IRC log of rif on 2008-03-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:36:16 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
14:36:17 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:36:32 [ChrisW]
zakim, this will be rif
14:36:32 [Zakim]
ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 24 minutes
14:36:53 [ChrisW]
Meeting: RIF Telecon 11 March 2008
14:37:41 [ChrisW]
Chair: Chris Welty
14:37:59 [ChrisW]
14:38:12 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has changed the topic to: 11 March RIF Telecon Agenda
14:38:29 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
14:38:29 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
14:38:35 [ChrisW]
zakim, clear agenda
14:38:35 [Zakim]
agenda cleared
14:38:46 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Admin
14:38:52 [ChrisW]
agenda+ F2F10
14:38:58 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Action Review
14:39:04 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Liason
14:39:13 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Issue 40 (Builtins)
14:39:24 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Lists
14:39:36 [ChrisW]
agenda+ BLD syntax
14:39:44 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Publication Plan
14:39:49 [ChrisW]
agenda+ AOB
14:39:56 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make logs public
14:41:11 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
14:41:11 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Admin" taken up [from ChrisW]
14:54:08 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
14:56:22 [csma]
csma has joined #rif
14:58:53 [Hassan]
Hassan has joined #rif
14:59:37 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
14:59:57 [Zakim]
14:59:58 [Zakim]
14:59:59 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
15:00:02 [mdean]
mdean has joined #rif
15:00:39 [Zakim]
15:00:57 [StellaMitchell]
StellaMitchell has joined #rif
15:01:03 [Zakim]
15:02:09 [Zakim]
15:02:22 [ChrisW]
zakim, ibm is temporarily me
15:02:22 [Zakim]
+ChrisW; got it
15:02:24 [Zakim]
15:02:56 [Harold]
zakim, [NRCC] is me
15:03:00 [Zakim]
+Harold; got it
15:03:03 [ChrisW]
Stella, can you scribe today?
15:03:05 [StellaMitchell]
15:03:06 [Zakim]
15:03:11 [StellaMitchell]
zakim, [ibm] is temporarily me
15:03:14 [DougL]
DougL has joined #rif
15:03:17 [ChrisW]
Scribe: StellaMitchell
15:03:22 [Zakim]
+StellaMitchell; got it
15:03:55 [Zakim]
15:03:56 [Zakim]
+ +1.703.418.aaaa
15:04:12 [csma]
zakim, aaaa is me
15:04:12 [Zakim]
+csma; got it
15:04:14 [Harold]
Hi Dough, Should we refer to CycL?
15:04:28 [LeoraMorgenstern]
LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
15:04:29 [DougL]
Hi, sure.
15:04:32 [ChrisW]
15:04:42 [csma]
zakim, mute me
15:04:42 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
15:04:58 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: accept F2F9 Minutes
15:05:03 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: any objections to accepting minutes from F2F9? ... none
15:05:08 [csma]
15:05:27 [Zakim]
15:05:33 [Harold]
Doug how? (I found something online, but maybe you have more precise ref)
15:05:43 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: no minutes from March 4th yet
15:06:01 [StellaMitchell]
Leora: I just sent out the minutes from March 4th
15:06:07 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:06:07 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "F2F10" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:06:10 [csma]
zakim, unmute me
15:06:10 [Zakim]
csma should no longer be muted
15:06:14 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: any adjenda ammendments? ... none
15:06:37 [StellaMitchell]
csma: Jos also wanted to discuss appendix of swc doc
15:06:38 [ChrisW]
zakim, list agenda
15:06:38 [Zakim]
I see 7 items remaining on the agenda:
15:06:39 [Zakim]
2. F2F10 [from ChrisW]
15:06:39 [Zakim]
3. Action Review [from ChrisW]
15:06:40 [Zakim]
4. Liason [from ChrisW]
15:06:40 [Zakim]
5. Issue 40 (Builtins) [from ChrisW]
15:06:41 [Zakim]
6. Lists [from ChrisW]
15:06:41 [Zakim]
7. BLD syntax [from ChrisW]
15:06:43 [Zakim]
9. AOB [from ChrisW]
15:06:47 [StellaMitchell]
chris: we will talk about that during the publication plan
15:07:04 [DougL]
The wikipedia page for CycL references the CycL syntax document (near the bottom)
15:07:26 [Harold]
15:07:27 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: any news on F2F10? Axel (host) is not here
15:07:37 [csma]
zakim, mute me
15:07:37 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
15:07:52 [csma]
15:08:01 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: f2f10 will be in deri Galway on May 26-28
15:08:22 [csma]
ACTION: Axel to update the F2F10 wiki page
15:08:22 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-443 - Update the F2F10 wiki page [on Axel Polleres - due 2008-03-18].
