IRC log of rif on 2008-01-22

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:40:01 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
15:40:01 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:40:20 [csma]
zakim, this will be rif
15:40:20 [Zakim]
ok, csma; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 20 minutes
15:40:47 [csma]
Meeting: RIF telecon 22 January 2008
15:41:07 [csma]
Chair: Christian de Sainte Marie
15:41:45 [csma]
Scribe: Paula-Lavinia Patranjan
15:42:00 [csma]
Regrets: Michael Kifer, Jos De Bruijn
15:42:30 [EtnaRosso]
15:42:34 [csma]
15:42:36 [csma]
15:42:37 [EtnaRosso]
EtnaRosso has left #rif
15:43:33 [csma]
csma has changed the topic to: 22 Jan RIF agenda:
15:43:47 [csma]
zakim, list agenda
15:43:47 [Zakim]
I see nothing on the agenda
15:43:54 [csma]
zakim, reset agenda
15:43:55 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'reset agenda', csma
15:45:17 [csma]
zakim, clear agenda
15:45:17 [Zakim]
agenda cleared
15:45:35 [csma]
agenda+ Admin
15:45:46 [csma]
agenda+ Liaisons
15:45:57 [csma]
agenda+ F2F9
15:46:13 [csma]
agenda+ Actions review
15:46:38 [csma]
agenda+ Issue 45 (lists)
15:47:01 [csma]
agenda+ Issue 44 (named arguments Uniterm)
15:47:30 [csma]
agenda+ Issue 36 (mapping between prez and XML syntaxes)
15:47:38 [csma]
agenda+ Meta data
15:47:49 [csma]
agenda+ AOB (pick scribe!)
15:51:42 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #rif
15:52:33 [ChrisW]
zakim, list agenda
15:52:33 [Zakim]
I see 9 items remaining on the agenda:
15:52:35 [Zakim]
1. Admin [from csma]
15:52:37 [Zakim]
2. Liaisons [from csma]
15:52:38 [Zakim]
3. F2F9 [from csma]
15:52:39 [Zakim]
4. Actions review [from csma]
15:52:40 [Zakim]
5. Issue 45 (lists) [from csma]
15:52:41 [Zakim]
6. Issue 44 (named arguments Uniterm) [from csma]
15:52:42 [Zakim]
7. Issue 36 (mapping between prez and XML syntaxes) [from csma]
15:52:43 [Zakim]
8. Meta data [from csma]
15:52:45 [Zakim]
9. AOB (pick scribe!) [from csma]
15:52:50 [ChrisW]
15:57:56 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
15:58:13 [patranja]
patranja has joined #rif
15:58:34 [csma]
scribenick: PaulaP
15:59:02 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
15:59:09 [Zakim]
15:59:11 [Zakim]
15:59:21 [Hassan]
Hassan has joined #rif
15:59:30 [csma]
zakim, ??P16 is me
15:59:30 [Zakim]
+csma; got it
16:00:07 [sandro]
sandro has joined #rif
16:00:44 [DougL]
DougL has joined #rif
16:00:53 [sandro]
sandro has joined #rif
16:01:28 [Zakim]
16:01:36 [ChrisW]
zakim, ibm is temporarily me
16:01:36 [Zakim]
+ChrisW; got it
16:01:47 [mdean]
mdean has joined #rif
16:01:48 [Zakim]
16:01:49 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:01:49 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [NRCC], csma, ChrisW, ??P26
16:02:02 [Zakim]
16:02:04 [Zakim]
16:02:10 [Harold]
zakim, NRCC is me
16:02:10 [Zakim]
+Harold; got it
16:02:26 [ChrisW]
Scribe: PaulaP
16:02:38 [Zakim]
16:02:54 [PaulaP]
16:02:59 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
16:03:05 [csma]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:03:05 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Harold, csma, ChrisW, PaulaP, DougL, Sandro, Mike_Dean
16:03:21 [IgorMozetic]
IgorMozetic has joined #rif
16:03:41 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
16:03:41 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Admin" taken up [from csma]
16:04:10 [PaulaP]
csma: agenda ammendments?
