W3C

- DRAFT -

RIF Telecon 11 March 2008

11 Mar 2008

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Sandro, Mike_Dean, josb, ChrisW, Harold, StellaMitchell, DougL, +1.703.418.aaaa, csma, LeoraMorgenstern, IgorMozetic, Gary_Hallmark, MichaelKifer
Regrets
DaveReynolds, AxelPolleres
Chair
Chris Welty
Scribe
StellaMitchell

Contents


 

 

Admin

<ChrisW> Stella, can you scribe today?

yes

<ChrisW> Scribe: StellaMitchell

<Harold> Hi Dough, Should we refer to CycL?

<DougL> Hi, sure.

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F9_Minutes

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept F2F9 Minutes

Chris: any objections to accepting minutes from F2F9? ... none

<csma> no

<Harold> Doug how? (I found something online, but maybe you have more precise ref)

Chris: no minutes from March 4th yet

Leora: I just sent out the minutes from March 4th

F2F10

Chris: any adjenda ammendments? ... none

csma: Jos also wanted to discuss appendix of swc doc

chris: we will talk about that during the publication plan

<DougL> The wikipedia page for CycL references the CycL syntax document (near the bottom)

<Harold> OK.

Chris: any news on F2F10? Axel (host) is not here

<csma> yes

Chris: f2f10 will be in deri Galway on May 26-28

<csma> ACTION: Axel to update the F2F10 wiki page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-rif-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-443 - Update the F2F10 wiki page [on Axel Polleres - due 2008-03-18].

Chris: (a 3 day meeting)

Action Review

Chris: Action review:

cw: action-423 is pending discussion

<Harold> ACTION-423: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/index.php?title=BLD&diff=526&oldid=513

harold: the rest of my actions are continued

sandro: action-435 (request namespace for functions and operators)
... it's turning out to be harder than expected. I need help from the working group
... I have been in touch with xquery+xpath WGs

csma: action-434, change due date to March 21st

Liason

cw: csma, any news from the OMG meeting?

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

<josb> no

cw: jos, mike, what news from owl task force?

miked: no news

cw: I understand that there is work going on in owl wg to consider a blessed (recommended) fragment of owl for ??

<Harold> DLP is the intersection of Horn logic and Description Logic.

s /??/dlp/

<josb> s/bld/DLP/

<sandro> Zhe (Alan) Wu, at Oracle

cw: Gary, do you know about this?

Gary: no

miked: I will attend the owled workshop in early april

Issue 40 (Builtins)

cw: please bring the swc doc to their attention and solicit feedback
... at f2f10 we pretty much agreed on builtins
... but in the documented issue there is one item left open, about order of the arguments

<csma> PROPOSED: BLD builtins are not sensitive to order as they are in query

<csma> languages and production rules (closing issue-40).

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: BLD builtins are not sensitive to order as they are in query languages and production rules (closing issue-40).

csma: I have no objection to that resolution, but I wonder what it means that they are sensitive to order

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: BLD builtins are not sensitive to order

harold: if you call a builtin before all arguments are bound, you can have a problem in some implentations

csma: in rif all bindings are done outside of the rule, so we would not have this problem

<Harold> PROPOSED: BLD builtin calls are not sensitive to order of conjunctions

harold: is the above wording ok with you, csma?

csma: yes, even the original wording was fine, but just might be a little confusing

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: BLD builtins are not sensitive to order of evaluation

<sandro> +1

<MichaelKifer> -1

cw: any objections to the above proposal? ... none

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: BLD builtins are not sensitive to order of evaluation

<MichaelKifer> +1

<DougL> +1

<josb> +1

<Harold> +1

<Hassan> 0

<IgorMozetic> +1

<sandro> Chris: I think Michael was saying "-1" on IRC to "does anyone object?"

<LeoraMorgenstern> +1

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: BLD builtins are not sensitive to order of evaluation (closing issue 40)

<csma> do you have some wine to celebrate?

Lists

<csma> ACTION: ChrisW to close issue 40 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-rif-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - ChrisW

<csma> ACTION: cwelty to close issue 40 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-rif-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-444 - Close issue 40 [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-03-18].