15:08:36 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: (a 3 day meeting)
15:08:41 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:08:41 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Action Review" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:09:00 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: Action review:
15:09:11 [IgorMozetic]
IgorMozetic has joined #rif
15:10:13 [StellaMitchell]
cw: action-423 is pending discussion
15:10:14 [Zakim]
15:10:16 [csma]
zakim, unmute me
15:10:16 [Zakim]
csma should no longer be muted
15:10:20 [Harold]
15:10:24 [StellaMitchell]
harold: the rest of my actions are continued
15:10:28 [IgorMozetic]
zakim, ??P53 is me
15:10:28 [Zakim]
+IgorMozetic; got it
15:10:32 [IgorMozetic]
zakim, mute me
15:10:32 [Zakim]
IgorMozetic should now be muted
15:11:57 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: action-435 (request namespace for functions and operators)
15:12:29 [StellaMitchell]
... it's turning out to be harder than expected. I need help from the working group
15:12:46 [StellaMitchell]
...I have been in touch with ??
15:13:34 [StellaMitchell]
csma: action-434, change due date to March 21st
15:14:21 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:14:21 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Liason" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:14:38 [sandro]
s/??/xquery+xpath WGs/
15:14:39 [StellaMitchell]
cw: csma, any news from the OMG meeting?
15:15:21 [StellaMitchell]
csma: the only thing that might be of interest to this group is that there is request for proposals on svbr vocab on date and time that is aligned with owl and uml
15:16:01 [josb]
15:16:10 [StellaMitchell]
cw: jos, mike, what news from owl task force?
15:16:18 [josb]
ack me
15:16:24 [StellaMitchell]
miked: no news
15:17:23 [StellaMitchell]
cw: I understand that there is work going on in owl wg to consider a blessed (recommended) fragment of owl for bld
15:17:31 [csma]
zakim, mute me
15:17:31 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
15:17:45 [Zakim]
15:17:52 [Harold]
DLP is the intersection of Horn logic and Description Logic.
15:17:53 [StellaMitchell]
15:18:04 [StellaMitchell]
s /??/dlp/
15:18:12 [josb]
15:18:21 [sandro]
Zhe (Alan) Wu, at Oracle
15:19:03 [StellaMitchell]
cw: Gary, do you know about this?
15:19:08 [StellaMitchell]
Gary: no
15:19:34 [StellaMitchell]
miked: I will attend the owled workshop in early april
15:20:14 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:20:14 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "Issue 40 (Builtins)" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:20:17 [StellaMitchell]
cw: please bring the swc doc to their attention and solicit feedback
15:20:49 [StellaMitchell]
cw: at f2f10 we pretty much agreed on builtins
15:21:17 [StellaMitchell]
... but in the documented issue there is one item left open, about order of the arguments
15:21:21 [csma]
PROPOSED: BLD builtins are not sensitive to order as they are in query
15:21:21 [csma]
languages and production rules (closing issue-40).
15:21:31 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: BLD builtins are not sensitive to order as they are in query languages and production rules (closing issue-40).
15:21:32 [csma]
15:21:47 [csma]
ack csma
15:21:53 [MichaelKifer]
MichaelKifer has joined #rif
15:22:12 [StellaMitchell]
csma: I have no objection to that resolution, but I wonder what it means that they are sensitive to order
15:22:34 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: BLD builtins are not sensitive to order
15:23:31 [StellaMitchell]
harold: if you call a builtin before all arguments are bound, you can have a problem in some implentations
15:23:47 [StellaMitchell]
csma: in rif all bindings are done outside of the rule, so we would not have this problem
15:23:49 [Harold]
PROPOSED: BLD builtin calls are not sensitive to order of conjunctions
15:24:29 [Zakim]
15:24:31 [StellaMitchell]
harold: is the above wording ok with you, csma?
