected to explicitly
<josb> materialize the "string@lang" lexical form at any stage.
<josb> It is unclear whether this is a problem, or a possible confusion that needs to
<josb> be explained further or a non-issue.
<josb> We are raising it as an issue to record that we have thought about it and may
<josb> need to examine it further in the future but it is not something we currently
<josb> regard as a barrier to at least the next working draft.
<csma> Adrian, are scribing off-line?
No comments of Sandro regarding rif:text issue
<sandro> which is to say -- I'm not really happy with this solution -- just using the mapping table -- but I don't see any serious harm from it, so I wont object.
<ChrisW> PROPOSED: Resolve Issue 42 such that the relationship between the xml syntax treatment of constants and the presentation treatment of constants is specified in the syntax mapping table
sandro: I think the issue should be closed as Chris proposed
<sandro> -0: I wont object
No other objections
<ChrisW> RESOLVED: Resolve Issue 42 such that the relationship between the xml syntax treatment of constants and the presentation treatment of constants is specified in the syntax mapping table
ChrisW: What is the issue around builtins
csma: A discussion about the mechanism to identify builtins
<PaulaP> lists also a couple of issues to be discussed
seems that builtins will be identified by IRI
<AxelPolleres> I was offline the last few days, but I also feel unease with it!
josb: I would object on that. We need syntactic distinction between builtins and other predicates
AxelPolleres: We need distinguish them syntactically
<josb> me too
<sandro> +1 Axel, a builtin should be part of a dialect, syntactically.
<AxelPolleres> ... and a dialect should also define under which binding patterns they are usable.
<PaulaP> +1 for built-ins as part of a dialect
<AxelPolleres> sorry, as I said, I was mainly offline since last week and only reutnred yesterday night.
csma: I would expect people to react to the emails concerning a specific subject
josb: They say (csma) that chould be a fixed list of builtins but I'm in favor of an open list
<IgorMozetic> +1 for Josb: having an open ended list of buildins
<AxelPolleres> the list IS extensible by dialect extensibility... why would we want two extensibility mechanisms?!?
<csma> May I suggest that we use two different names: builtin for what is fixed and belongs to a dialect
<csma> and eg external call for what is open and free
csma: I'm in favor of an open
list of builtins
... The dialect should also have a fixed list of builtins part of it
<PaulaP> +1 for csma's point
<sandro> +1 csma: fixed list of bultins, open list of external calls
<sandro> +1 Axel: it's important for a receiver to know whether a given function is expected to be built-in or not.
csma: A specific dialect has a
specific list of builtins which are external calls necessary to
... but out of that there might be other external calls
MichaelKifer: I propose an action to JosB or Axel to clarify addressing of builtins
<Harold> Where the IRI of a 'builtin' points (to a RIF dialect or to some external library), would show what kind of 'builtin' it is.
<AxelPolleres> just to make clear: I do NOT want 2 different forms of built-ins/external function calls. I was rather suggesting that only the ones defined in the dialect should be allowed. If you need more, extend the dialect.
<Harold> With IRIs as the distinguishing element, we would not need other syntactic means.
Recall the MichaelKifer proposal: an action to clarify addressing of builtins
<AxelPolleres> As long as this is not subject to interchange, all is fine :-)
<sandro> The question is: do app-specific parts of a system need to be part of a new dialect?
<csma> If you do not accept that some elements required for an interchange will be agreed on out of band, you will have very little actual interchanges
<sandro> +1 Axel: app-specific parts should be part of a dialect definition, if you want to interchange them.
<sandro> The question, csma, is whether that agreement is equal to agreeing to some dialect.
ChrisW: We should allow people to extends their list of builtins
<sandro> +1 Chris: We all agree that folks should be able to extend the list of builtins, we just disagree about whether to call that new agreement is called a 'dialect'.
csma: We need that two parties can extend the fixed list of builtins
<sandro> -1 csma: The label 'dialect' matters because it forbids out of band agreement. [ I don't see that at all. ]
<sandro> Chris: (1) agrrement to have call some-uri
<csma> To Sandro: that's what I have been saying all the time. That's why I think that I disagree with Axel
<sandro> Chris: (2) the list of external calls specified by a dialect are "the builtins"
<sandro> Chris: (3) you should be allowed to extend that list among consenting parties -- BUT we're not agreed at the moment about whether to call that extension a new dialect.