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/List_Constructor-alt

cw: we agreed on syntax, but not on semantics yet

<Harold> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/List_Constructor

cw: above, are links to 2 proposals for semantics

<csma> PROPOSED: Approve Michael's alternative proposal on lists [6] and

<csma> update FLD+BLD syntax/semantics accordingly to reflect that and the

<csma> previous resolution on lists

harold: I have no preference between the two. I think we should use the "alternative" proposal
... I think on one level the semantics interpretation is more complicated in mk's (alternative) proposal
... it is kind of unusual, but it seems to work

cw: can you clarify?

<Harold> These functions are required to satisfy the following: Itail(a1, ..., ak, Iseq(ak+1, ..., ak+m)) = Iseq(a1, ..., ak, ak+1, ..., ak+m).

harold: this leads us into the realm of semantic description that is more expressive than the original

<josb> yes

cw: any other discussion on this? are people ready to accept this semantics?

<LeoraMorgenstern> So, we are voting for one of the two pages?

<Hassan> Why not use the standard free algebra style of semantics?

cw: does anyone feel uncomfortable accepting the semantics of the "alternative" proposal?

<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

cw: does anyone object to the above resolution?

<LeoraMorgenstern> I'm confused. Which wiki page are we voting for?

hak: I think it is overly complicated
... there are standard semantics for lists everwhere, why are we reinventing the wheel

hb: to keep it n-ary

hak: that is just syntax

hb: first step was to eliminate pairs from the syntax, and then we eliminated pairs from the semantics too
... and how would you deal with rest variables?

<Harold> Itail deals with rest variables.

hak: just a logic variable

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
... you have to be specific about your proposal

<Harold> Direct treatment of 'Seq(' TERM+ ` | ` TERM ')'.

hak: use standard semantics and syntactic sugar transformation

<Harold> In particular 'Seq(' TERM+ ` | ` Var ')'.

hak: I don't object, I am just saying my opinion

cw: any other comments?
... sequence semantics in the alternatives and pairs semantics was the original

<Harold> Michael, Pair is a function symbol, so I eliminated that from the syntax, moving it to the semantics.

mk: if you don't have function symbols, you cannot treat it as syntactic sugar

cw: so advantage is you can handle lists without requiring functions

gary: it is good to decouple them (lists and function symbols) for production systems

<Hassan> fine

<Hassan> ???

<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

cw: any objections to above?
... none

<sandro> +1

<DougL> +1

<Hassan> 0

<Harold> +1

<IgorMozetic> +1

<LeoraMorgenstern> +1

<MichaelKifer> +1

<mdean> +1

<sandro> Gary on phone: +1

<josb> +1

<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

BLD syntax

cw: hb, can you give an update on this discussion

hb: we agreed at previous meeting to remove reification from bld
... we also discussed at f2f10 about going back to making a distiction in the grammar between functions and predicates
... and also bring in syntax for builtins

cw: and also Jos had an action to add metadata and iris to the syntax
... people have agreed to remove reificaiton and to add metadata and iris
... so the remaining issue is whether to distinguish between functions and predicates in the grammar

hb: mk said it is a good idea to keep uniterm

cw: we are not proposing to remove uniterms...just in how they are used in the grammar
... yes, it changes the markup by distinguising functions from predicates
... but still they will have the same syntax

<josb> the grammar: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Mar/0001.html

hb: we want to handle future hilog extensions

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?

mk: no, I don't think it does
... that's why I wanted to make bld grammar a specialization of fld grammar
... (so that it can be extended in a compatible way)

hb: I'm not convinced this will work
... yes, hilog would be generalization of bld

jos: I proposed 2 grammars: fld and bld. the fld one contains hilog

<josb> I give up....

<sandro> josb, is your BLD grammar a subset of your FLD grammar?

<josb> Yes

csma: I don't understand the current discussion

<josb> the grammar: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Mar/0001.html

csma: ..fld and bld are the same in the area of subject of predicates and functions

<josb> I showed that you CAN!