16:04:12 [AdrianP]
AdrianP has joined #rif
16:04:13 [PaulaP]
csma: none
16:04:17 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: accept minutes of telecon January 15
16:04:24 [PaulaP]
csma: objections to accept the minutes of last week
16:04:25 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: accept minutes of telecon January 15
16:04:43 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
16:04:46 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Liaisons" taken up [from csma]
16:04:52 [Zakim]
16:04:58 [IgorMozetic]
zakim, ??P3 is me
16:05:01 [PaulaP]
csma: ChrisW, did you take a look at the response to Peter's comments?
16:05:02 [IgorMozetic]
zakim, mute me
16:05:06 [Zakim]
+IgorMozetic; got it
16:05:10 [Zakim]
16:05:12 [Zakim]
IgorMozetic should now be muted
16:05:34 [PaulaP]
csma: you said you wanted to take a look at them
16:05:41 [PaulaP]
ChrisW: they are ok
16:05:54 [PaulaP]
ChrisW: responses will be sent tomorrow
16:05:55 [Zakim]
16:05:56 [ChrisW]
16:06:01 [ChrisW]
16:06:05 [PaulaP]
csma: do you want an action to do that?
16:06:24 [AdrianP]
Zakim, +??P44 is me
16:06:24 [Zakim]
sorry, AdrianP, I do not recognize a party named '+??P44'
16:06:28 [PaulaP]
ChrisW: responses are to be found at the given links
16:06:30 [Zakim]
16:06:39 [AdrianP]
Zakim, ??P43 is me
16:06:39 [Zakim]
+AdrianP; got it
16:06:48 [ChrisW]
action: cwelty to send responses to PFPS
16:06:48 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-401 - Send responses to PFPS [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-01-29].
16:06:53 [PaulaP]
csma: are there any liaison reports?
16:06:59 [PaulaP]
csma: Jos sent regrets
16:07:01 [AdrianP]
Zakim, mute me
16:07:02 [Zakim]
AdrianP should now be muted
16:07:11 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:07:11 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Harold, csma, ChrisW, PaulaP (muted), DougL, Sandro, Mike_Dean, IgorMozetic (muted), DaveReynolds, ??P44, AdrianP (muted)
16:07:49 [PaulaP]
Mike_Dean: high-level discussions, no proposal to use MathML in the OWL 1.1. WG
16:07:54 [ChrisW]
zakim, hassan is temp
16:07:54 [Zakim]
+temp; got it
16:07:58 [PaulaP]
csma: when is the next telecon
16:08:02 [LeoraMorgenstern]
LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
16:08:02 [ChrisW]
zakim, adrianp is hassan
16:08:02 [Zakim]
+hassan; got it
16:08:08 [ChrisW]
zakim, temp is adrianp
16:08:08 [Zakim]
+adrianp; got it
16:08:12 [PaulaP]
csma: is it before ours or not?
16:08:20 [PaulaP]
csma: probably not
16:08:24 [AdrianP]
thanks Chris
16:08:30 [PaulaP]
csma: any other report?
16:08:34 [PaulaP]
csma: none
16:08:36 [AdrianP]
Zakim, mute me
16:08:36 [Zakim]
adrianp should now be muted
16:08:37 [Zakim]
16:08:45 [JeffP]
JeffP has joined #rif
16:08:47 [LeoraMorgenstern]
zakim, please mute me
16:08:47 [Zakim]
LeoraMorgenstern should now be muted
16:08:56 [PaulaP]
Mike_Dean: OWL 1.1. telecon after RIF telecon
16:09:02 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
16:09:02 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "F2F9" taken up [from csma]
16:09:15 [PaulaP]
csma: F2F9 in one month from now
16:09:27 [Harold]
Doug, do you plan to join us at the f2f9 in France?
16:09:35 [PaulaP]
csma: you should start to consider booking a flight and hotel
16:09:38 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
16:09:53 [PaulaP]
csma: useful to know how many people come
16:10:08 [PaulaP]
sandro: should I make a registration form?
16:10:19 [sandro]
ACTION: sandro make registration for f2f9
16:10:19 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-402 - Make registration for f2f9 [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-01-29].
