IRC log of rif on 2007-12-18

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:48:07 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
15:48:07 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:48:24 [csma]
zakim, this will be rif
15:48:24 [Zakim]
ok, csma; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 12 minutes
15:48:46 [csma]
Meeting: RIF telecon 18 December 2008
15:48:53 [csma]
Chair: Christian de Sainte Marie
15:49:15 [csma]
15:49:44 [csma]
Scribe: Hassan Ha´t-Kaši
15:49:55 [csma]
Scribenick: hak
15:50:46 [csma]
csma has changed the topic to: 18 Dec RIF telecon agenda:
15:50:56 [csma]
zakim, list agenda
15:50:56 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda:
15:50:57 [Zakim]
6. BLD - Issue 43 [from ChrisW]
15:50:58 [Zakim]
7. AOB [from ChrisW]
15:51:04 [csma]
zaki, reset agenda
15:51:11 [csma]
zakim, list agenda
15:51:11 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda:
15:51:12 [Zakim]
6. BLD - Issue 43 [from ChrisW]
15:51:13 [Zakim]
7. AOB [from ChrisW]
15:51:23 [csma]
zakim, close agenda
15:51:23 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'close agenda', csma
15:52:03 [csma]
zakim, clear agenda
15:52:03 [Zakim]
agenda cleared
15:52:54 [patranja]
patranja has joined #rif
15:53:35 [csma]
agenda+ Admin
15:53:45 [csma]
agenda+ Liaisons
15:54:30 [csma]
agenda+ Issue 40 (builtins)
15:54:55 [csma]
agenda+ Issue 44 (named argument uniterms)
15:55:07 [csma]
agenda+ Issue 45 (lists)
15:55:24 [csma]
agenda+ AOB (pick scribe for next week!)
15:57:25 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
15:58:38 [Hassan]
Hassan has joined #rif
15:59:32 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
15:59:33 [Zakim]
16:00:40 [Zakim]
16:00:42 [Zakim]
16:00:42 [Zakim]
16:00:44 [IgorMozetic]
IgorMozetic has joined #rif
16:00:55 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #rif
16:01:23 [Zakim]
16:01:33 [StellaMitchell]
StellaMitchell has joined #rif
16:01:40 [Harold]
zakim, P16 is temporarily me
16:01:40 [Zakim]
sorry, Harold, I do not recognize a party named 'P16'
16:01:46 [csma]
zakim, ??P28 is me
16:01:46 [Zakim]
+csma; got it
16:01:52 [Zakim]
16:01:53 [Harold]
zakim, ??P16 is temporarily me
16:01:53 [Zakim]
+Harold; got it
16:02:03 [IgorMozetic]
zakim, ??P32 is me
16:02:03 [Zakim]
+IgorMozetic; got it
16:02:10 [IgorMozetic]
zakim, mute me
16:02:10 [Zakim]
IgorMozetic should now be muted
16:02:27 [Zakim]
16:02:45 [csma]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:02:47 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Harold, csma, IgorMozetic (muted), Stella_Mitchell
16:02:59 [Zakim]
16:03:30 [csma]
scribenick: Hassan_Ait-Kaci
16:03:54 [Zakim]
16:03:57 [LeoraMorgenstern]
LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
16:04:23 [LeoraMorgenstern]
(I will just be on tthe IRC for a while; stuck in a meeting.)
16:04:59 [csma]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:04:59 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Harold, csma, IgorMozetic (muted), Stella_Mitchell (muted), ChrisW, ??P46
16:05:18 [csma]
zakim, ??P46 is PaulaP
16:05:19 [Zakim]
I already had ??P46 as PaulaP, csma
16:05:54 [ChrisW]
zakim, take up item 1
16:05:54 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Admin" taken up [from csma]
16:05:59 [ChrisW]
zakim, list agenda
16:06:02 [Zakim]
I see 6 items remaining on the agenda:
16:06:04 [Zakim]
1. Admin [from csma]
16:06:06 [Zakim]
2. Liaisons [from csma]
16:06:10 [Zakim]
3. Issue 40 (builtins) [from csma]
16:06:12 [Zakim]
4. Issue 44 (named argument uniterms) [from csma]
16:06:16 [Zakim]
5. Issue 45 (lists) [from csma]
16:06:18 [Zakim]
6. AOB (pick scribe for next week!) [from csma]
16:06:27 [Hassan]
No agenda amendments ...
