IRC log of rif on 2008-03-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:38:21 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
15:38:21 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:38:27 [ChrisW]
zakim, this will be rif
15:38:27 [Zakim]
ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 22 minutes
15:38:45 [ChrisW]
zakim, this will be rif
15:38:45 [Zakim]
ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 22 minutes
15:38:45 [ChrisW]
Meeting: RIF Telecon 12-Feb-08
15:39:19 [ChrisW]
Meeting: RIF Telecon 4-Mar-08
15:39:26 [ChrisW]
Chair: Chris Welty
15:39:44 [ChrisW]
15:39:55 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has changed the topic to: 4 March Telecon Agenda
15:40:10 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:40:10 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
15:40:24 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Admin
15:40:36 [ChrisW]
agenda+ F2F10
15:40:48 [ChrisW]
agenda+ F2F9 and action review
15:40:56 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Liason
15:41:01 [ChrisW]
agenda+ DTB
15:41:06 [ChrisW]
agenda+ FLD
15:41:10 [ChrisW]
agenda+ BLD
15:41:16 [ChrisW]
agenda+ SWC
15:41:20 [ChrisW]
agenda+ AOB
15:41:33 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make logs public
15:57:24 [LeoraMorgenstern]
LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
16:00:05 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
16:00:07 [Hassan]
Hassan has joined #rif
16:00:24 [csma]
csma has joined #rif
16:00:27 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
16:00:42 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
16:00:43 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
16:00:48 [Zakim]
16:00:49 [Zakim]
16:00:51 [Zakim]
+ +1.212.781.aaaa
16:01:04 [LeoraMorgenstern]
zakim, aaaa is me
16:01:04 [Zakim]
+LeoraMorgenstern; got it
16:01:13 [ChrisW]
leora, can you scribe today?
16:01:20 [LeoraMorgenstern]
16:01:23 [StellaMitchell]
StellaMitchell has joined #rif
16:01:28 [Zakim]
16:01:34 [Zakim]
16:01:43 [ChrisW]
zakim, [ibm] is temporarily
16:01:43 [Zakim]
+temporarily; got it
16:01:52 [ChrisW]
zakim, temporarily is me
16:01:52 [Zakim]
+ChrisW; got it
16:01:56 [Zakim]
16:02:02 [Zakim]
+ +43.158.801.1aabb
16:02:07 [ChrisW]
Scribe: LeoraMorgenstern
16:02:12 [Zakim]
16:02:18 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
16:02:18 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Admin" taken up [from ChrisW]
16:02:25 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:02:25 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), Sandro, LeoraMorgenstern, Mike_Dean, ChrisW, ??P26, josb, ??P31
16:02:31 [csma]
zakim, ??P31 is me
16:02:31 [Zakim]
+csma; got it
16:02:46 [Zakim]
16:03:00 [Zakim]
16:03:05 [StellaMitchell]
zakim, [ibm] is temporarily me
16:03:05 [Zakim]
+StellaMitchell; got it
16:03:08 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Sandro: There was sort of a telecon last week: Christian, Harold, and me summarizing the F2F; not something that would count as an official telecon.
16:03:15 [Zakim]
16:03:23 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: no scribe, no minutes, no meeting.
16:03:29 [ChrisW]
Feb 12 Telecon Minutes:
16:03:34 [IgorMozetic]
IgorMozetic has joined #rif
16:03:43 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: Accept 12 Feb Telecon minutes
16:04:02 [Zakim]
16:04:05 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: Accept 12 Feb Telecon minutes
16:04:05 [Harold]
zakim, +43.158.801.1aabb is me
16:04:05 [Zakim]
sorry, Harold, I do not recognize a party named '+43.158.801.1aabb'
16:04:18 [ChrisW]
16:04:18 [LeoraMorgenstern]
PROPOSED: Accept 19 Feb Telecon minutes
16:04:33 [LeoraMorgenstern]
RESOLVED: Accept 19 Feb Telecon minutes
16:04:35 [Zakim]
16:04:47 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Any agenda amendments?