16:10:21 [PaulaP]
csma: yes, this would be useful
16:10:32 [Zakim]
16:10:51 [PaulaP]
csma: Harold told me that I should remind everybody how you get the ILOG rates at the hotels
16:10:59 [Harold]
16:11:04 [PaulaP]
csma: the page about F2F9
16:11:05 [csma]
16:11:16 [Zakim]
+ +2242aaaa
16:11:18 [PaulaP]
csma: there are a few selected hotels
16:11:30 [JeffP]
zakim, +2242aaaa is me
16:11:30 [Zakim]
+JeffP; got it
16:11:45 [PaulaP]
csma: there is a list of hotels where rates were negotiated
16:11:46 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:11:46 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Harold, csma, ChrisW, PaulaP (muted), DougL, Sandro, Mike_Dean, IgorMozetic (muted), DaveReynolds, adrianp (muted), hassan (muted), LeoraMorgenstern (muted),
16:11:49 [Zakim]
... josb, JeffP
16:12:00 [PaulaP]
csma: you must make reservations through ILOG
16:12:07 [josb]
Hello, it turns out I returned a bit earlier than expected so I could join the conference.
16:12:09 [PaulaP]
csma: you may call ILOG directly
16:12:19 [ChrisW]
hi jos
16:12:21 [csma]
Desk at ILOG: +33 1 49 08 35 00
16:12:40 [PaulaP]
sandro: the phone number should be on the wiki page
16:12:47 [sandro]
(should be is not)
16:12:54 [sandro]
(should but is not)
16:13:03 [csma]
Prani: +33 1 49 08 36 88
16:13:07 [ChrisW]
that number connects you to a production rule system
16:13:17 [ChrisW]
be careful with negation!
16:13:19 [PaulaP]
csma: call Prani if you need assistance
16:13:40 [PaulaP]
sandro: say that you'll attend a W3C meeting organized by csma
16:13:48 [sandro]
ACTION: csma put information on how to make ILOG hotel reservations on F2F9
16:13:48 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - csma
16:14:05 [sandro]
ACTION: christian put information on how to make ILOG hotel reservations on F2F9
16:14:06 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-403 - put information on how to make ILOG hotel reservations on F2F9 [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2008-01-29].
16:14:17 [PaulaP]
Harold: I still don't understand the workflow
16:14:31 [PaulaP]
csma: I will decsribe the workflow on the wiki page
16:14:53 [AdrianP]
early confirmations of the booking are important to apply for funding
16:14:58 [PaulaP]
sandro: or the first person who makes a reservation
16:15:14 [PaulaP]
csma: please update the wiki if you have more information
16:15:30 [IgorMozetic]
IgorMozetic has joined #rif
16:15:31 [PaulaP]
16:15:53 [PaulaP]
Harold: working hours at ILOG necessary
16:16:18 [PaulaP]
csma: I will update the wiki page with all information needed
16:16:23 [PaulaP]
csma: anything else?
16:16:23 [Hassan]
The hotels mentioned on the Wiki by CSMA standard aseptic beehive american style hotels situated in not so pretty area (e.g., the Hol.Inn express has a view on the Paris "Peripherique" freeway and a garbage dump!). If interested in good chep and pictureque places, ask me.
16:16:31 [PaulaP]
zakim, next item
16:16:31 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Actions review" taken up [from csma]
16:16:45 [Zakim]
16:17:16 [PaulaP]
csma: action 152
16:17:23 [PaulaP]
csma: is Paul Vincent here?
16:17:31 [PaulaP]
csma: continued
16:17:42 [sandro]
Hassan, are there any places you like that are a reasonable walk from ILOG?
16:17:54 [PaulaP]
csma: ChrisW, did you get reply from Allan?
16:18:17 [PaulaP]
zakim, unmute me
16:18:17 [Zakim]
PaulaP should no longer be muted
16:18:41 [Hassan]
yes - and on the line of the 57 bus (8mins to ILOG). I myself stay here:
16:19:13 [Harold]
Hassan, Can you put your *one* most recommended not too far away (< 20 mins), not too expensive (< 100 EU), pictureque place on the f2f9 wiki?
16:19:24 [PaulaP]
sandro: my action is also continued
16:19:37 [Hassan]
Harold: OK
16:19:40 [PaulaP]
csma: Harold, would you take over action 292?
16:20:19 [PaulaP]
csma: to add links for functions and operators in the BLD
16:20:45 [PaulaP]
end of next week?
16:20:49 [PaulaP]
is it ok?
16:20:58 [PaulaP]
16:21:22 [Harold]
Hassan, also it should not be noisy from the street.
16:21:25 [PaulaP]
csma: action 274's new deadline is Feb 1, 2008
16:21:37 [PaulaP]
csma: close action 362
16:21:49 [PaulaP]
csma: close 364, which is done
16:22:01 [PaulaP]
csma: sandro, 373?