15:24:59 [StellaMitchell]
csma: yes, even the original wording was fine, but just might be a little confusing
15:25:01 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: BLD builtins are not sensitive to order of evaluation
15:25:06 [sandro]
15:25:12 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
15:25:12 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
15:25:18 [csma]
zakim, mute me
15:25:18 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
15:25:24 [MichaelKifer]
15:25:25 [StellaMitchell]
cw :any objections to the above proposal? ... none
15:25:31 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: BLD builtins are not sensitive to order of evaluation
15:25:35 [csma]
zakim, unmute me
15:25:35 [Zakim]
csma should no longer be muted
15:25:37 [MichaelKifer]
15:25:42 [DougL]
15:25:48 [josb]
15:25:53 [Harold]
15:25:53 [Hassan]
15:25:54 [IgorMozetic]
15:25:57 [csma]
zakim, mute me
15:25:57 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
15:26:12 [sandro]
Chris: I think Michael was saying "-1" on IRC to "does anyone object?"
15:26:22 [LeoraMorgenstern]
15:26:42 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: BLD builtins are not sensitive to order of evaluation (closing issue 40)
15:26:46 [csma]
do you have some wine to celebrate?
15:27:23 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:27:23 [Zakim]
agendum 6. "Lists" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:27:26 [csma]
action: ChrisW to close issue 40
15:27:26 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - ChrisW
15:27:44 [csma]
action: cwelty to close issue 40
15:27:44 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-444 - Close issue 40 [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-03-18].
15:28:17 [ChrisW]
15:28:21 [StellaMitchell]
cw: we agreed on syntax, but not on semantics yet
15:28:49 [Harold]
15:28:58 [StellaMitchell]
cw: above, are links to 2 proposals for semantics
15:29:11 [csma]
PROPOSED: Approve Michael's alternative proposal on lists [6] and
15:29:11 [csma]
update FLD+BLD syntax/semantics accordingly to reflect that and the
15:29:11 [csma]
previous resolution on lists
15:29:37 [StellaMitchell]
harold: I have no preference between the two. I think we should use the "alternative" proposal
15:30:33 [StellaMitchell]
harold: I think on one level the semantics interpretation is more complicated in mk's (alternative) proposal
15:30:43 [StellaMitchell]
... it is kind of unusual, but it seems to work
15:31:01 [StellaMitchell]
cw: can you clarify?
15:31:11 [Harold]
These functions are required to satisfy the following: Itail(a1, ..., ak, Iseq(ak+1, ..., ak+m)) = Iseq(a1, ..., ak, ak+1, ..., ak+m).
15:31:57 [StellaMitchell]
harold: this leads us into the realm of semantic description that is more expressive than the original
15:32:27 [josb]
15:32:29 [StellaMitchell]
cw: any other discussion on this? are people ready to accept this semantics?
15:33:00 [LeoraMorgenstern]
So, we are voting for one of the two pages?
15:33:01 [Hassan]
Why not use the standard free algebra style of semantics?
15:33:03 [StellaMitchell]
cw: does anyone feel uncomfortable accepting the semantics of the "alternative" proposal?
15:33:06 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: Approve Michael's alternative proposal on lists and update FLD+BLD syntax/semantics accordingly to reflect that and the previous resolution on lists
15:33:26 [StellaMitchell]
cw: does anyone object to the above resolution?
15:33:34 [LeoraMorgenstern]
I'm confused. Which wiki page are we voting for?
15:33:43 [StellaMitchell]
hak: I think it is overly complicated
15:34:08 [StellaMitchell]
...there are standard semantics for lists everwhere, why are we reinventing the wheel
15:34:17 [StellaMitchell]
hb: to keep it n-ary
15:34:23 [StellaMitchell]
hak: that is just syntax
15:34:50 [csma]
csma has joined #rif
15:35:05 [StellaMitchell]
hb: first step was to eliminate pairs from the syntax, and then we eliminated pairs from the semantics too
15:35:05 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
15:35:05 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
15:35:19 [StellaMitchell]
hb: and how would you deal with rest variables?
15:35:29 [csma]
15:35:32 [csma]
15:35:32 [Harold]
Itail deals with rest variables.
15:35:33 [StellaMitchell]
hak: just a logic variable
15:36:00 [StellaMitchell]
mk: we have a model theory so when we introduce a new kind of term we have to define the interpretation of this new kind of term in the model theory
15:36:10 [StellaMitchell] have to be specific about your proposal
15:36:26 [Harold]
Direct treatment of 'Seq(' TERM+ ` | ` TERM ')'.
15:37:10 [StellaMitchell]
hak: use standard semantics and syntactic sugar transformation
15:37:25 [Harold]
In particular 'Seq(' TERM+ ` | ` Var ')'.