16:04:49 [IgorMozetic]
zakim, ??P41 is me
16:04:50 [Zakim]
+IgorMozetic; got it
16:04:52 [LeoraMorgenstern]
No agenda amendments
16:04:53 [Harold]
zakim, [+43.158.801.1aabb] is me
16:04:53 [Zakim]
sorry, Harold, I do not recognize a party named '[+43.158.801.1aabb]'
16:04:54 [IgorMozetic]
zakim, mute me
16:04:54 [Zakim]
IgorMozetic should now be muted
16:05:20 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: At next week telecon, Europe and U.S. will be out of sync.
16:05:24 [DougL]
DougL has joined #rif
16:05:27 [Zakim]
16:05:33 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: US will be on summertime, but Europe switches 3 weeks later.
16:05:49 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: Do we change the reservation in Europe or in US?
16:05:59 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: might cause problems to change in US.
16:06:07 [Zakim]
+ +1.512.342.aacc
16:06:12 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: reservation is wtih respect to US time.
16:06:18 [DougL]
zakim, aacc is me
16:06:18 [Zakim]
+DougL; got it
16:06:43 [Harold]
zakim, aabb is me
16:06:43 [Zakim]
sorry, Harold, I do not recognize a party named 'aabb'
16:06:53 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: We always keep to the US times. So next week's telecon will be at 4 PM in Central European Time, and 3 PM in British Time.
16:07:14 [Harold]
zakim, 1aabb is me
16:07:14 [Zakim]
sorry, Harold, I do not recognize a party named '1aabb'
16:07:22 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
16:07:22 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "F2F10" taken up [from ChrisW]
16:07:24 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Minutes for F2F9 are up and linked to on wiki page. We will vote on them next week.
16:07:39 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: On to F2F10.
16:08:03 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: There was a web poll, and it seemed that the preference was clearly for Galway, Ireland, March 26-28.
16:08:24 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: 3 day meeting, because it will be a last meeting. All the things that need to get done have to get done at that meeting.
16:08:36 [IgorMozetic]
16:08:39 [csma]
16:08:41 [josb]
March? => May
16:10:01 [ChrisW]
May, yes
16:10:12 [LeoraMorgenstern]
s/March 26/May 26/
16:10:26 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:10:26 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), Sandro, LeoraMorgenstern, Mike_Dean, ChrisW, ??P26, josb, csma, DaveReynolds, StellaMitchell, IgorMozetic (muted), Gary_Hallmark, DougL
16:10:31 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Okay, decided that next F2F will be May26-28 in Galway.
16:10:31 [sandro]
RESOLVED: F2F10 Galway, Ireland, 26-28 May (Mon-Wed)
16:10:50 [csma]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:10:50 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), Sandro, LeoraMorgenstern, Mike_Dean, ChrisW, ??P26, josb, csma, DaveReynolds, StellaMitchell, IgorMozetic (muted), Gary_Hallmark, DougL
16:11:13 [sandro]
Zakim, ??P26 is Harold
16:11:13 [Zakim]
+Harold; got it
16:11:16 [sandro]
ack Harold
16:11:19 [csma]
ack harold
16:11:22 [ChrisW]
ack ??
16:11:23 [sandro]
ack ??P26
16:11:48 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
16:11:48 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "F2F9 and action review" taken up [from ChrisW]
16:11:52 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Any other discussion on F2F10?
16:11:54 [LeoraMorgenstern]
16:13:00 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Working Group's main page contains table, put up by Sandro, of documents to be done, along with the schedule.
16:13:43 [MichaelKifer]
MichaelKifer has joined #rif
16:13:44 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: We closed issue 44, a grain of sand that had been irritating us, regarding uniterms.That was done on the first day.
16:14:46 [Zakim]
+ +1.631.833.aadd
16:14:53 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Did clean up on the specs of documents (get links, numbers).
16:15:10 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Another major resolution: Decided how to handle errors in BLD.
16:15:10 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, aadd is me
16:15:10 [Zakim]
+MichaelKifer; got it
16:15:56 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
16:15:57 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
16:16:03 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Went with third approach to handling errors: let implementors decided whether to return true or false for presence of errors.
16:16:15 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: spec is requiring a guard predicate.
16:16:54 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Another resolution: We discovered BLD had reification. (Indeed, it was intentional.) We decided to take it out of BLD; framework, however, still permits you to write a dialect that has reification.
16:17:17 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Now, on to action review:
16:17:40 [josb]
16:17:45 [LeoraMorgenstern]
There was Action ???? on Harold to ????
