See also: IRC log
<csma> Scribe: Paula-Lavinia Patranjan
<csma> scribenick: PaulaP
<ChrisW> Scribe: PaulaP
csma: agenda ammendments?
<ChrisW> PROPOSED: accept minutes of telecon January 15
csma: objections to accept the minutes of last week
<ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept minutes of telecon January 15
csma: ChrisW, did you take a look
at the response to Peter's comments?
... you said you wanted to take a look at them
ChrisW: they are ok
... responses will be sent tomorrow
csma: do you want an action to do that?
ChrisW: responses are to be found at the given links
<ChrisW> ACTION: cwelty to send responses to PFPS [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-rif-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-401 - Send responses to PFPS [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-01-29].
csma: are there any liaison
... Jos sent regrets
Mike_Dean: high-level discussions, no proposal to use MathML in the OWL 1.1. WG
csma: when is the next
... is it before ours or not?
... probably not
<AdrianP> thanks Chris
csma: any other report?
Mike_Dean: OWL 1.1. telecon after RIF telecon
csma: F2F9 in one month from now
<Harold> Doug, do you plan to join us at the f2f9 in France?
csma: you should start to
consider booking a flight and hotel
... useful to know how many people come
sandro: should I make a registration form?
<sandro> ACTION: sandro make registration for f2f9 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-rif-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-402 - Make registration for f2f9 [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-01-29].
csma: yes, this would be
... Harold told me that I should remind everybody how you get the ILOG rates at the hotels
csma: the page about F2F9
csma: there are a few selected
... there is a list of hotels where rates were negotiated
... you must make reservations through ILOG
<josb> Hello, it turns out I returned a bit earlier than expected so I could join the conference.
csma: you may call ILOG directly
<ChrisW> hi jos
<csma> Desk at ILOG: +33 1 49 08 35 00
sandro: the phone number should be on the wiki page
<sandro> (should be is not)
<sandro> (should but is not)
<csma> Prani: +33 1 49 08 36 88
<ChrisW> that number connects you to a production rule system
<ChrisW> be careful with negation!
csma: call Prani if you need assistance
sandro: say that you'll attend a W3C meeting organized by csma
<sandro> ACTION: csma put information on how to make ILOG hotel reservations on F2F9 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-rif-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - csma
<sandro> ACTION: christian put information on how to make ILOG hotel reservations on F2F9 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-rif-minutes.html#action04]
<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].
Harold: I still don't understand the workflow
csma: I will describe the workflow on the wiki page
<AdrianP> early confirmations of the booking are important to apply for funding
sandro: or the first person who makes a reservation
csma: please update the wiki if you have more information
Harold: working hours at ILOG necessary
csma: I will update the wiki page
with all information needed
... anything else?
<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.
csma: action 152
... is Paul Vincent here?
<sandro> Hassan, are there any places you like that are a reasonable walk from ILOG?
csma: ChrisW, did you get reply from Allan?
<Hassan> yes - and on the line of the 57 bus (8mins to ILOG). I myself stay here:http://www.cofrase.com/hotel/verlaine/
<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?
sandro: my action is also continued
<Hassan> Harold: OK
csma: Harold, would you take over
... to add links for functions and operators in the BLD
end of next week?
is it ok?
<Harold> Hassan, also it should not be noisy from the street.
csma: action 274's new deadline
is Feb 1, 2008
... close action 362
... close 364, which is done
... sandro, 373?
csma: action 375?
csma: when can it be done?
sandro: before F2F9
csma: Feb 20, 2008
... PR strategies continued
... action 378 continued
... 384 is pending discussion
csma: action 396 done
it becomes pending discussion
csma: action on Dave on collation issues for built-ins
csma. action is done and the result becomes pending discussion
csma: better leave the action open as pending discussion
Dave: no issue needed
csma: issue 45
<csma> PROPOSED: to close Issue 45 by including lists in BLD, where the pair
<csma> syntax will be used in the language definition and the sequence syntax
<csma> will be used for presentation and XML.
csma: discussion last week on
... proposal given above
<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.
josb: the point is that it should always be possible to express the tail of the list
csma: the sequence symtax
proposed by Harold allows for that
... should the resolution be more specific?
josb: I don't really understand the syntax on the page
Harold: recursive definition
josb: can you put a variable instead of list term?
Harold: sequence terms are syntactic sugar for pair terms
csma: you would not agree to the proposed resolution?