16:06:42 [Zakim]
16:06:44 [Zakim]
16:06:53 [Zakim]
16:06:56 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #rif
16:06:57 [Hassan]
Accepting last week's minutes postponed to next week?
16:07:04 [csma]
PROPOSED: accept the minutes of December 4 telecon
16:07:10 [Hassan]
Propose to accept those of Dec 4 2007 telecon
16:07:38 [csma]
16:07:56 [Zakim]
16:07:57 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:07:58 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Harold, csma, IgorMozetic (muted), Stella_Mitchell (muted), ChrisW, PaulaP (muted), Gary_Hallmark, Sandro
16:08:07 [Hassan]
RESOLVED: accept the minutes of Dec 4 2007
16:08:15 [Zakim]
16:08:27 [AxelPolleres]
Zakim, P65 is me
16:08:27 [Zakim]
sorry, AxelPolleres, I do not recognize a party named 'P65'
16:08:33 [AxelPolleres]
Zakim, ??P65 is me
16:08:33 [Zakim]
+AxelPolleres; got it
16:09:03 [Harold]
Sandro, What were the highlights of the OWL f2f most relevant to RIF?
16:09:04 [Hassan]
Christian worries about posting of meetings early enough...
16:09:17 [Hassan]
Merry everything ... :-)
16:09:22 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
16:09:57 [Hassan]
Action 394 done
16:10:32 [Hassan]
Action 395 done
16:10:53 [Harold]
16:11:06 [Hassan]
Harold says see Wiki for Action 395
16:11:28 [Hassan]
Harold comments his changes in the document
16:11:46 [Hassan]
Ask MK to review the changes ...
16:12:23 [csma]
next agendum
16:12:34 [ChrisW]
zakim, close item 1
16:12:34 [Zakim]
agendum 1, Admin, closed
16:12:35 [Zakim]
I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:12:37 [Zakim]
2. Liaisons [from csma]
16:12:47 [Harold]
What were the highlights of the OWL f2f most relevant to RIF
16:12:55 [Hassan]
Igor worries about OWL F2F meeting in Manchester...
16:13:05 [ChrisW]
16:13:11 [Hassan]
Sandro was there ...
16:13:17 [Harold]
16:13:38 [Hassan]
Sandro does not have anything to report
16:13:59 [Hassan]
Harold worries about overlapping dates with other events
16:14:26 [Hassan]
Sandro says that no decision in the OWL WG regarding this has been taken so far
16:14:40 [Hassan]
Just getting the basics to get the WG going
16:14:48 [Harold]
s/Harold worries about overlapping dates with other events/Harold wonders about DL safe rules in OWL/
16:16:26 [Hassan]
RIF/OWL task force (Peter Patel-Schcheider and Uli Sattler on the OWL side and Mike Dean and Jos Debruijn on ours
16:16:43 [Hassan]
Any othet liaison?
16:16:46 [Hassan]
16:16:51 [csma]
next agendum
16:16:53 [Hassan]
16:17:17 [csma]
16:17:17 [Hassan]
Issue 40 - about builtins
16:17:37 [PaulaP]
16:17:46 [Hassan]
last week the syntax for evaluated preds and funcs was resolved
16:18:03 [Hassan]
this week we need to discuss the rest
16:18:25 [Hassan]
item: what builtins for BLD?
16:18:41 [Harold]
16:18:46 [Hassan]
proposal: include all that in the builtin page?
16:19:01 [Hassan]
16:19:03 [csma]
PROPOSED: BLD builtins will at least include those being currently
16:19:03 [csma]
listed on the builtins page
16:19:23 [csma]
16:20:19 [Hassan]
Paula: the status of some of them needs to be discussed because many have proposed sets of builtins
16:20:32 [Hassan]
csma: since the others are not here ...
16:20:32 [ChrisW]
zakim, close item 2
16:20:32 [Zakim]
agendum 2, Liaisons, closed
16:20:33 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:20:34 [Zakim]
3. Issue 40 (builtins) [from csma]
16:21:13 [Hassan]
csma: there 3 sets (1) numerics (2) strings (3) date and time
16:21:55 [Hassan]
csma: idea is not to exclude anything but to decide the mininum set we need
16:22:41 [csma]
PROPOSED: BLD builtins will at least include those currently being listed in the "list of supported builtins" section of the buildin page
16:23:28 [Hassan]
ChrisW: this is hard to record
16:23:40 [Hassan]
Sandro: put a link to the front of the page
16:23:45 [markproctor]
markproctor has joined #rif
16:24:31 [AxelPolleres]
May I remind of conversion functions... just came to my mind again:
16:24:31 [Hassan]
csma: there is a level of indirection in the links
16:24:32 [AxelPolleres]
16:25:04 [Zakim]
16:25:19 [markproctor]
sorry I'm late, was in another call previously.