16:17:59 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Harold: will get it done 2 weeks from now.
16:18:07 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: but that will be after freezing date of document.
16:18:17 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: since freezing date is 11 of March.
16:19:14 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Due date for Harold has been changed for 18 of March.
16:19:28 [josb]
16:19:52 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Also Action 441 on Harold to add IRIs to presentation syntax.
16:20:11 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Jos: In proposal sent to the mailing list, metadata is included as well as IRIs.
16:20:28 [LeoraMorgenstern]
But Action 442 is not obsolete, because it still hasn't been added to document.
16:21:32 [LeoraMorgenstern]
So 441 and 442 are continued. May become obsolete.
16:21:49 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Adrian not here. Jeff Pan (test cases for Rif) not here.
16:21:55 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Action 438 on Jos is pending discussion.
16:22:06 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
16:22:06 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
16:22:12 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: Michael (action 437) add built-ins to semantics of bld and fld
16:22:16 [LeoraMorgenstern]
michael: this is ongoing
16:22:25 [LeoraMorgenstern]
michael: will have it done within a week, maybe.
16:22:33 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
16:22:33 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
16:22:37 [LeoraMorgenstern]
michael: will be going into next version
16:22:38 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
16:23:03 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: did Axel finish list of built ins including typechecking and casting
16:23:04 [josb]
I'd say the lists are not finished.
16:23:11 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: So action 436 is pending discussion.
16:23:33 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Sandro: action 435 is continued.
16:23:46 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
16:23:46 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
16:23:46 [josb]
(E.g., casting functions are not included at all )
16:23:48 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: action 434 is ongoing, due on Friday.
16:24:47 [LeoraMorgenstern]
michael: action 433, to move section 2.0.9 to appendix: Possible to have one section about deriving bld from fld, and then one section for the semantics, and that will be clearer ---
16:25:06 [LeoraMorgenstern]
michael: once this is done, it can be determined whether it is better to move that section into an appendix.
16:25:07 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
16:25:07 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
16:25:12 [LeoraMorgenstern]
michael: that will also be done March 11.
16:25:19 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: action 431 can be deleted.
16:25:44 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Action 432 is continued.
16:25:53 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
16:25:53 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
16:26:14 [LeoraMorgenstern]
michael: regarding actions 430 and 433: these are connected: sections will be combined.
16:26:14 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
16:26:14 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
16:26:23 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
16:26:23 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
16:27:06 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
16:27:06 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
16:27:54 [LeoraMorgenstern]
michael: did not have a chance to look carefully at action 429, which depends on action 428, by Axel (and Harold). 428 has now been done, so will be doing 429 now.
16:27:59 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
16:27:59 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
16:28:02 [LeoraMorgenstern]
michael: I'll do it all together this week.
16:28:28 [LeoraMorgenstern]
michael: same for actions 426 and 427.
16:28:43 [Zakim]
16:28:49 [Harold]
Michael, Jos and all, re lists, there was only an open choice about two possible semantics: I'm fine with both. So, if no one wants the original 'pair' semantics, or has a problem with the 'nested-interpretation semantics', then let's go for the latter.
16:28:57 [LeoraMorgenstern]
correction: action 426 is obsolete and now closed.
16:29:10 [josb]
Okay, let's do that
16:29:37 [josb]
16:30:06 [LeoraMorgenstern]
discussion on action 425, to make sure that BLD requires explicit quantification. What exactly was this action?
16:30:09 [josb]
zakim, ack me
16:30:09 [Zakim]
unmuting josb
16:30:10 [Zakim]
I see no one on the speaker queue
16:30:10 [ChrisW]
ack jos
16:30:49 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: in BLD document spec, there were two types of rules, one with and one without quantifiers, and it said explicitly that rules without quantifiers were allowed, so that has to be removed.
16:31:04 [LeoraMorgenstern]
michael: wasn't that just a bnf issue?
16:31:10 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: no, not just a bnf problem.
16:31:20 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: there should only be one type of rule, one with quantifiers.
16:31:43 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: one without quantifiers should be discarded, because we decided that all quantifiers must be explicit in BLD.
16:31:50 [josb]
zakim, mute me
16:31:50 [Zakim]
josb should now be muted
16:32:09 [LeoraMorgenstern]
michael: again, I'll be looking at all of these issues during this coming week.