15:37:25 [StellaMitchell]
hak: I don't object, I am just saying my opinion
15:37:36 [StellaMitchell]
cw: any other comments?
15:38:02 [StellaMitchell]
cw: sequence semantics in the alternatives and pairs semantics was the original
15:38:07 [csma]
zakim, unmute me
15:38:07 [Zakim]
csma should no longer be muted
15:38:41 [Harold]
Michael, Pair is a function symbol, so I eliminated that from the syntax, moving it to the semantics.
15:38:41 [StellaMitchell]
mk: if you don't have function symbols, you cannot treat it as syntactic sugar
15:38:47 [csma]
zakim, mute me
15:38:47 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
15:39:03 [StellaMitchell]
cw: so advantage is you can handle lists without requiring functions
15:40:11 [StellaMitchell]
gary: it is good to decouple them (lists and function symbols) for production systems
15:40:16 [Hassan]
15:40:39 [Hassan]
15:40:47 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: Approve Michael's alternative proposal on lists and update FLD+BLD syntax/semantics accordingly to reflect that and the previous resolution on lists
15:40:53 [StellaMitchell]
cw: any objections to above?
15:41:04 [StellaMitchell]
15:41:06 [sandro]
15:41:13 [DougL]
15:41:13 [Hassan]
15:41:15 [Harold]
15:41:16 [IgorMozetic]
15:41:16 [LeoraMorgenstern]
15:41:19 [MichaelKifer]
15:41:27 [mdean]
15:41:39 [sandro]
Gary on phone: +1
15:41:41 [josb]
15:41:42 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: Approve Michael's alternative proposal on lists and update FLD+BLD syntax/semantics accordingly to reflect that and the previous resolution on lists
15:41:52 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:41:52 [Zakim]
agendum 7. "BLD syntax" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:42:29 [StellaMitchell]
hb: can you give an update on this discussion
15:42:38 [StellaMitchell]
s/ hb:/cw: hb,/
15:43:01 [StellaMitchell]
hb: we agreed at previous meeting to remove reification from bld
15:43:28 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
15:43:28 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
15:43:57 [StellaMitchell]
...we also discussed at f2f10 about going back to making a distiction inthe grammar between terms and predicates
15:44:17 [StellaMitchell]
...and also bring in syntax for builtins
15:44:59 [StellaMitchell]
cw: and also Jos had an action to add metadata and iris to the syntax
15:45:06 [josb]
15:45:15 [josb]
ack me
15:46:00 [StellaMitchell]
cw: people have agreed to remove reificaiton and to add metadata and iris
15:46:24 [StellaMitchell] the remaining issue is whether to distinguish between functions and predicates in the grammar
15:47:30 [StellaMitchell]
hb: mk said it is a good idea to keep uniterm
15:47:55 [StellaMitchell]
cw: we are not proposing to remove uniterms...just in how they are used in the grammar
15:47:57 [Zakim]
15:48:12 [StellaMitchell]
s/inthe/in the/
15:48:28 [StellaMitchell]
s/between terms and predicates/between functions and predicates/
15:49:16 [Zakim]
15:49:19 [StellaMitchell]
cw: yes, it changes the markup by distinguising functions from predicates
15:49:34 [StellaMitchell]
...but still they will have the same syntax
15:49:43 [csma]
15:50:03 [josb]
the grammar:
15:50:21 [StellaMitchell]
hb: we want to handle future ilog extensions
15:50:27 [csma]
15:50:32 [StellaMitchell]
15:50:49 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
15:50:49 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
15:51:15 [StellaMitchell]
cw: mk, where do you stand on this issue? does distinguishing functions and predicates in the syntax make it more difficult to do hilog extensions?
15:51:27 [StellaMitchell]
mk: no, I don't think it does
15:52:05 [StellaMitchell]
mk: that's why I wanted to make bld grammar a specialization of fld grammar
15:52:38 [StellaMitchell]
...(so that it can be extended in a compatible way)
15:52:59 [StellaMitchell]
hb: I'm not convinced this will work
15:53:27 [StellaMitchell]
hb: yes, hilog would be generalization of bld
15:53:55 [csma]
15:54:05 [StellaMitchell]
jos: I proposed 2 grammars: fld and bld. the fld one contains hilog
15:54:08 [josb]
I give up....