<josb> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Mar/0001.html

sandro: I think harold is saying that if you split uniterm into functions and predicates in fld then you can't extend to hilog

<josb> right

<Harold> We want to read BLD documents (with BLD facts and rules) into future HLD (HiLog) documents.

csma: but hilog distinguishes between predicates and functions

<Harold> Therefore BLD documents should not separate oreds and funcs.

<Harold> Therefore BLD documents should not separate preds and funcs.

cw: mk, you made a proposal for the grammars for fld and bld. Can you summarize

<josb> Harold, just read the grammars I proposed...................

mk: I proposed a framework to use around the grammars that jos had proposed

hb: I explained my point above in the irc

mk: I understand that you are saying we need to also consider how it will look in xml, and not just in bnf
... I think it would be possible to accomplish the extensible design in xml
... I wanted to show the concept in bnf, but intended that it would carry over to xml
... I didn't think hard about this yet, so can't say for sure whether it is possible

cw: this should be ok in xml

mk: it has to be checked

cw: how will we go about checking this?

<Harold> E.g., the BLD XML-like Atom(a Fun(f c d) e) cannot be importet unchanged in HLD.

<Harold> E.g., the BLD XML-like Uniterm(a Uniterm(f c d) e) cannot be importet unchanged in HLD.

sandro: why can it not be imported?

cw: someone has to demonstrate that there is an xml syntax that can be specialized from hilog to bld

<Harold> E.g., the BLD XML-like Atom(a Fun(f c d) e) cannot be importet unchanged in HLD.

<Harold> <Harold> E.g., the BLD XML-like Uniterm(a Uniterm(f c d) e) cannot be importet unchanged in HLD.

<Harold> E.g., the BLD XML-like Uniterm(a Uniterm(f c d) e) CAN be importet unchanged in HLD.

sandro: jos says he has done this

mk: jos hasn't done it for hilog yet, so he would have to do that

<csma> Fallbacks!

cw: rif is an interchange syntax, we would not break hilog by requiring they use this format

<josb> FLD subsumes hilog

<josb> so, I did it for hilog

cw: hilog requires functions to be allowed in places where they are not conventioally used in other languages
... it doesn't require that you don't distinguish between them

<Harold> And ( ?x = Uniterm(f c d) Uniterm(a ?x e) )

<Harold> And ( ?x = Uniterm(f c d) ?x(a ?x e) )

hb: in above example, ?x occurs in 2 places... at the top level it is an atom
... the other occurrence is not

cw: the distinction is there is what you typed, why is it a problem to call it out syntactically

sandro: (something about parse trees)

csma: I agree with what sandro said

<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.

csma: problem may occur when using a bld doc in hilog dialect

<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.

<josb> right

<josb> +1 to Sandro

<Harold> And ( ?x = Uniterm(f c d) Pre(?x)(a Fun(?x) e) )

hb: is the above what you mean, mk?

mk: no

<Harold> And ( ?x = Uniterm(f c d) Pred(?x)(a Fun(?x) e) )

mk: I am not proposing to mark it up. The basic difference between your grammar and jos's is just at the top level

<Harold> And ( ?x = Uniterm(f c d) ?x(a ?x e) ?x )

hb: what about the above? is this possible?

mk: yes, the x's will be marked as atom, but inside they will all be uniterms

cw: let's move this discussion to email

AOB

Publication plan

<sandro> ACTION: Harold to make the case, in e-mail, based on examples in 11 March meeting, for keeping Uniterm in the XML [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-rif-minutes.html#action04]

<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].

csma: we didn't discuss the orthogonal item of having the syntax (presentation and xml) distinguish between logical and builtin functions and predicates

sandro: we decided that already

csma: one proposal distinguishings builtins from logical and one distinguishes functions and predicates, but neither does both

<Harold> For reference, I talked about Hterms (Uniterm) in the W3C Submission of SWSL-Rules: http://www.w3.org/Submission/SWSF-SWSL/#ruleml-hilog

jos: it is still not clear how the xml syntax will be defined
... i.e. how it relates to presenation syntax