16:22:09 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
16:22:13 [PaulaP]
sandro: continued
16:22:22 [PaulaP]
csma: action 375?
16:22:27 [PaulaP]
sandro: continued
16:22:41 [PaulaP]
csma: when can it be done?
16:22:49 [PaulaP]
sandro: before F2F9
16:23:07 [PaulaP]
csma: Feb 20, 2008
16:23:23 [PaulaP]
csma: PR strategies continued
16:23:29 [mdean]
mdean has joined #rif
16:24:04 [PaulaP]
csma: action 378 continued
16:24:42 [PaulaP]
csma: 384 is pending discussion
16:25:04 [PaulaP]
16:25:14 [PaulaP]
csma: action 396 done
16:25:33 [PaulaP]
it becomes pending discussion
16:26:07 [PaulaP]
csma: action on Dave on collation issues for built-ins
16:26:24 [PaulaP]
csma. action is done and the result becomes pending discussion
16:26:49 [PaulaP]
csma: better leave the action open as pending discussion
16:26:54 [PaulaP]
Dave: no issue needed
16:27:36 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
16:27:36 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "Issue 45 (lists)" taken up [from csma]
16:27:37 [PaulaP]
zakim, next item
16:27:38 [Zakim]
agendum 5 was just opened, PaulaP
16:27:47 [PaulaP]
csma: issue 45
16:27:57 [csma]
PROPOSED: to close Issue 45 by including lists in BLD, where the pair
16:27:57 [csma]
syntax will be used in the language definition and the sequence syntax
16:27:57 [csma]
will be used for presentation and XML.
16:27:59 [PaulaP]
csma: discussion last week on lists
16:28:09 [PaulaP]
csma: proposal given above
16:28:27 [josb]
16:28:33 [csma]
ack josb
16:28:46 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: to close Issue 45 by including lists in BLD, where the pair syntax will be used in the language definition and the sequence syntax will be used for presentation and XML.
16:28:59 [Harold]
16:29:03 [PaulaP]
josb: the point is that it should always be possible to express the tail of the list
16:29:19 [PaulaP]
csma: the sequence symtax proposed by Harold allows for that
16:29:43 [PaulaP]
csma: should the resolution be more specific?
16:29:55 [PaulaP]
josb: I don't really understand the syntax on the page
16:30:05 [PaulaP]
Harold: recursive definition
16:30:29 [PaulaP]
josb: can you put a variable instead of list term?
16:32:17 [PaulaP]
Harold: sequence terms are syntactic sugar for pair termes
16:32:24 [PaulaP]
16:32:27 [ChrisW]
16:32:37 [PaulaP]
csma: you would not agree to the proposed resolution?
16:32:51 [PaulaP]
Harold: what do you mean by lang definition?
16:32:57 [PaulaP]
csma: the semantics
16:33:09 [PaulaP]
Harold: we need the pairs for the presentation syntax
16:33:20 [csma]
ack chrisw
16:33:32 [PaulaP]
csma: ChrisW, do you want to add something?
16:34:05 [PaulaP]
jobs: the lang definition and the semantics should not use different syntaxes
16:34:24 [PaulaP]
jobs: why do we need the sequences?
16:34:38 [PaulaP]
Harold: very useful for syntactic sugar
16:34:51 [PaulaP]
Harold: the pairs are needed for the semantics
16:35:05 [Harold]
Sequences are regarded as syntactic sugar for Pairs.
16:35:45 [PaulaP]
ChrisW: probably you want to keep the syntax uniform
16:36:17 [PaulaP]
csma: why don't we define everything in terms if sequences?