15:54:08 [csma]
zakim, unmute me
15:54:08 [Zakim]
csma should no longer be muted
15:54:22 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
15:54:22 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
15:54:22 [csma]
15:54:28 [sandro]
josb, is your BLD grammar a subset of your FLD grammar?
15:54:35 [josb]
15:54:47 [StellaMitchell]
csma: I don't understand the current discussion
15:54:48 [josb]
the grammar:
15:54:54 [sandro]
15:55:25 [StellaMitchell]
csma: ..fld and bld are the same in the area of subject of predicates and functions
15:55:38 [josb]
I showed that you CAN!
15:55:43 [josb]
15:55:49 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: I think harold is saying that if you split uniterm into functions and predicates in fld then you can't extend to hilog
15:56:16 [josb]
15:56:18 [Harold]
We want to read BLD documents (with BLD facts and rules) into future HLD (HiLog) documents.
15:56:22 [StellaMitchell]
csma: but hilog distinguishes between predicates and functions
15:56:42 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
15:56:42 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
15:56:48 [Harold]
Therefore BLD documents should not separate oreds and funcs.
15:57:01 [Harold]
Therefore BLD documents should not separate preds and funcs.
15:57:04 [StellaMitchell]
cw: mk, you made a proposal for the grammars for fld and bld. Can you summarize
15:57:15 [josb]
Harold, just read the grammars I proposed...................
15:57:29 [StellaMitchell]
mk: I proposed a framework to use around the grammars that jos had proposed
15:57:55 [StellaMitchell]
hb: I explained my point above in the irc
15:58:28 [StellaMitchell]
mk: I understand that you are saying we need to also consider how it will look in xml, and not just in bnf
15:58:47 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
15:58:59 [StellaMitchell]
...I think it would be possible to accomplish the extensible design in xml
15:59:38 [StellaMitchell]
...I wanted to show the concept in bnf, but intended that it would carry over to xml
16:00:21 [StellaMitchell]
...I didn't think hard about this yet, so can't say for sure whether it is possible
16:00:40 [StellaMitchell]
cw: this should be ok in xml
16:00:50 [StellaMitchell]
mk: it has to be checked
16:01:07 [StellaMitchell]
cw: how will we go about checking this?
16:01:15 [Harold]
E.g., the BLD XML-like Atom(a Fun(f c d) e) cannot be importet unchanged in HLD.
16:01:34 [Harold]
E.g., the BLD XML-like Uniterm(a Uniterm(f c d) e) cannot be importet unchanged in HLD.
16:01:56 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: why can it not be imported?
16:02:06 [csma]
zakim, mute me
16:02:06 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
16:02:19 [StellaMitchell]
cw: someone has to demonstrate that there is an xml syntax that can be specialized from hilog to bld
16:02:23 [Harold]
E.g., the BLD XML-like Atom(a Fun(f c d) e) cannot be importet unchanged in HLD.
16:02:23 [Harold]
<Harold> E.g., the BLD XML-like Uniterm(a Uniterm(f c d) e) cannot be importet unchanged in HLD.
16:02:36 [Harold]
E.g., the BLD XML-like Uniterm(a Uniterm(f c d) e) CAN be importet unchanged in HLD.
16:02:36 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: jos says he has done this
16:02:51 [StellaMitchell]
mk: jos hasn't done it for hilog yet, so he would have to do that
16:03:32 [csma]
16:03:56 [StellaMitchell]
cw: rif is an interchange syntax, we would not break hilog by requiring they use this format
16:04:05 [josb]
FLD subsumes hilog
16:04:15 [josb]
so, I did it for hilog
16:04:23 [StellaMitchell]
cw: hilog requires functions to be allowed in places where they are not conventioally used in other languages
16:04:45 [StellaMitchell] doesn't require that you don't distinguish between them
16:05:01 [Harold]
And ( ?x = Uniterm(f c d) Uniterm(a ?x e) )
16:05:21 [csma]
16:05:28 [josb]
16:05:29 [Harold]
And ( ?x = Uniterm(f c d) ?x(a ?x e) )
16:06:02 [StellaMitchell]
hb: in above example, ?x occurs in 2 places... at the top level it is an atom
16:06:26 [StellaMitchell]
...the other occurance is not
16:07:09 [csma]
16:08:17 [StellaMitchell]
cw: the distinction is there is what you typed, why is it a problem to call it out syntactically
16:08:32 [josb]
16:08:33 [csma]
ack csma
16:08:36 [ChrisW]
ack csma
16:08:37 [StellaMitchell]
16:08:54 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: (something about parse trees)
16:09:00 [StellaMitchell]
csma: I agree with what sandro said
16:09:54 [Harold]
At the time you write ?x = Uniterm(f c d) you don't need to say how it's going to be used: So both ?x occurrences in ?x(a ?x e) are fine.