16:25:22 [Hassan]
Sandro: proposes "this is the list of builtins in the next working draft..." (sorta...)
16:25:22 [Harold]
I think it is this link:
16:26:53 [sandro]
16:27:09 [Hassan]
ChrisW proposes the add the links to the three pages of proposed builtins
16:27:27 [sandro]
16:27:30 [Hassan]
16:27:32 [sandro]
16:27:49 [sandro]
(implicit ?action=recall&rev=1 to each of those)
16:28:18 [Hassan]
ChrisW: propose to put an action on someone to fix it
16:29:01 [Hassan]
Sandro: propose the action tto be to put it into a TR document
16:29:07 [Hassan]
16:29:17 [Hassan]
16:31:24 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #rif
16:31:28 [MichaelKifer]
MichaelKifer has joined #rif
16:31:40 [Harold]
Current appendix:
16:31:41 [Harold]
16:32:13 [Zakim]
16:32:35 [Hassan]
Action on Harold to fix the document(s) accordingly
16:32:52 [ChrisW]
Action: Harold to add builtin page as a new appendix to BLD
16:32:52 [rifbot]
Created ACTION-397 - Add builtin page as a new appendix to BLD [on Harold Boley - due 2007-12-25].
16:32:56 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
16:32:56 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
16:34:00 [Hassan]
csma: anyone objecting to the notion of having the current list of builtins in the BLD
16:34:10 [Hassan]
should speak up
16:34:20 [csma]
16:34:51 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
16:34:51 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
16:34:56 [Hassan]
csma: if we do we may also want functions in addtion to predicates?
16:35:04 [Hassan]
MK: what semantics?
16:35:19 [Hassan]
16:35:28 [AxelPolleres]
16:36:28 [Hassan]
MK: functions as builtins require a notion of error ...
16:36:47 [ChrisW]
are all the proposed builtins total functions? (Has anyone checked?)
16:37:01 [Hassan]
csma: using a predicate notation ?
16:37:09 [LeoraM]
LeoraM has joined #rif
16:37:17 [Hassan]
MK: then error will mean failure (false)
16:37:42 [Zakim]
16:37:48 [LeoraM]
zakim, ibm is temporarily me
16:37:48 [Zakim]
+LeoraM; got it
16:37:53 [LeoraM]
zakim, mute me
16:37:53 [Zakim]
LeoraM should now be muted
16:38:32 [csma]
P(f(a)) = P(x) AND Pf(x a)
16:38:35 [ChrisW]
what about designating a special URI as a return value ?
16:38:41 [sandro]
Hassan: I can write you a semantics for functions, with errors, with no problem. I don't see the difficulty here.
16:39:16 [sandro]
MichaelKifer: But we have functional expressions. We'll have to explain how to unwrap these functional expressions. This gets complicated.
16:39:22 [ChrisW]
e.g. rif:error
16:39:35 [ChrisW]
as a return value when a function fails
16:40:08 [sandro]
MichaelKifer: csma, your approach make sense, but then what happens when you apply a function to a function? It's not *BIG* problem, but we'll have to do something about it.
16:40:15 [csma]
16:40:25 [ChrisW]
16:40:31 [sandro]
Hassan: Sorry, why is applying a function to a function a problem?
16:40:38 [Harold]
Michael, P(g(f(a))) = P(x) AND f(x y) AND f(y a)
16:40:53 [csma]
ack axel
16:41:00 [Harold]
s/ Michael, P(g(f(a))) = P(x) AND f(x y) AND f(y a)/ Michael, P(g(f(a))) = P(x) AND g(x y) AND f(y a)
16:41:03 [sandro]
MichaelKifer: We'll have to explain that functions are syntactic sugar for predicates, and we'll have to explain how you unwrap them to predicates.
16:41:09 [Harold]
s/ Michael, P(g(f(a))) = P(x) AND f(x y) AND f(y a)/ Michael, P(g(f(a))) = P(x) AND g(x y) AND f(y a)/
16:41:24 [sandro]
(no problem, hassan. I was trying to tell you I would scribe while you spoke, but was muted.)