Harold: what do you mean by lang definition?
csma: the semantics
Harold: we need the pairs for the presentation syntax
csma: ChrisW, do you want to add something?
jobs: the lang definition and the
semantics should not use different syntaxes
... why do we need the sequences?
Harold: very useful for syntactic
... the pairs are needed for the semantics
<Harold> Sequences are regarded as syntactic sugar for Pairs.
ChrisW: probably you want to keep the syntax uniform
csma: why don't we define everything in terms if sequences?
josb: we can also use direct definitions
Harold: pairs are just binary
... the semantics of sequences not that straightforward
... we could discourage people to use pairs
csma: another proposal would be
to allow sequences and pairs
... but forbid to mix them
Harold: possibly doable also in XSD
csma: so better use them only on the semantics
Harold: translation table updated on the wiki
csma: allowing both - it seems you are in minority Harold, since most people supported josb's statement
josb: I can help with the semantics of sequences
Harold: vertical bar quite
different on the meta syntax
... I would like to have an intermediant step
josb: it is just a proposed resolution
<AdrianP> semantic definitions for lists for both sequences and pairs already exist in the LP community
csma: try to rephrase the proposed resolution
<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...
csma: what do we do with
... do we remove them? do we allow them only in the presentation syntax?
Igor: why don't we leave the editors to do their job?
csma: the job of the editors is to represent the whole WG
Igor: I think we are getting into too low-level details
csma: so, to close issue and have
... but the issue is what kind of lists
josb: I object of the phrasing to the second resolution
csma: this means it is unfinished
ChrisW: better to simplify more
or less equivalent issues here
... seqeunces are simpler to represent them and their semantics is established work
... let Jos take an action here
Harold: we only need the pairs, because we develop an interchange format
<csma> PROPOSED: close issue 45 by including lists in BLD as sequences (for both presentation and XML syntax)
ChrisW: my personal opinion on this is given above
csma: any objections to the last proposed resolution?
<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
csma: currently sequences are defined through pairs
josb: there is no definition of
... ChrisW did make a constructive proposal
csma: new proposal
<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.
<Harold> PROPOSED: close issue 45 by including lists in BLD as sequences for obth presentation and XML syntaxes and with a binary-reduction semantics.
csma: ChrisW, do you have a proposal for the semantics of sequences?
ChrisW: we don't need to resolve this now
Dave: Harold would like to use the binary reduction semantics
<Harold> DaveR, exactly.
Dave: difference between presentation syntax that people might use and the internat syntax used in the document
<Harold> However, we could 'hide' the pair syntax in the semantics.
ChrisW: I don't think the constraint on the semantics needs to be in the resolution
<AdrianP> +1 for Chris
csma: proposed resolution would be only
<csma> PROPOSED: close issue 45 by including lists in BLD as sequences for both presentation and XML syntaxes.
csma: further discussion on the latest proposal?
<DougL> I decline to abstain at this time.
csma: does somebody wants to
<csma> RESOLVED: close issue 45 by including lists in BLD as sequences for both presentation and XML syntaxes.
csma: for the 2nd WD on BLD, the next issue is on named arguments uniterms
<ChrisW> ACTION: harold to update BLD syntax/semantics to reflect resolution on lists [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-rif-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-404 - Update BLD syntax/semantics to reflect resolution on lists [on Harold Boley - due 2008-01-29].
csma: the current picture is that we have exactly the same number of supporting persons, objecting, and abstaining persons
josb: not clear enough what they are
csma: confused between the
relation between named arguments and frames
... not anymore
... any other confusion?
... Gary, do you still object?
... Axel is not here
... Axel objected too
Gary: many possibilities put a burden on translators
<josb> +1 to Gary
Gary: better to have just one way of doing things
csma: this is the reason why
Sandro asked about the implementation
... I hope we can have a resolution next week
ChrisW: not speaking as chair, support for simplifying things
<josb> +1 to simplifying
csma: I also support that
ChrisW: while we have an objector on each side, IMO people lean more to simplifying things
csma: I would also push in the
direction of simplifying the interchange
... any other opinion?
<Harold> Also MichaelK was not here last week and is not here now: so polling next week would be better.
sandro: engineering decision this time
<josb> lexicographic ordering
<josb> (of arguments)
sandro: basically, you need an extension to become a standard
Dave: you need to translate your data model to RIF
csma: the only benefit is in
writing arguments in any order
... you can also put a constraint on the order
sandro: you're developing separate modules and need to coordinate between them
<Harold> Christian, let's not do too much out of band: we have Signatures
sandro: if you have rules against
... and the subject is a BNode
... it seems not to map to a frame
Dave: the point is about fixed number of arguments
sandro: now it is clear to me
Dave: I agree that there is a
pressure to go for simplicity
... we can remove named arguments uniterms and then vote on future meetings
csma: maybe there is no real objection
<csma> PROPOSED: to close issue 44 by removing named argument Uniterms from BLD.
csma: the simplest proposal
... would there be objections here?