16:09:55 [StellaMitchell]
...problem may occur when using a bld doc in hilog dialect
16:09:56 [sandro]
Sandro: when you parse Harold's expression, you find some occurances of ?x occur in the place where you expect a predicate and some where you expect a function. All I want is the XML grammar to contain those labels from the parsing -- so the parsing work is in the XML, as it's supposed to be with XML.
16:10:09 [josb]
16:10:23 [josb]
+1 to Sandro
16:11:28 [csma]
zakim, mute me
16:11:28 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
16:11:36 [csma]
16:11:52 [Harold]
And ( ?x = Uniterm(f c d) Pre(?x)(a Fun(?x) e) )
16:12:05 [StellaMitchell]
hb: is the above what you mean, mk?
16:12:07 [StellaMitchell]
mk: no
16:12:10 [Harold]
And ( ?x = Uniterm(f c d) Pred(?x)(a Fun(?x) e) )
16:12:46 [StellaMitchell]
mk: I am not proposing to mark it up. The basic difference between your grammar and jos's is just at the top level
16:12:59 [Harold]
And ( ?x = Uniterm(f c d) ?x(a ?x e) ?x )
16:13:12 [StellaMitchell]
hb: what about the above? is this possible?
16:13:45 [StellaMitchell]
mk: yes, the x's will be marked as atom, but inside they will all be uniterms
16:13:54 [StellaMitchell]
cw: let's move this discussion to email
16:14:15 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
16:14:15 [Zakim]
agendum 9. "AOB" taken up [from ChrisW]
16:14:29 [csma]
16:14:35 [ChrisW]
TOPIC: Publication plan
16:14:37 [csma]
ack csma
16:14:51 [sandro]
ACTION: Harold to make the case, in e-mail, based on examples in 11 March meeting, for keeping Uniterm in the XML
16:14:51 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-445 - Make the case, in e-mail, based on examples in 11 March meeting, for keeping Uniterm in the XML [on Harold Boley - due 2008-03-18].
16:15:14 [StellaMitchell]
csma: we didn't discuss the orthogonal item of having the syntax (presentation and xml) distinguish between logical and builtin functions and predicates
16:15:23 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: we decided that already
16:16:21 [StellaMitchell]
csma: one proposal distinguishings builtins from logical and one distinguishes functions and predicates, but neither does both
16:16:49 [Harold]
For reference, I talked about Hterms (Uniterm) in the W3C Submission of SWSL-Rules:
16:16:56 [StellaMitchell]
jos: it is still not clear how the xml syntax will be defined
16:17:30 [StellaMitchell]
... i.e. how it relates to presenation syntax
16:18:11 [StellaMitchell]
cw: we agreed that the mapping would be in a table, but that the xml syntax would be as close as possible to presentation, so that the mapping woujld be trivial
16:18:36 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
16:18:36 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
16:18:55 [Harold]
For instance, the HiLog term ?Z(?X,a)(b,?X(?Y)(d)) is serialized as shown below:
16:18:56 [StellaMitchell]
csma: for the predicate production you would need to have 2 entries in the table
16:18:58 [Harold]
16:18:58 [Harold]
16:18:58 [Harold]
16:18:58 [Harold]
16:18:58 [Harold]
16:18:59 [Harold]
16:19:01 [Harold]
16:19:03 [Harold]
16:19:05 [Harold]
16:19:07 [Harold]
16:19:09 [Harold]
16:19:11 [Harold]
16:19:13 [Harold]
16:19:15 [Harold]
16:19:17 [Harold]
16:19:19 [Harold]
16:19:19 [StellaMitchell]
jos: the table is to translate the syntax, it does not care about bnf or schema, just about syntax
16:19:21 [Harold]
16:19:23 [Harold]
16:19:25 [Harold]
16:19:59 [StellaMitchell]
jos: I need to see how the xml can be derived from the bnf - I am skeptical
16:20:50 [StellaMitchell]
hak: I think it can be derived, I have been working on a tool that can do this
16:21:14 [StellaMitchell]
csma: if we allow metadata inside uniterms for roundtripping purposes...
