See also: IRC log
<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
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)
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
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
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?
<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
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
<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
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]