<AdrianP> named argument uniterms have a benefit if you want to use the rules on top different fact bases
Harold: I would abstain, Michael would object
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
... such as relational databases
csma: the question is what are the consequences of this? is it really a drawback?
<Harold> Fact base 1: p(a->1 b->2) and Fact base 2: p(b->2 a->1) can be easily integrated.
<DougL> -1 (I object also -- but not rabidly -- decades of being bitten by revisions of fixed-order schemes motivate me to prefer named args)
ChrisW: we estimate based on our experience
<Harold> Fact base 1: p(1 2) and Fact base 2: p(2 1) can NOT be easily integrated.
Adrian: e.g. CLIPS
ChrisW: not clear if this is really relevant for BLD
csma: does that mean that you would object to the resolution, Adrian?
Adrian: no, I won't object
<Harold> But Adrian's use case shows more discussion here would help.
<ChrisW> it is established that you can interchange rules in any case here
csma: more discussion?
Harold: more discussion needed here
<ChrisW> we always try to announce resolutions in the agenda of a telecon
csma: we might go fast here
... the issue was raised on Sept 27, after F2F7
... after the discussion on the triangle of syntaxes
... but then we had a poll and it showed that the preferences were for what we do currently
csma: there is a second
... structural model diagrams like UML
... and a direct mapping between the presentation and the XML syntax
Harold: we go directly from the presentation syntax to the semantics
ChrisW: issue not closed, but forgot to close it
csma: we agree that we can close
... proposed resolution next week
... would there be any objections to that?
... no objections
csma: the item meta data in the
list of TODOs for the 2nd WD BLD
... any part of RIF that couldn't be ignored is not meta data
... the issue is of ignorable statements
... list of such statements
... poll on open/closed list issues
... other issues here?
josb: yes, the issue of the
non-ignorable meta data
... e.g. references to external data sets
... they say something about the rule sets
<AdrianP> import statement are not meta data
csma: we have to list this kind
of stuff too
meta data may be ignorable for a dialect and not ignorable by another dialect
csma: round tripping point of view should be also considered
csma: comments you can forget, but meta data not
Dave: comments are just another
piece of meta data
... this for some use cases
... there are not two classes of meta data
csma: this was actually my point
... what we do not have is a strawman proposal on how to include them in BLD
josb: I volunteer to write
... within one week
<ChrisW> ACTION: jdebruij2 to write a meta-data strawman by 1 week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-rif-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-405 - Write a meta-data strawman by 1 week [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2008-01-29].
JeffP: any discussion about RIF test cases
csma: probably on the agenda next
... scribe for next week
... any volunteer to scribe?
<JeffP> I will try
ChrisW: Jeff as scribe next week, if not Adrian?
<AdrianP> I need to check too
<Hassan> +1 on adjourning
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133 of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/decsribe/describe/ Succeeded: s/termes/terms/ Succeeded: s/of/to/ Succeeded: s/did/did make/ Succeeded: s/on/to/ Succeeded: s/Eclipse/CLIPS/ Found Scribe: Paula-Lavinia Patranjan Found ScribeNick: PaulaP Found Scribe: PaulaP Inferring ScribeNick: PaulaP Scribes: Paula-Lavinia Patranjan, PaulaP Default Present: csma, ChrisW, DougL, Sandro, Harold, PaulaP, Mike_Dean, IgorMozetic, DaveReynolds, hassan, adrianp, LeoraMorgenstern, josb, JeffP, Gary_Hallmark Present: csma ChrisW DougL Sandro Harold PaulaP Mike_Dean IgorMozetic DaveReynolds hassan adrianp LeoraMorgenstern josb JeffP Gary_Hallmark WARNING: Replacing previous Regrets list. (Old list: Michael_Kifer, Jos_De_Bruijn) Use 'Regrets+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list, such as: <dbooth> Regrets+ MichaelKifer, PaulVincent Regrets: MichaelKifer PaulVincent Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Jan/0088.html Got date from IRC log name: 22 Jan 2008 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/01/22-rif-minutes.html People with action items: christian csma cwelty harold jdebruij2 sandro WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]