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

<Harold> For instance, the HiLog term ?Z(?X,a)(b,?X(?Y)(d)) is serialized as shown below:

csma: for the predicate production you would need to have 2 entries in the table

<Harold> <Hterm>

<Harold> <op>

<Harold> <Hterm>

<Harold> <op><Var>Z</Var></op>

<Harold> <Var>X</Var>

<Harold> <Con>a</Con>

<Harold> </Hterm>

<Harold> </op>

<Harold> <Con>b</Con>

<Harold> <Hterm>

<Harold> <op>

<Harold> <Hterm>

<Harold> <op><Var>X</Var></op>

<Harold> <Var>Y</Var>

<Harold> </Hterm>

<Harold> </op>

jos: the table is to translate the syntax, it does not care about bnf or schema, just about syntax

<Harold> <Con>d</Con>

<Harold> </Hterm>

<Harold> </Hterm>

jos: I need to see how the xml can be derived from the bnf - I am skeptical

hak: I think it can be derived, I have been working on a tool that can do this

csma: if we allow metadata inside uniterms for roundtripping purposes...

hak: you need to annotate the bnf

csma: we may want to have things in the xml syntax that we don't have to reflect in the presenation syntax

<sandro> hak: you want a forgetful homomorphism

cw: csma, please put your point in an email, with an example
... I don't think we should publish next working draft without having syntactic issues revolved

<csma> ACTION: csma to write an email with an example of XML that should not be derived from the BNF of the prez syntax [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-rif-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - csma

cw: : we can dedicate next week's telcon to all these syntactic issues

sandro: and I have two syntactic issues, which I will describe in email

<csma> ACTION: christian to write an example of XML that should not be derived from the BNF of the prez syntax [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-rif-minutes.html#action06]

<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].

cw: are fld/ bld ready to be reviewed?

mk: there are some outstanding issues, I sent an email about it
... I will not be at next week's telecon
... I will plan to make all my changes by saturday

<csma> +1 to postpone

cw: I think we need to postpone our schedule by one week
... and then reevaluate where we are with syntactic issues
... actions assigned today are critical, so that we can resolved syntactic issues at next week's telecon

csma: can we talk about jos's issue about appendix?

<josb> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC

jos: in the current swc document, the appendix describes embedding, but this is really more of an implementatin hint
... so 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

cw: you don't like it in appendix because it makes the document longer?

jos: no, because it doesn't belong there, because it's a different topic from the main document

<Harold> Jos, Sandro, I think a Working Note is too level a document to be referred to from a Proposed Recommendation.

sandro: I think people would want it in the same document...it is ok to have non normative parts of the document

cw: agree

<IgorMozetic> I'm in favor in keeping it in

jos: I don't object to leaving it as a non normative appendix

mk: I don't object either

jos: ok, agreed

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Axel to update the F2F10 wiki page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-rif-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: christian to write an example of XML that should not be derived from the BNF of the prez syntax [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-rif-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: ChrisW to close issue 40 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-rif-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: csma to write an email with an example of XML that should not be derived from the BNF of the prez syntax [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-rif-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: cwelty to close issue 40 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-rif-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Harold to make the case, in e-mail, based on examples in 11 March meeting, for keeping Uniterm in the XML [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-rif-minutes.html#action04]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008/03/11 16:31:06 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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/??/xquery+xpath WGs/
Succeeded: s/bld/??/
FAILED: s/bld/DLP/
Succeeded: s/ hb:/cw: hb,/
Succeeded: s/inthe/in the/
Succeeded: s/between terms and predicates/between functions and predicates/
Succeeded: s/ilog/hilog/
Succeeded: s/occurance/occurrence/
Found Scribe: StellaMitchell
Inferring ScribeNick: StellaMitchell
Default Present: Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Sandro, Mike_Dean, josb, ChrisW, Harold, StellaMitchell, DougL, +1.703.418.aaaa, csma, LeoraMorgenstern, IgorMozetic, Gary_Hallmark, MichaelKifer
Present: Hassan_Ait-Kaci Sandro Mike_Dean josb ChrisW Harold StellaMitchell DougL +1.703.418.aaaa csma LeoraMorgenstern IgorMozetic Gary_Hallmark MichaelKifer
Regrets: DaveReynolds AxelPolleres
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Mar/0037.html
Got date from IRC log name: 11 Mar 2008
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-rif-minutes.html
People with action items: axel christian chrisw csma cwelty harold

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]