16:33:02 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Harold: Action 423 depends on actions by Axel and Michael.
16:33:13 [LeoraMorgenstern]
(get Harold's remarks: can't hear him.)
16:33:31 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Harold: Do we require a guard for every built-in?
16:33:38 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: no, not required, just recommended.
16:33:47 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Harold: can't do it earlier than 10 of March.
16:34:04 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: okay, that just all right, time wise.
16:34:13 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
16:34:13 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
16:34:28 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Adrian had action 413, but is not here.
16:34:46 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: Action 413 was done and discussed during f2f, so is now done.
16:34:57 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: action 406 is done.
16:35:17 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: action 405 on jos was done and discussed, so can now close it.
16:36:00 [LeoraMorgenstern]
harold: action 404, to update BLD syntax/semantics to reflect resolution on lists, was discussed a bit on the IRC.
16:36:51 [LeoraMorgenstern]
harold: There's a choice to make between two semantics for lists, and we have to decide on which one.
16:36:55 [Harold]
Michael, Jos and all, re lists, there was only an open choice about two possible semantics: I'm fine with both. So, if no one wants the original 'pair' semantics, or has a problem with the 'nested-interpretation function semantics', then let's go for the latter.
16:37:13 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: that needs to be on the agenda for next week.
16:37:49 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Actions 384 and 400 are pending discussion.
16:37:51 [josb]
Harold, <josb>Okay, let's do that
16:38:07 [Harold]
16:38:10 [DaveReynolds]
I agree, collation issue is certainly not critical.
16:38:19 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Sandro: action 382 can be dropped.
16:38:22 [LeoraMorgenstern]
So action 382 is closed.
16:38:41 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Action 378 is still pending discussion.
16:39:03 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: Action 373 is done.
16:40:09 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: Actions 152, 253, 274, 305, 359, and 361 are all continued.
16:40:19 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
16:40:19 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Liason" taken up [from ChrisW]
16:40:36 [josb]
16:40:41 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: Jos, anything new regarding OWL?
16:40:47 [ChrisW]
zakim, close item 4
16:40:47 [Zakim]
agendum 4, Liason, closed
16:40:48 [Zakim]
I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:40:49 [Zakim]
5. DTB [from ChrisW]
16:40:49 [LeoraMorgenstern]
(see Jos's answer above.)
16:40:50 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
16:40:50 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "DTB" taken up [from ChrisW]
16:41:26 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: new document (on data types and built ins) is up on the wiki. Harold, what's the status?
16:41:35 [josb]
ack me
16:41:37 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Harold: <can't hear anything>
16:42:01 [Harold]
E.g.: & proposal (Axel's proposal)
16:42:05 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: I saw a version, made comments, but haven't seen comments addressed.
16:42:13 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: Harold said Axel addressed the comments.
16:42:15 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: not so.
16:42:19 [Harold]
16:42:32 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: for example, I had comments about how built ins are defined, etc.
16:42:42 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: why were there new things, there?
16:43:06 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: the existing document was insufficient --- wrt definitions, etc.
16:43:26 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: I understood that wg decided to use built-ins for uniterms.
16:43:44 [josb]
my comments:
16:43:44 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: but here I see all the other proposals are still listed.
16:43:45 [josb]
16:44:05 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: in other words, I thought the question was settled, but clearly that's not the case.
16:44:21 [josb]
16:44:25 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: so document hadn't been properly updated.
16:44:41 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: so it looks like proposal 2.1 can go.
16:44:57 [LeoraMorgenstern]
(note to self: check the numbering)
16:45:09 [josb]
16:45:16 [csma]
16:45:34 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: so section 2.1.1 can go, and --- all subsections on other proposals.
16:45:39 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: can go
16:45:58 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: indeed, my comments were that these sections were part of language specification
16:46:13 [LeoraMorgenstern]
(note to self: check josb's email.)
16:46:35 [Hassan]
march 11
16:46:36 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: we want to freeze this by next week.
16:46:57 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: but harold, you're travelling and Axel is not here. Is march 11 a realistic date to freeze this document?
16:47:00 [LeoraMorgenstern]
harold: no.
16:47:32 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: Let's freeze March 18, and give only one week for review.
16:47:38 [Zakim]
16:48:10 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: we did not actually decided on a schedule for next working draft.