16:21:20 [StellaMitchell]
hak: you need to annotate the bnf
16:21:56 [StellaMitchell]
csma: we may want to have things in the xml syntax that we don't have to reflect in the presenation syntax
16:22:01 [sandro]
hak: you want a forgetful homomorphism
16:22:36 [StellaMitchell]
cw: csma, please put your point in an email, with an example
16:23:14 [StellaMitchell]
cw: I don't think we should publish next working draft without having syntactic issues revolved
16:23:20 [csma]
action: csma to write an email with an example of XML that should not be derived from the BNF of the prez syntax
16:23:20 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - csma
16:23:25 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
16:23:25 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
16:23:40 [StellaMitchell]
cw:: we can dedicate next week's telcon to all these syntactic issues
16:24:07 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: and I have two syntactic issues, which I will describe in email
16:24:07 [csma]
action: christian to write an example of XML that should not be derived from the BNF of the prez syntax
16:24:08 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-446 - Write an example of XML that should not be derived from the BNF of the prez syntax [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2008-03-18].
16:24:34 [StellaMitchell]
cw: are fld/ bld ready to be reviewed?
16:24:46 [StellaMitchell]
mk: there are some outstanding issues, I sent an email about it
16:25:38 [StellaMitchell]
mk: I will not be at next week's telecon
16:26:02 [StellaMitchell]
...I will plan to make all my changes by saturday
16:26:02 [csma]
+1 to postpone
16:26:15 [StellaMitchell]
cw: I think we need to postpone our schedule by one week
16:26:32 [csma]
ack csma
16:26:34 [StellaMitchell]
...and then reevaluate where we are with syntactic issues
16:26:58 [StellaMitchell]
...actions assigned today are critical, so that we can resolved syntactic issues at next week's telecon
16:27:18 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
16:27:18 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
16:27:18 [StellaMitchell]
csma: can we talk about jos's issue about appendix?
16:27:24 [josb]
16:27:52 [StellaMitchell]
jos: in the current swc document, the appendix describes embedding, but this is really more of an implementatin hint
16:28:35 [StellaMitchell] it shouldn't really be part of swc doc, it should ideally be in another document, so I'd like to move it to another doc that can be published as a working group note
16:28:47 [StellaMitchell]
cw: you don't like it in appendix because it makes the document longer?
16:29:13 [StellaMitchell]
jos: no, because it doesn't belong there, because it's a different topic from the main document
16:29:24 [Harold]
Jos, Sandro, I think a Working Note is too level a document to be referred to from a Proposed Recommendation.
16:29:31 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
16:29:31 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
16:29:38 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: I think people would want it in the same is ok to have non normative parts of the document
16:29:42 [StellaMitchell]
cw: agree
16:29:44 [IgorMozetic]
I'm in favor in keeping it in
16:29:53 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
16:29:53 [StellaMitchell]
jos: I don't object to leaving it as a non normative appendix
16:29:53 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
16:29:57 [StellaMitchell]
mk: I don't object either
16:30:07 [StellaMitchell]
jos: ok, agreed
16:30:28 [Zakim]
16:30:29 [Zakim]
16:30:31 [Zakim]
16:30:33 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:30:33 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
16:30:34 [Zakim]
16:30:37 [Zakim]
16:30:47 [ChrisW]
Regrets: DaveReynolds AxelPolleres
16:30:54 [Zakim]
16:30:55 [ChrisW]
zakim, list attendees
16:30:55 [Zakim]
16:30:57 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Sandro, Mike_Dean, josb, ChrisW, Harold, StellaMitchell, DougL, +1.703.418.aaaa, csma, LeoraMorgenstern, IgorMozetic,
16:30:59 [Zakim]
... Gary_Hallmark, MichaelKifer
16:31:00 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:31:00 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
16:31:09 [Zakim]
16:31:18 [Zakim]
16:31:19 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:31:20 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Sandro, josb (muted), ChrisW, csma
16:31:38 [Zakim]
16:33:53 [sandro]
16:35:01 [Zakim]
16:35:02 [Zakim]
16:35:04 [Zakim]
16:35:05 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
16:35:06 [Zakim]
Attendees were Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Sandro, Mike_Dean, josb, ChrisW, Harold, StellaMitchell, DougL, +1.703.418.aaaa, csma, LeoraMorgenstern, IgorMozetic, Gary_Hallmark, MichaelKifer
16:51:24 [csma]
csma has left #rif