<AxelPolleres> option a) we allow metadata to say "ruleset R is dialect D + builtin (X) which semantics is defined somewhere else"
<AxelPolleres> b) we only allow metadata to say "ruleset R is in dialect D' "
<Harold> Since different RIF dialects D1, ..., Dn should be allowed to share a given set of builtins B, D1, ..., Dn should point to B a la D1->B, ..., Dn->B, rather than 'adding' B into D1, ..., Dn as new dialects a la D1+B, ..., Dn+B.
<AxelPolleres> but then we agree on a dialect? right? and whether we decide to writye down the dialect and publish it is our own business.
<sandro> Chris: (4) We're also not agreed about whether we need a formal mechanism about extending the list of builtins.
ChrisW: We can close this issue
<josb> issue 40: At the moment the WG has agreed to support "builtins", in particular those
<josb> defined for supported XS datatypes, however the syntactic and semantic treatment
<josb> of builtins has not been made clear.
<josb> One issue is how they will relate to functions in the syntax (e.g. are builtins
<josb> just logic functions?).
<josb> Another issue is whether builtins will be sensitive to "order" as they are in
<josb> query languages and production rules; in these cases, the order is understood to
<josb> be required to "bind" variables before the builtin is called.
csma: this discussion is just a small part of the Issue 40
sandro please write your proposal on iRC
<sandro> PROPOSED: The XML syntax for BLD will distinguish between external calls (including builtins) and logic functions
thanks. I did not catch it
MichaelKifer: We need a concrete proposal from Axel.
<sandro> csma: there was one proposal that the use of URIs be the distinguishing factor, but now we see that wont do.
<csma> <Const type="rif:iri">
<AxelPolleres> I take an action to review Michael's two proposals again and suggest something else if needed. My alrernative would be something like <op> <ExtFunc type="rif:iri">http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions/#dateTime</Const> </op>
<AxelPolleres> <op> <ExtFunc type="rif:iri">http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions/#dateTime</ExtFunc></op>
MichaelKifer: We have to see more proposals
<PaulaP> I think this is about binding patterns
<csma> ACTION: apollere2 to review the discussion about external calls, including Michael's 2 proposals [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-rif-minutes.html#action13]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-393 - Review the discussion about external calls, including Michael\'s 2 proposals [on Axel Polleres - due 2007-12-11].
<Harold> Order in conjunctions: And(?x=3 add(?r ?x ?x)) vs. And(add(?r ?x ?x) ?x=3).
MichaelKifer: Don't mention nothing about errors. They should be left to implementations
<PaulaP> there are also no binding patterns specified in SWRL
<AxelPolleres> paulap, so I can write: ?X ex:gt ?Y <- ?X < ?Y, the question is how this shall be implemented.
<Harold> Let's use "mode" rather than "binding pattern".
<Harold> (otherwise confusion risk between "binding" and "binding pattern").
<Harold> Re Mediawiki: We used advanced features for formulas etc.
<csma> Mike, will you be able to scribe next Tuesday?
<PaulaP> (still, it is a good idea not to discuss 'modes'...we just need to specify the meaning of a built-in, not how it should be implemented)
<AxelPolleres> I need to go ,sorry
<Harold> Since we have many other things to change, there would an increased need for version maintenance.
<csma> adrian, see the link above? It gets you to the draft of the minutes
<csma> Youjust have to edit it and publish the thus obtained minutes
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128 of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/have to/can/ Found Scribe: Adrian Giurca Found ScribeNick: agiurca Found Scribe: agiurca Inferring ScribeNick: agiurca Scribes: Adrian Giurca, agiurca Default Present: Mike_Dean, +39.047.1.aaaa, Harold, josb, +1.646.842.aabb, ChrisW, csma, LeoraMorgenstern, Dave_Reynolds, StellaMitchell, agiurca, IgorMozetic, PaulaP, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, AxelPolleres, hak, Sandro, PaulVincent, Gary_Hallmark, +1.631.833.aacc, MichaelKifer Present: Mike_Dean +39.047.1.aaaa Harold josb +1.646.842.aabb ChrisW csma LeoraMorgenstern Dave_Reynolds StellaMitchell agiurca IgorMozetic PaulaP Hassan_Ait-Kaci AxelPolleres hak Sandro PaulVincent Gary_Hallmark +1.631.833.aacc MichaelKifer Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Dec/0001.html Got date from IRC log name: 4 Dec 2007 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/12/04-rif-minutes.html People with action items: apol apollere2 axel axelpolleres bruijn christian de jdebruij jdebruijn jos jos_de_bruijn sandro to WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]