16:48:27 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: let's freeze by march 14 and have 11 days for review.
16:48:29 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
16:49:08 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: people should send comments as soon as possible, so frozen version of doc will already include most of comments.
16:49:11 [ChrisW]
16:49:15 [ChrisW]
ack josb
16:49:16 [josb]
16:49:24 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
16:49:24 [Zakim]
agendum 6. "FLD" taken up [from ChrisW]
16:49:39 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
16:49:39 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
16:49:46 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: plan is to freeze document next week. Michael is optimistic that this can happen.
16:50:02 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: Michael, anything has come up since f2f that we should discuss?
16:50:22 [LeoraMorgenstern]
michael: only thing is that I need time to work on this. The two documents are closely related, and I have to work on them together.
16:51:18 [ChrisW]
16:51:24 [josb]
but it's so profitable!
16:51:41 [josb]
ack me
16:53:02 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Josb and Michael: email discussion
16:53:19 [LeoraMorgenstern]
michael: in FLD, have to talk about formulas; in BLD, want to talk about rules.
16:54:30 [LeoraMorgenstern]
michael: way to restrict things is that bld is restriction of fld grammar.
16:54:40 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: Restriction goes the other way round.
16:54:52 [Hassan]
A rule is not a formula for Business Rules systems
16:55:29 [LeoraMorgenstern]
It appears that not all points brought up in email discussion by Michael and Jos have been responded to by other party.
16:55:53 [LeoraMorgenstern]
michael: discrepancy between rule and formula, and spec of production rules not looking right.
16:56:01 [LeoraMorgenstern]
michael: rule content looked redundant.
16:56:05 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: Yes, I pointed that out too.
16:56:27 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: not sure how far bld grammar was restriction of fld grammar.
16:56:38 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
16:56:48 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: from my point of view, not so important, as long as clear that syntax of bld is restriction of syntax of fld.
16:57:00 [Harold]
Current Version (
16:57:00 [Harold]
CONDITION ::= 'And' '(' CONDITION* ')' |
16:57:00 [Harold]
'Or' '(' CONDITION* ')' |
16:57:00 [Harold]
'Exists' Var+ '(' CONDITION ')' |
16:57:00 [Harold]
16:57:01 [Harold]
COMPOUND ::= Uniterm | Equal | Member | Subclass | Frame
16:57:03 [Harold]
Uniterm ::= Const '(' (TERM* | (Const '->' TERM)*) ')'
16:57:05 [Harold]
Equal ::= TERM '=' TERM
16:57:07 [Harold]
Member ::= TERM '#' TERM
16:57:09 [Harold]
Subclass ::= TERM '##' TERM
16:57:11 [Harold]
Frame ::= TERM '[' (TERM '->' TERM)* ']'
16:57:14 [Harold]
TERM ::= Const | Var | COMPOUND
16:57:15 [Harold]
16:57:17 [Harold]
Var ::= '?' VARNAME
16:57:28 [Harold]
Prohibiting Reification (F2F9 Day 1 Resolution)
16:57:29 [Harold]
CONDITION ::= 'And' '(' CONDITION* ')' |
16:57:29 [Harold]
'Or' '(' CONDITION* ')' |
16:57:29 [Harold]
'Exists' Var+ '(' CONDITION ')' |
16:57:29 [Harold]
16:57:29 [Harold]
ATOMIC ::= Uniterm | Equal | Member | Subclass | Frame
16:57:31 [Harold]
Uniterm ::= Const '(' (TERM* | (Const '->' TERM)*) ')'
16:57:33 [Harold]
Equal ::= TERM '=' TERM
16:57:35 [Harold]
Member ::= TERM '#' TERM
16:57:37 [Harold]
Subclass ::= TERM '##' TERM
16:57:39 [Harold]
Frame ::= TERM '[' (TERM '->' TERM)* ']'
16:57:41 [Harold]
TERM ::= Const | Var | Uniterm
16:57:43 [csma]
16:57:43 [Harold]
16:57:45 [Harold]
Var ::= '?' VARNAME
16:57:47 [Harold]
Reintroducing Atom/Expr Distinction (F2F9 Day 2 Discussion)
16:57:50 [Harold]
CONDITION ::= 'And' '(' CONDITION* ')' |
16:57:51 [Harold]
'Or' '(' CONDITION* ')' |
16:57:53 [Harold]
'Exists' Var+ '(' CONDITION ')' |
16:57:55 [Harold]
16:57:57 [Harold]
ATOMIC ::= Atom | Equal | Member | Subclass | Frame
16:57:59 [Harold]
Atom ::= Const '(' (TERM* | (Const '->' TERM)*) ')'
16:58:01 [Harold]
Equal ::= TERM '=' TERM
16:58:03 [Harold]
Member ::= TERM '#' TERM
16:58:05 [Harold]
Subclass ::= TERM '##' TERM
16:58:07 [Harold]
Frame ::= TERM '[' (TERM '->' TERM)* ']'
16:58:09 [Harold]
TERM ::= Const | Var | Expr
16:58:11 [Harold]
Expr ::= Const '(' (TERM* | (Const '->' TERM)*) ')'
16:58:13 [Harold]
16:58:15 [Harold]
Var ::= '?' VARNAME
16:58:25 [csma]
16:58:43 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chrisw: several things discussed in f2f are reflected in Josb's new bnf: has metadata, has iri's, etc.