16:36:39 [PaulaP]
josb: we can also use direct definitions
16:36:55 [PaulaP]
Harold: pairs are just binary constructors
16:37:17 [PaulaP]
Harold: the semantics of sequences not that straightforward
16:37:32 [PaulaP]
Harold: we could discourage people to use pairs
16:37:49 [PaulaP]
csma: another proposal would be to allow sequences and pairs
16:37:56 [PaulaP]
csma: but forbid to mix them
16:38:06 [PaulaP]
Harold: possibly doable also in XSD
16:38:22 [PaulaP]
csma: so better use them only on the semantics
16:38:52 [PaulaP]
Harold: translation table updated on the wiki
16:39:24 [PaulaP]
csma: allowing both - it seems you are in minority Harold, since most people supported josb's statement
16:40:30 [PaulaP]
josb: I can help with the semantics of sequences
16:40:52 [PaulaP]
Harold: vertical bar quite different on the meta syntax
16:41:14 [PaulaP]
Harold: I would like to have an intermediant step
16:41:24 [PaulaP]
josb: it is just a proposed resolution
16:41:27 [AdrianP]
semantic definitions for lists for both sequences and pairs already exist in the LP community
16:41:38 [PaulaP]
csma: try to rephrase the proposed resolution
16:41:53 [csma]
PROPOSED: to close issue 45 by including lists in BLD, with the sequence syntax for presentation syntax and XML as described on the wiki...
16:42:20 [PaulaP]
csma: what do we do with pairs?
16:42:43 [IgorMozetic]
16:42:46 [PaulaP]
csma: do we remove them? do we allow them only in the presentation syntax?
16:42:48 [josb]
16:42:49 [IgorMozetic]
ack me
16:42:51 [csma]
ack igor
16:43:07 [PaulaP]
Igor: why don't we leave the editors to do their job?
16:43:17 [ChrisW]
16:43:25 [PaulaP]
csma: the job of the editors is to represent the whole WG
16:43:42 [PaulaP]
Igor: I think we are getting into too low-level details
16:43:54 [csma]
ack josb
16:43:55 [PaulaP]
csma: so, to close issue and have lists
16:44:05 [PaulaP]
csma: but the issue is what kind of lists
16:44:24 [PaulaP]
josb: I object of the phrasing of the second resolution
16:44:31 [PaulaP]
16:44:42 [PaulaP]
csma: this means it is unfinished
16:44:43 [mdean]
mdean has joined #rif
16:44:45 [csma]
ack chrisw
16:45:02 [PaulaP]
ChrisW: better to simplify more or less equivalent issues here
16:45:29 [PaulaP]
ChrisW: seqeunces are simpler to represent them and their semantics is established work
16:45:40 [PaulaP]
ChrisW: let Jos take an action here
16:46:01 [PaulaP]
Harold: we only need the pairs, because we develop an interchange format
16:46:14 [csma]
PROPOSED: close issue 45 by including lists in BLD as sequences (for both presentation and XML syntax)
16:46:46 [josb]
16:46:46 [PaulaP]
ChrisW: my personal opinion on this is given above
16:47:04 [PaulaP]
csma: any objections to the last proposed resolution?
16:47:29 [csma]
PROPOSED: close issue 45 by including lists in BLD as sequences (for both presentation and XML syntaxes) as they are defined in the wiki page
16:47:56 [PaulaP]
csma: currently sequences are defined through pairs
16:48:07 [PaulaP]
josb: there is no definition of the semantics
16:48:36 [PaulaP]
josb: ChrisW did a constructive proposal
16:48:50 [PaulaP]
s/did/did make
16:48:59 [PaulaP]
csma: new proposal
16:49:31 [csma]
PROPOSED: close issue 45 by including lists in BLD as sequences for obth presentation and XML syntaxes and with one of the standard semantics.
16:50:04 [Harold]
PROPOSED: close issue 45 by including lists in BLD as sequences for obth presentation and XML syntaxes and with a binary-reduction semantics.
16:50:18 [DaveReynolds]
16:50:26 [csma]
ack daver
16:50:26 [PaulaP]
csma: ChrisW, do you have a proposal for the semantics of sequences?
16:50:39 [PaulaP]
ChrisW: we don't need to resolve this now
16:51:38 [PaulaP]
Dave: Harold would like to use the binary reduction semantics
16:51:56 [ChrisW]
16:51:57 [Harold]
DaveR, exactly.
16:52:10 [PaulaP]
Dave: difference between presentation syntax that people might use and the internat syntax used in the document
16:52:33 [Harold]
However, we could 'hide' the pair syntax in the semantics.
16:53:00 [IgorMozetic]
zakim, mute me
16:53:00 [Zakim]
IgorMozetic should now be muted
16:53:26 [PaulaP]
ChrisW: I don't think the constraint on the semantics needs to be in the resolution
16:53:31 [AdrianP]
+1 for Chris
16:53:36 [PaulaP]
csma: proposed resolution would be only
16:53:50 [csma]
PROPOSED: close issue 45 by including lists in BLD as sequences for both presentation and XML syntaxes.