16:41:28 [AxelPolleres]
16:41:34 [Hassan]
Axel: functions are needed for conversions (from one type to another)
16:42:11 [Hassan]
MK: still is not convinced - it needs work
16:42:15 [sandro]
MichaelKifer: the unary function examples are simple; it gets more complicated, and will take a page or so.
16:42:26 [Harold]
P(g(f(a1 ... anN))) = P(x) AND g(x y) AND f(y a1 ... anN)
16:42:36 [sandro]
MichaelKifer: similar to the text about frames, but more complex.
16:42:46 [sandro]
Hassan: All functions are unary, by Currying.
16:43:13 [sandro]
Hassan: Many arguments is one argument, etc.
16:43:31 [Harold]
Hassan, do you really propose Currying for RIF?
16:43:34 [csma]
16:43:39 [Hassan]
MK: needs to explain more
16:44:08 [Harold]
16:44:12 [Hassan]
ChrisW: we could require that external functions calls be total functions
16:44:27 [Hassan]
MK: cannot garantee that
16:45:51 [Harold]
But, again, I support Michael, let's omit functions in RIF 1.0 FOR MAKING THINGS NOT MORE COMPLICATED.
16:45:58 [Hassan]
MK: argues that one cannot define the semantics of the predicate upon functional error
16:46:25 [Harold]
* Functions would call for Equality (and not all people don't want that)
16:46:41 [csma]
16:46:43 [Harold]
* We would have a predicate/function duplication of builtins
16:46:57 [csma]
ack chrisw
16:47:44 [Hassan]
harold: wonders about equality of functions
16:48:06 [Hassan]
harold: it complicates things
16:48:55 [csma]
16:49:10 [Harold]
Once you have builtin functions like plus and square, then people will ask for user-defined functions like sumofsquare(?L) = ...
16:49:18 [Harold]
(and we need equality)
16:49:52 [Hassan]
csma: we would need to explain how we unwrap predicates as functions for the semantics ...
16:49:57 [Hassan]
MK: sure ...
16:50:50 [Hassan]
MK: how to name the introduced predicates? all this need to be mad explicit ...
16:51:01 [Hassan]
16:51:42 [Hassan]
MK: if functions are syntactic sugar, we need to give the semantics of the "real" thing they stand for
16:52:09 [Hassan]
csma: but some systems using BLD might have both functions and predicates
16:52:24 [Hassan]
MK: that's a problem
16:52:39 [GaryHallmark]
I would like user defined functions
16:52:51 [AxelPolleres]
in BLS, they are fine, in CORE no... if we get there.
16:52:59 [AxelPolleres]
16:53:05 [Hassan]
csma: functions are useful because many languages have them
16:53:08 [Harold]
Hi Gary, so do you like Equal in BLD?
16:53:21 [GaryHallmark]
harold: yes
16:53:23 [ChrisW]
+1 for having them
16:53:33 [Hassan]
MK: not objecting to functions, just that they add complications
16:53:51 [Harold]
Gary, OK it's still in there (but not in what we thought would be the Core).
16:54:05 [GaryHallmark]
for PRD, perhaps all functions are builtin or user-defined
16:54:12 [Hassan]
MK: needs to make the syntactic sugar unwrap and what the eventual things are must be made clear
16:54:13 [Harold]
I see
16:54:19 [Harold]
16:55:34 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Built-in functions will have corresponding built-in predicates, and the built-in functions will be treated as syntactic sugar for the corresponding built-in predicates.
16:56:13 [csma]
16:56:22 [sandro]
Hassan: The basic syntactic sugar of CLP is all you need here.
16:56:51 [sandro]
Hassan: The constraints should have the capacity of being well-denoting expressions.
16:58:01 [sandro]
MichaelKifer: If we only dealt with rule languages this wouldn't be a problem, but when you think about extending to FOL, well.... I'm avoid making committments which complicate that. Once we decide to translate differently in the Head vs Body, then we break the idea of BLD being a subset of FOL.
16:59:14 [sandro]
MichaelKifer: The constraint is a conjunct?
16:59:25 [sandro]
Hassan: The constraint is anything. It can be an oracle.
16:59:41 [sandro]
MichaelKifer: So the FOL dialect would have to be a "constraint FOL" ?