16:58:59 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: also had some discussion based on sandro's attempt to do tooling based on xml syntax.
16:59:04 [csma]
16:59:16 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: previously, syntax didn't distinguish between predicates and functions.
16:59:24 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: although earlier versions did this.
16:59:39 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: and indeed, we are considering bringing this distinction back.
17:00:10 [csma]
ack csma
17:00:15 [Harold]
17:00:24 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: the bld and fld grammars now do make this distinction, and it turned out to be not problematic, so there is no reason not to make the distinction.
17:00:47 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: Why do you have to change rules and rule content in order to separate predicates and functions?
17:00:52 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: that was to get metadata.
17:01:31 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: if we want to map bnf on the xml syntax, then the way you do it i sproblematic, because we do not have separate productions for built-in and non-built-in forms of predicates and functions.
17:01:55 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: that is, there is only one production for built in functions and predicates
17:01:55 [josb]
17:02:09 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: and only one production for non-built-in functions and predicates.
17:02:18 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: we would need a production for each xml form.
17:03:03 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: they can't share the uniterm?
17:03:11 [Harold]
The production Predicate ::= UNITERM | 'Builtin ( ' UNITERM ' ) ' does not mark a builtin call (say with Exterm).
17:03:15 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: but they dont' have the xterm.
17:03:24 [josb]
ack me
17:03:34 [josb]
17:04:40 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: link above shows how you do it.
17:05:02 [csma]
17:05:03 [josb]
17:05:10 [csma]
ack harold
17:05:20 [LeoraMorgenstern]
harold: we need to separate different issues.
17:05:33 [LeoraMorgenstern]
harold: one issue is getting rid of reification.
17:05:52 [LeoraMorgenstern]
harold: second issue is getting rid of universal terms (??)
17:08:10 [LeoraMorgenstern]
(note to self: email Harold and get comments, none of which I heard.)
17:08:51 [csma]
zakim, mute me
17:08:52 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
17:09:27 [LeoraMorgenstern]
harold: in terms of getting rid of uniterms: difference bewten atoms and expressions.
17:09:51 [ChrisW]
17:09:57 [LeoraMorgenstern]
harold: once we have made this difference, cannot introduce uniterms anymore.
17:10:06 [LeoraMorgenstern]
harold: that was the resolution or decision, a year ago.
17:10:46 [josb]
ack me
17:10:46 [LeoraMorgenstern]
michael: we need a bnf from which it can all be derived.
17:11:23 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: Asks harold to respond to his grammar, and specify what's wrong with it.
17:11:35 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: harold doesn't think you need to split off uniterms from existing syntax.
17:12:36 [Harold]
We had a decision, approx. a year ago, to start with unified tags, and in later dialects refine them, rather than start with differentiated tags, and later try to re-unify them.
17:13:39 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: again, need to be able to distinguish in syntax itself, difference between functions and predicates, and the secon dissue that needs to be fixed in the syntax, is to make sure that there's no reification.
17:13:45 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: and we need metadata
17:13:56 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: and we need to be able to refer to IRIs
17:14:04 [csma]
and we need it by next week!
17:14:05 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: Jos's proposal addresses all of these.