16:54:12 [PaulaP]
josb: fine
16:54:16 [PaulaP]
Harold: fine
16:54:31 [PaulaP]
csma: further discussion on the latest proposal?
16:55:07 [DougL]
I decline to abstain at this time.
16:55:12 [sandro]
16:55:12 [PaulaP]
csma: does somebody wants to abstain?
16:55:37 [PaulaP]
16:56:43 [csma]
RESOLVED: close issue 45 by including lists in BLD as sequences for both presentation and XML syntaxes.
16:57:38 [PaulaP]
csma: for the 2nd WD on BLD, the next issue is on named arguments uniterms
16:57:38 [ChrisW]
action: harold to update BLD syntax/semantics to reflect resolution on lists
16:57:38 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-404 - Update BLD syntax/semantics to reflect resolution on lists [on Harold Boley - due 2008-01-29].
16:57:58 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
16:58:00 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, ChrisW
16:58:04 [ChrisW]
16:58:06 [ChrisW]
ack me
16:58:10 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
16:58:10 [Zakim]
agendum 6. "Issue 44 (named arguments Uniterm)" taken up [from csma]
16:58:10 [josb]
16:58:34 [csma]
ack josb
16:58:36 [PaulaP]
csma: the current picture is that we have exactly the same number of supporting persons, objecting, and abstaining persons
16:59:16 [PaulaP]
josb: not clear enough what they are
16:59:44 [PaulaP]
csma: confused between the relation between named arguments and frames
16:59:49 [PaulaP]
csma: not anymore
17:00:02 [PaulaP]
csma: any other confusion?
17:00:15 [PaulaP]
csma: Gary, do you still object?
17:00:22 [PaulaP]
csma: Axel is not here
17:00:32 [PaulaP]
csma: Axel objected too
17:00:59 [ChrisW]
17:01:00 [PaulaP]
Gary: many possibilities put a burden on translators
17:01:02 [josb]
+1 to Gary
17:01:20 [PaulaP]
Gary: better to have just one way of doing things
17:01:41 [JeffP]
17:01:43 [PaulaP]
csma: this is the reason why Sandro asked about the implementation
17:01:55 [csma]
ack chrisw
17:01:59 [PaulaP]
csma: I hope we can have a resolution next week
17:02:22 [PaulaP]
ChrisW: not speaking as chair, support for simplifying things
17:02:24 [josb]
+1 to simplifying
17:02:31 [PaulaP]
csma: I also support that
17:03:23 [PaulaP]
ChrisW: while we have an objector on each side, IMO people lean more on simplifying things
17:03:35 [PaulaP]
17:03:59 [PaulaP]
csma: I would also push in the direction of simplifying the interchange
17:04:11 [DaveReynolds]
17:04:12 [PaulaP]
csma: any other opinion?
17:04:21 [Harold]
Also MichaelK was not here last week and is not here now: so polling next week would be better.
17:04:34 [PaulaP]
sandro: engineering decision this time
17:04:56 [josb]
lexicographic ordering
17:05:07 [josb]
(of arguments)
17:05:17 [PaulaP]
sandro: basically, you need an extension to become a standard
17:05:22 [csma]
ack daver
17:05:52 [PaulaP]
Dave: you need to translate your data model to RIF
17:06:32 [PaulaP]
csma: the only benefit is in writing arguments in any order
17:06:51 [PaulaP]
csma: you can also put a constraint on the order
17:07:11 [PaulaP]
sandro: you're developing separate modules and need to coordinate between them
17:08:23 [Harold]
Christian, let's not do too much out of band: we have Signatures
17:08:31 [Harold]
17:09:09 [csma]
17:09:25 [PaulaP]
sandro: if you have rules against RDF
17:09:37 [PaulaP]
sandro: and the subject is a BNode
17:09:47 [PaulaP]
sandro: it seems not to map to a frame
17:10:18 [PaulaP]
Dave: the point is about fixed number of arguments
17:10:33 [PaulaP]
sandro: now it is clear to me
17:10:59 [PaulaP]
Dave: I agree that there is a pressure to go for simplicity
17:11:26 [PaulaP]
Dave: we can remove named arguments uniterms and then vote on future meetings
17:11:45 [PaulaP]
csma: maybe there is no real objection
17:12:20 [csma]
PROPOSED: to close issue 44 by removing named argument Uniterms from BLD.
