IRC log of rif on 2008-04-01

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:59:09 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
14:59:09 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:59:24 [AdrianP]
AdrianP has joined #rif
14:59:50 [ChrisW]
Meeting: RIF Telecon 1 April 2008
14:59:55 [ChrisW]
Chair: Chris Welty
15:00:00 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:00:00 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
15:00:06 [Zakim]
15:00:07 [Zakim]
15:00:09 [Zakim]
15:00:30 [Zakim]
+ +49.351.463.4.aaaa
15:00:36 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
15:00:38 [AdrianP]
Zakim, aaaa is me
15:00:39 [Zakim]
+AdrianP; got it
15:00:44 [Zakim]
15:00:51 [AdrianP]
Zakim, mute me
15:00:52 [Zakim]
AdrianP should now be muted
15:00:55 [StellaMitchell]
StellaMitchell has joined #rif
15:01:00 [Zakim]
15:01:10 [JamesOwen]
JamesOwen has joined #rif
15:01:10 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make logs public
15:01:21 [Zakim]
+Dave_Reynolds (was Guest P39 74394)
15:01:23 [Zakim]
15:01:29 [Harold]
Zakim, [NRCC] is me
15:01:29 [Zakim]
+Harold; got it
15:02:08 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:02:08 [Zakim]
On the phone I see JamesOwen, AxelPolleres (muted), AdrianP (muted), [IBM], Harold, Dave_Reynolds
15:02:13 [ChrisW]
zakim, ibm is temporarily me
15:02:13 [Zakim]
+ChrisW; got it
15:02:13 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
15:02:14 [Zakim]
15:02:22 [Zakim]
+ +39.047.101.aabb
15:02:28 [StellaMitchell]
zakim, [ibm] is temporarily me
15:02:28 [Zakim]
+StellaMitchell; got it
15:02:31 [Zakim]
15:03:02 [markproctor]
markproctor has joined #rif
15:03:50 [AxelPolleres]
15:04:02 [AxelPolleres]
scribe Axel Pollere
15:04:05 [ChrisW]
Scribe: AxelPolleres
15:04:10 [IgorMozetic]
IgorMozetic has joined #rif
15:04:11 [johnhall]
johnhall has joined #rif
15:04:13 [AxelPolleres]
scribenick AxelPolleres
15:04:15 [Zakim]
15:04:22 [sandro]
scribenick: AxelPolleres
15:04:30 [ChrisW]
15:04:41 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: we have to approve minutes from last week, objections?
15:04:46 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: accept March 25 telecon minutes
15:04:52 [Zakim]
15:04:54 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: accept March 25 telecon minutes
15:05:01 [AxelPolleres]
no objections, minutes accepted.
15:05:01 [IgorMozetic]
zakim, ??P56 is me
15:05:01 [Zakim]
+IgorMozetic; got it
15:05:13 [PaulVincent]
PaulVincent has joined #rif
15:05:22 [Zakim]
15:05:33 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: One amendment to the agenda: Discuss structure of BLD document, to be added to pub-plan section of the agenda.
15:05:35 [ChrisW]
15:05:41 [johnhall]
zakim p27 is me
15:05:43 [AxelPolleres]
News for f2f?
15:05:53 [AxelPolleres]
Zakim, unmute me
15:05:53 [Zakim]
AxelPolleres should no longer be muted
15:05:56 [Zakim]
15:06:09 [johnhall]
zakim, mute me
15:06:09 [Zakim]
sorry, johnhall, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
15:06:23 [sandro]
sandro has changed the topic to: 1 April 2008 RIF Telecon
15:06:33 [johnhall]
zakim, ??p27 is me
15:06:33 [Zakim]
+johnhall; got it
15:06:44 [johnhall]
zakim.mute me
15:06:54 [Hassan]
Hassan has joined #rif
15:07:01 [Zakim]
15:07:06 [johnhall]
zakim, mute me
15:07:08 [Zakim]
johnhall should now be muted
15:07:31 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: we should get f2f registration fomr out beginning of may.
15:07:39 [ChrisW]
TOPIC: Action review
15:07:43 [AxelPolleres]
... close form around May 10th
15:07:56 [AxelPolleres]
Axel: No news, all data is online on the f2f page.
15:08:06 [AxelPolleres]
Action review
15:08:11 [sandro]
15:09:02 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: Harols now maintaining XSD.
15:09:08 [AxelPolleres]
Action ??? continued.