17:14:19 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: but the existing syntax doesn't.
17:14:23 [ChrisW]
17:14:42 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: we will discuss more next week, and hopefully come to a conclusion.
17:14:44 [Harold]
We applied this to the unified Uniterm tag rather than keeping our earlier Atom and Expr tags.
17:15:02 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
17:15:02 [Zakim]
agendum 7. "BLD" taken up [from ChrisW]
17:15:03 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: Harold, can you send your comments as an email, since some didint' understand them?
17:15:07 [LeoraMorgenstern]
In fact, some didn't even hear them.
17:15:23 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
17:15:23 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
17:15:27 [DaveReynolds]
17:15:31 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: Well, we've already been discussion BlD. Anything else to discuss on BLD?
17:15:49 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Dave: Did the various xml syntax issues-- things like IRIs, etc --- get sorted out?
17:16:02 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: that is one of the things that Jos's sytnax proposal addressed.
17:16:17 [csma]
unmute me
17:16:26 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Dave: no, it's a different issue: in the proposed syntax, various xml issues were not addressed.
17:16:40 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Dave: I mentioned them in my comments on the proposal.
17:16:48 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Dave: Did those get sorted out?
17:16:49 [csma]
zakim, unmute me
17:16:49 [Zakim]
csma should no longer be muted
17:16:51 [Harold]
I agree with Dave, this are different issues. And issues should not be compounded.
17:17:08 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: We didn't really discuss actual xml syntax
17:17:31 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: in itself,
17:17:41 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: These issues will become critical path shortly
17:17:49 [Harold]
17:17:51 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Dave:yes, necessary for implementation.
17:17:53 [DaveReynolds]
17:17:59 [csma]
ack davere
17:18:11 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: We should go over that next week as well.
17:18:17 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
17:18:17 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, ChrisW
17:18:22 [ChrisW]
ack DaveReynolds
17:18:40 [csma]
action: to CWelty to add XML syntax on the agenda for next week
17:18:40 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - to
17:18:48 [ChrisW]
ack h
17:18:50 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Harold: Something about modules. (can't hear most of this.)
17:19:15 [csma]
action: to christopherwelty to add xml syntax on the agenda for next week
17:19:15 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - to
17:19:36 [LeoraMorgenstern]
harold: not talking aobut rif-level modules, but about xsd-level modules.
17:21:02 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: (2) importing rules sets
17:21:08 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: (3) moduloes
17:21:21 [LeoraMorgenstern]
(csma was summarizing harold's points. Get first point.)
17:21:45 [Harold]
17:22:24 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Harold: Jos's language is now one language that covers conditions and rules.
17:22:26 [ChrisW]
17:22:33 [csma]
action: to chriswelty to add action-404 on agenda next week
17:22:33 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - to
17:22:34 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
17:22:34 [Zakim]
agendum 8. "SWC" taken up [from ChrisW]
17:22:37 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Harold: I think we should separate concerns, not merge the issues.
17:22:54 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: regarding owl and rdf compatibility:
17:22:58 [josb]
ack me
17:23:02 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: were hoping to freeze next week.
17:23:11 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: It is on schedule if bld spec is on schedule.
17:23:12 [DaveReynolds]
17:23:22 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: 3 days after bld spec is frozen, this can be frozen.
17:23:41 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
17:23:41 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
17:24:04 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: michael will finish and tell sandro, then sandro will freeze and notify.
17:24:41 [josb]
ack me
17:24:49 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: jos, what changes were you depending on?
17:24:53 [csma]
zakim, mute me
17:24:53 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
17:25:15 [LeoraMorgenstern]
michael: changes involve moving sections around, etc. and hoping that everything works perfectly. One shouldn't be too optimistic.
17:26:16 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
17:26:16 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
17:26:23 [DaveReynolds]
ack me
17:26:24 [ChrisW]
17:26:58 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Dave: WRT semantic compatibility document, was there any discussion about the difference between the OWL and RDF approaches to compatibility.
17:27:29 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Yes, lots of discussion, and realistically, there will be difficulties between OWL and RIF given that there are 3 different versions of OWL.
17:28:11 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Are you mostly concened with using classes as predicates vs. using frames?
17:28:19 [josb]
17:28:51 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Dave: yes, this makes the problem worse. You have to decide wihether it's OWL-DL or OWL-full before determining how to translate.