17:12:29 [PaulaP]
csma: the simplest proposal
17:12:48 [PaulaP]
csma: would there be objections here?
17:12:54 [AdrianP]
named argument uniterms have a benefit if you want to use the rules on top different fact bases
17:13:01 [PaulaP]
Harold: I would abstain, Michael would object
17:13:12 [AdrianP]
Zakim, unmute me
17:13:12 [Zakim]
adrianp should no longer be muted
17:13:54 [PaulaP]
Adrian: if you have named arguments and are not specific about the order, it is easier to build the rules on top of different fact bases
17:14:03 [PaulaP]
Adrian: such as relational databases
17:14:32 [PaulaP]
csma: the question is what are the consequences of this? is it really a drawback?
17:14:49 [Harold]
Fact base 1: p(a->1 b->2) and Fact base 2: p(b->2 a->1) can be easily integrated.
17:14:53 [DougL]
-1 (I object also -- but not rabidly -- decades of being bitten by revisions of fixed-order schemes motivate me to prefer named args)
17:15:08 [PaulaP]
ChrisW: we estimate based on our experience
17:15:13 [Harold]
Fact base 1: p(1 2) and Fact base 2: p(2 1) can NOT be easily integrated.
17:15:16 [PaulaP]
Adrian: e.g. Eclipse
17:15:26 [AdrianP]
17:15:27 [Harold]
17:15:40 [PaulaP]
ChrisW: not clear if this is really relevant for BLD
17:16:16 [PaulaP]
csma: does that mean that you would object to the resolution, Adrian?
17:16:26 [PaulaP]
Adrian: no, I won't object
17:16:52 [Harold]
But Adrian's use case shows more discussion here would help.
17:16:53 [AdrianP]
Zakim, mute me
17:16:53 [Zakim]
adrianp should now be muted
17:16:58 [ChrisW]
it is established that you can interchange rules in any case here
17:17:03 [csma]
17:17:05 [PaulaP]
csma: more discussion?
17:17:19 [PaulaP]
Harold: more discussion needed here
17:17:52 [ChrisW]
we always try to announce resolutions in the agenda of a telecon
17:18:27 [PaulaP]
zakim, next item
17:18:27 [Zakim]
agendum 7. "Issue 36 (mapping between prez and XML syntaxes)" taken up [from csma]
17:18:52 [PaulaP]
csma: we might go fast here
17:19:12 [PaulaP]
csma: the issue was raised on Sept 27, after F2F7
17:19:26 [Harold]
17:19:28 [PaulaP]
csma: after the discussion on the triangle of syntaxes
17:19:55 [PaulaP]
csma: but then we had a poll and it showed that the preferences were for what we do currently
17:19:59 [csma]
17:20:53 [PaulaP]
csma: there is a second resolution later
17:21:18 [PaulaP]
csma: structural model diagrams like UML
17:21:31 [csma]
17:21:33 [PaulaP]
csma: and a direct mapping between the presentation and the XML syntax
17:21:37 [csma]
ack harold
17:22:03 [ChrisW]
17:22:13 [csma]
ack chrisw
17:22:17 [PaulaP]
Harold: we go directly from the presentation syntax to the semantics
17:22:38 [PaulaP]
ChrisW: issue not closed, but forgot to close it
17:22:49 [PaulaP]
csma: we agree that we can close it
17:22:58 [PaulaP]
csma: proposed resolution next week
17:23:08 [PaulaP]
csma: would there be any objections to that?
17:23:16 [PaulaP]
csma: no objections
17:23:24 [PaulaP]
zakim, next item
17:23:24 [Zakim]
agendum 8. "Meta data" taken up [from csma]
17:23:44 [ChrisW]
Regrets: MichaelKifer PaulVincent
17:23:45 [PaulaP]
csma: the item meta data in the list of TODOs for the 2nd WD BLD
17:24:08 [ChrisW]
zakim, list attendees
17:24:08 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been csma, ChrisW, DougL, Sandro, Harold, PaulaP, Mike_Dean, IgorMozetic, DaveReynolds, hassan, adrianp, LeoraMorgenstern, josb, JeffP,
17:24:11 [Zakim]
... Gary_Hallmark
17:24:16 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:24:16 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
17:24:31 [PaulaP]
csma: any part of RIF that couldn't be ignored is not meta data
17:24:39 [sandro]
RRSAgent, make record public
17:24:41 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make logs public
17:24:50 [PaulaP]
csma: the issue is of ignorable statements
17:25:13 [PaulaP]
csma: list of such statements
17:25:26 [josb]
17:25:27 [PaulaP]
csma: poll on open/closed list issues
17:25:38 [PaulaP]
csma: other issues here?