16:59:58 [sandro]
Hassan: No, the constrain is just a relation.
17:00:39 [sandro]
MichaelKifer: A constraint is a formula, right? ( a predicate, a relation ) How is it going to be related to the main formula? A conjunct or what?
17:01:03 [csma]
p(f(a)) :- body -> p(x) :- body AND x = f(a)
17:01:18 [sandro]
Hassan: You don't need to worry about that. The connection is just the shared variables. This is explained very clearly in @@@
17:02:44 [ChrisW]
seems to me we've gotten off track
17:05:59 [Hassan]
MK: functions appearing in the head of a rule makes things complicated
17:07:39 [ChrisW]
functions treated as syntactic sugar for predicates cause problems in the head, and will complicate an extension to e.g. FOL?
17:09:25 [GaryHallmark]
a better semantic match for my PR engine is to model a distinguished "error" element in the domain
17:09:46 [csma]
17:10:11 [AxelPolleres]
I agree that built-ins (functions or predicates, both I assume) in head are problematic
17:10:44 [sandro]
Can we just outlaw builtins in the head?
17:11:08 [sandro]
17:11:11 [MichaelKifer]
i already proposed this - csma didn't like
17:11:13 [AxelPolleres]
We can safely disallow them in heads. so what's the problem?
17:11:39 [ChrisW]
+1 to disallow in head
17:11:50 [ChrisW]
i like keeping bld a subset of FO
17:12:01 [sandro]
(as do I)
17:12:29 [sandro]
ack sandro
17:13:03 [Hassan]
sandro: what does csma need bi's in the head?
17:13:27 [AxelPolleres]
We talk about built-ins, not actions!!!
17:14:14 [AxelPolleres]
a function or predicate is something with a fixed semantics, not something which changes the world
17:14:23 [AxelPolleres]
you talk about := not about ==
17:14:48 [sandro]
Ah - I get it. If p(x) then q(f(x))
17:15:15 [ChrisW]
17:15:35 [markproctor]
sorry my other phone went off
17:15:48 [AxelPolleres]
I don't understand why this is built-ins still.
17:15:53 [Harold]
Christian's example without introducing Equal: p(f(a)) :- body -> p(x) :- body AND f(x a)
17:16:04 [AxelPolleres]
17:16:06 [csma]
17:16:11 [csma]
ack axel
17:16:40 [ChrisW]
Well, BLD doesn't do a lot of useful things
17:17:54 [ChrisW]
if p(x) AND y=f(x) THEN q(y)
17:18:08 [AxelPolleres]
If you would expand christian's example to predicates as discussed before, the actual builtin call would be in the body.
17:18:16 [AxelPolleres]
17:18:48 [Hassan]
csma: is reluctant to pass a resolution on this now
17:20:01 [Hassan]
Gary Hallmark: just treat undefined as an exception -> maps the value of the predicate to false
17:21:32 [Harold]
Gary, Michael, in "strict" functional languages an error element raised somewhere makes all enclosing expressions into errors.
17:21:40 [Hassan]
MK: need a different semantics to treat undefined (special URL?), then what this denotes
17:22:11 [Hassan]
csma: how do the FOL rule languages deal with this?
17:22:29 [Hassan]
MK: they don't - they issue an error - it is not in the semantics
17:22:46 [ChrisW]
i'm not sure we need to have a model theory for errors
17:23:27 [Hassan]
csma: summing up - we want functions (maybe in the head) and semantics of error
17:23:49 [Hassan]
ChrisW: we don't need to account for erro model-theoretically
17:23:59 [Hassan]
s/erro /error /
17:24:14 [Harold]
If we want to be "strict", then we need something equivalent to saying f(a1,...,aJ-1,error,aJ+1,...,aN) = error for all f.
17:24:33 [Hassan]
MK: if so, then we need to restrict the use of functions to reach a meaningful compromise
17:24:54 [Hassan]
csma: why not flag it as an error?
17:25:38 [Hassan]
MK: then it would be a syntactic issue, but with BI's you can't do this because not all is statically verifiable
17:26:09 [Hassan]
MK: we need to define the meaning of the expression when evaluating it gave an error
17:26:11 [Harold]
The "Catch" operator is "non-strict".
17:26:43 [Harold]
Catch(a1,...,aJ-1,error,aJ+1,...,aN) != error
17:27:26 [Harold]
17:27:48 [Hassan]
ChrisW: did we really mean to treat error in FOL as well? I do not think that it should be boggle us down ... we can do semething else
17:28:11 [csma]
17:28:16 [Hassan]
MK: what "something else"?