17:29:06 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Dave: Do you translate it as predicates or translate it as frames?
17:29:22 [sandro]
I want the hit the next person who says "RIF is just an interchange format"
17:29:30 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: But RIF is just an interchange format so presumably the one doing the translating knows which version they support.
17:29:51 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Josb: Perhaps Dave has a misconception of rif syntax for owl rules
17:30:06 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Josb: You still use the same RIF rules, just give them a different semantics.
17:30:27 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Josb: Granted you must decide which semantics to use, but the same is true when you are just using OWL.
17:30:32 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
17:30:32 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer was already muted, MichaelKifer
17:30:35 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: does that address your major issue, Dave?
17:30:47 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Dave: I don't understand how an implementor can implement that at this point.
17:31:01 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Dave: I don't undertrand how the semantic equivalence is supposed to work.
17:31:12 [sandro]
Jos: When you write rules against OWL, you pick whether you want to use DL-style semantics or Full-style semantics.
17:32:33 [Zakim]
17:32:35 [Zakim]
17:32:37 [Zakim]
17:32:39 [Zakim]
17:32:41 [Zakim]
17:32:56 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Dave, can you be more specific about the problem?
17:33:07 [ChrisW]
leora, can you stay?
17:33:20 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Dave: If it was clear how to translate unary and binary predicates, it would be easier.
17:33:30 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Josb: can only do that for OWL-DL, not Owl-Full.
17:33:37 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Josb: Owl-Full: triple semantics.
17:33:48 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Josb: Owl-DL predicate semantics.
17:33:59 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Josb: distinction between classes and properties.
17:34:18 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Josb: triples equivalent to unary and binary predicates.
17:34:50 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Job: already pointed out in specification: more entailments in OWL-fullsemantics than in OWL-DL semantics.
17:35:22 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Josb: and this is true in RIF as well.
17:37:19 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Josb: Suggestion --In RIF OWL-DL combinations, disallow users to write unary and binary predicates
17:37:36 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Josb: don't allow users to use two different syntaxes for the same thing.
17:38:13 [DougL]
I have to leave now but am interested in the outcome of this discussion. Thanks.
17:38:37 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Josb: Only disallow it in OWL-DL.
17:38:44 [Zakim]
17:38:49 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Josb: But allow it for OWL-full and RDF.
17:39:02 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Dave: I think I'm okay with that.
17:39:24 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Josb: Will do my best to explain that better in the document.
17:39:34 [Zakim]
17:39:40 [Zakim]
17:39:41 [Zakim]
17:39:42 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes public
17:39:42 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', ChrisW. Try /msg RRSAgent help
17:39:49 [csma]
zakim, unmute me
17:39:49 [Zakim]
csma should no longer be muted
17:39:59 [sandro]
zakim, who is talking?
17:40:04 [ChrisW]
zakim, mute csma
17:40:04 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
17:40:09 [ChrisW]
zakim, ack csma
17:40:09 [Zakim]
unmuting csma
17:40:10 [Zakim]
I see josb on the speaker queue
17:40:10 [Zakim]
sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Sandro (4%), ChrisW (4%), josb (64%), csma (5%)
17:40:17 [sandro]
zakim, drop josb
17:40:17 [Zakim]
josb is being disconnected
17:40:17 [ChrisW]
zakim, mute josb
17:40:18 [Zakim]
josb should now be muted
17:40:18 [Zakim]
17:40:40 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:40:40 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
17:41:37 [Zakim]
17:41:42 [ChrisW]
Regrets: PaulVincent
17:41:47 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:41:47 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
17:42:11 [ChrisW]
Regrets: AdrianP, Axel
17:42:40 [Zakim]
17:42:42 [Zakim]
17:42:42 [Zakim]
17:42:43 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
17:42:45 [Zakim]
Attendees were Sandro, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, +1.212.781.aaaa, LeoraMorgenstern, Mike_Dean, ChrisW, +43.158.801.1aabb, josb, csma, DaveReynolds, StellaMitchell, Gary_Hallmark,
17:42:47 [Zakim]
... IgorMozetic, +1.512.342.aacc, DougL, Harold, +1.631.833.aadd, MichaelKifer
17:54:59 [csma]
csma has left #rif