17:25:39 [csma]
ack josb
17:25:50 [PaulaP]
josb: yes, the issue of the non-ignorable meta data
17:26:03 [PaulaP]
josb: e.g. references to external data sets
17:26:15 [PaulaP]
josb: they say something about the rule sets
17:26:25 [AdrianP]
import statement are not meta data
17:26:29 [PaulaP]
csma: we have to list this kind of stuff too
17:26:32 [PaulaP]
17:26:56 [PaulaP]
meta data may be ignorable for a dialect and not ignorable by another dialect
17:27:41 [PaulaP]
csma: round tripping point of view should be also considered
17:27:59 [DaveReynolds]
17:28:00 [josb]
17:28:01 [PaulaP]
csma: comments you can forget, but meta data not
17:28:08 [csma]
ack davere
17:28:19 [PaulaP]
Dave: comments are just another piece of meta data
17:28:27 [PaulaP]
Dave: this for some use cases
17:28:41 [PaulaP]
Dave: there are not two classes of meta data
17:28:48 [PaulaP]
csma: this was actually my point too
17:28:57 [josb]
17:29:08 [PaulaP]
csma: what we do not have is a strawman proposal on how to include them in BLD
17:29:25 [PaulaP]
josb: I volunteer to write one
17:29:53 [PaulaP]
josb: within one week
17:30:06 [ChrisW]
action: jdebruij2 to write a meta-data strawman by 1 week
17:30:06 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-405 - Write a meta-data strawman by 1 week [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2008-01-29].
17:30:26 [PaulaP]
zakim, next item
17:30:26 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, PaulaP
17:30:35 [JeffP]
17:30:35 [csma]
ack josb
17:30:56 [PaulaP]
JeffP: any discussion about RIF test cases
17:31:09 [PaulaP]
zakim, unmute me
17:31:09 [Zakim]
PaulaP should no longer be muted
17:31:22 [PaulaP]
csma: probably on the agenda next week
17:31:32 [PaulaP]
csma: scribe for next week
17:31:41 [PaulaP]
zakim, next item
17:31:41 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, PaulaP
17:31:50 [csma]
ack jeffp
17:31:57 [PaulaP]
csma: any volunteer to scribe?
17:32:03 [JeffP]
I will try
17:32:21 [Zakim]
17:32:27 [PaulaP]
ChrisW: Jeff as scribe next week, if not Adrian?
17:32:30 [AdrianP]
I need to check too
17:32:31 [Zakim]
17:32:36 [AdrianP]
Zakim, unmute me
17:32:36 [Zakim]
adrianp should no longer be muted
17:32:41 [Hassan]
+1 on adjourning
17:32:43 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:32:43 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
17:32:44 [PaulaP]
csma: adjourn the meeting
17:32:45 [Zakim]
17:32:47 [Zakim]
17:32:52 [Zakim]
17:32:59 [Zakim]
17:33:00 [Zakim]
17:33:03 [AdrianP]
17:33:04 [Zakim]
17:33:09 [Zakim]
17:33:10 [Zakim]
17:33:12 [Zakim]
17:33:54 [Zakim]
17:34:01 [csma]
zakim, who is on the phone?
17:34:01 [Zakim]
On the phone I see csma, ChrisW, Sandro
17:34:25 [Zakim]
17:34:27 [Zakim]
17:34:27 [Zakim]
17:34:28 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
17:34:29 [Zakim]
Attendees were csma, ChrisW, DougL, Sandro, Harold, PaulaP, Mike_Dean, IgorMozetic, DaveReynolds, hassan, adrianp, LeoraMorgenstern, josb, JeffP, Gary_Hallmark
17:50:15 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #rif
17:50:39 [AxelPolleres]
apologies... missed the teleconf due to an unforeseen meeting :-(
17:50:46 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has left #rif
17:59:31 [csma]
csma has left #rif