17:28:35 [Hassan]
17:29:21 [Hassan]
csma: looking for a victim ... :-)
17:29:24 [PaulaP]
17:29:45 [Zakim]
17:29:52 [Harold]
Paula and All, I did my ACTION-397: (I hope you are fine with the spelling of "builtin")
17:30:11 [ChrisW]
17:30:50 [ChrisW]
17:31:09 [Hassan]
MK: proposes to put the burden of having function symbols on the translator (they define the synctatic surgar they mean)
17:31:17 [ChrisW]
17:31:43 [Hassan]
17:31:54 [ChrisW]
Dear Santa, please bring me a model theory for errors
17:31:58 [Hassan]
csam: proposes to adjourn
17:32:12 [Hassan]
17:32:13 [sandro]
17:32:19 [Zakim]
17:32:21 [Zakim]
17:32:23 [Zakim]
17:32:26 [Zakim]
17:32:29 [Zakim]
17:32:29 [ChrisW]
bye all happy new year!
17:32:34 [sandro]
happy december, everyone
17:32:36 [csma]
rrsagent, make log public
17:32:37 [ChrisW]
zakim, list attendees
17:32:37 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Hassan_Ait-Kaci, csma, Harold, IgorMozetic, Stella_Mitchell, ChrisW, PaulaP, Gary_Hallmark, Sandro, AxelPolleres, Mark_Proctor,
17:32:40 [Zakim]
... MichaelKifer, LeoraM
17:32:42 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:32:42 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
17:32:44 [AxelPolleres]
for a crude 3valued logics for errors for filters... look at the sparql spec ;-) good bye.
17:32:50 [csma]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:32:50 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate csma
17:32:51 [AxelPolleres]
it's not so bad, btw.
17:32:56 [AxelPolleres]
bye now!
17:32:57 [Zakim]
17:33:09 [Zakim]
17:33:13 [ChrisW]
Regrets: JosDeBruijn PaulVincent
17:33:21 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:33:21 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
17:34:01 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
17:34:01 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Hassan_Ait-Kaci, csma, ChrisW, Sandro, Mark_Proctor
17:34:12 [csma]
scribenick: hassan
17:34:20 [sandro]
sorry - personal phone call.
17:34:24 [csma]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:34:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate csma
17:35:08 [Zakim]
17:35:23 [ChrisW]
zakim, drop Mark_Proctor
17:35:23 [Zakim]
Mark_Proctor is being disconnected
17:35:24 [Zakim]
17:35:32 [markproctor]
hmm I just got cutt off
17:35:42 [ChrisW]
telecon is over
17:35:51 [markproctor]
17:35:54 [ChrisW]
sandro, can you join for a sec
17:36:09 [markproctor]
heh, we still didn't get to discuss uniterm for slotted representations
17:36:17 [csma]
no :-(
17:36:25 [csma]
btw, do you want them or not?
17:36:38 [markproctor]
well they are needed for production rules
17:36:52 [csma]
can you past a use case on the mailing list?
17:37:00 [markproctor]
but over all I think its necessary, not just for production rules, to have anonymous slotted notation
17:37:06 [markproctor]
frames insist that it has a url
17:37:09 [markproctor]
which isn't always the case
17:37:20 [markproctor]
anyway we can discuss this in another call
17:40:20 [Zakim]
17:40:23 [Zakim]
17:44:28 [Zakim]
17:44:30 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
17:44:31 [Zakim]
Attendees were Hassan_Ait-Kaci, csma, Harold, IgorMozetic, Stella_Mitchell, ChrisW, PaulaP, Gary_Hallmark, Sandro, AxelPolleres, Mark_Proctor, MichaelKifer, LeoraM
17:45:02 [csma]
@Mark, what do you mean, frame insist that it has an URL? The slot name? Not if it is rif:local, does it?
17:50:10 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
17:50:10 [RRSAgent]
18:07:45 [markproctor]
csma: to be honest I'm not an expert at the logic stuff
18:07:58 [markproctor]
but it was something harold pointed me too and explained to me
18:08:26 [markproctor]
as it seems frames have no mechanism to be anonymous
18:22:05 [markproctor]
ok i'm outta here, I'll be on #drools if anyone needs me
18:51:34 [csma]
csma has left #rif