15:09:35 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: Jos to review metadata in BLD
15:10:01 [AxelPolleres]
... action
15:10:13 [AxelPolleres]
... pending discussion
15:10:20 [AxelPolleres]
Action 455 completed
15:10:30 [AxelPolleres]
Action 454 continued
15:10:45 [AxelPolleres]
Action 453 completed
15:11:04 [AxelPolleres]
Action 452 continued
15:11:08 [AdrianP]
Zakim, unmute me
15:11:08 [Zakim]
AdrianP should no longer be muted
15:11:23 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: Adrian, when do we have the next ucr version.
15:11:37 [AxelPolleres]
AdrianP: in two weeks.
15:11:42 [MichaelKifer]
MichaelKifer has joined #rif
15:11:57 [AxelPolleres]
Action 443 completed
15:12:03 [AxelPolleres]
Action 442 completed
15:12:26 [Zakim]
15:12:49 [AdrianP]
15:12:55 [AxelPolleres]
Action 440 pending discussion
15:13:05 [AdrianP]
and also
15:13:08 [Zakim]
15:13:15 [AxelPolleres]
Action 439 continued
15:13:34 [AxelPolleres]
Action 435 continued
15:13:46 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
15:13:46 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
15:14:27 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
15:14:27 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
15:14:45 [AxelPolleres]
Action 458 continued
15:14:59 [AxelPolleres]
Action 433 will be discussed today
15:16:34 [ChrisW]
TOPIC: Liason
15:16:51 [AdrianP]
I'm in contact with Hugh Wallis, XBRL Director of Technical Standards
15:16:58 [AxelPolleres]
Action 428 change to "Stabilize DTB" and change date to next wednesday (april 9th)
15:17:03 [AxelPolleres]
15:17:07 [AdrianP]
XBRL Formula Working Group relevant for RIF
15:17:15 [AxelPolleres]
Adrian reports about XBRL
15:17:20 [AdrianP]
Hugh Wallis will find a liaison partner
15:17:22 [josb]
15:17:35 [AxelPolleres]
(adrian, can you type in what you said?)
15:17:49 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
15:17:49 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
15:18:05 [AxelPolleres]
josb: OWL people will discuss at their coming f2f the RIF-OWL compatibility document.
15:18:18 [josb]
15:18:24 [ChrisW]
TOPIC: Issues Review
15:18:30 [AdrianP]
zakim, mute me
15:18:30 [Zakim]
AdrianP should now be muted
15:18:41 [AxelPolleres]
15:19:36 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: Would like next week to go through Phase2-requirements issues and maybe mark what we won't address.
15:19:52 [AxelPolleres]
... some of these issues are actually addressed already.
15:20:13 [AxelPolleres]
... we can clos some of them and mark others which we won't resolve anyway.
15:20:26 [AxelPolleres]
... will write that up in the next days.
15:20:39 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: critical path issues
15:21:06 [AxelPolleres]
... how are we going to address these things?
15:21:28 [AxelPolleres]
... current schedule asks for last call by end of may.
15:21:49 [AxelPolleres]
... jos you had a proposal for importing rulesets issues?
15:22:19 [AxelPolleres]
josb: we have to choose an option directive or import clause.
15:22:34 [AxelPolleres]
(jos, is rthere a mail, can you paste the link?)
15:23:07 [AxelPolleres]
josb: we have rthe notion for rif:local, in import we have to rename the local constants.
15:23:19 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: is there a proposal for that?
15:23:35 [AxelPolleres]
josb: only what I just sketched.
15:23:56 [JamesOwen]
JamesOwen has joined #rif
15:24:02 [AdrianP]
Zakim, mute me
15:24:02 [Zakim]
AdrianP was already muted, AdrianP
15:24:03 [AxelPolleres]
Harold: We have worked on nested rule sets. Will come back to that later.
15:24:21 [AxelPolleres]
... will send a pointer to that topic.
15:24:22 [LeoraMorgenstern]
LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
15:24:56 [Zakim]
15:25:09 [LeoraMorgenstern]
zakim, mute me
15:25:09 [Zakim]
LeoraMorgenstern should now be muted
15:25:12 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: do I undertand thsat you wrap metadata/rules?
15:25:29 [AxelPolleres]
s/thsat/right that/
15:25:40 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: This is in the latest BLD?
15:26:00 [AxelPolleres]
Harold: yes in the latest version of the grammar.
15:26:03 [JamesOwen]
Is there a question on whether we should or should NOT allow recursive rulesets?
15:26:11 [Harold]
Ruleset ::= 'Ruleset' IRIMETA? '(' (RULE | Ruleset)* ')'
15:26:17 [AxelPolleres]
Sandro: that seems orthogonal to imports.
15:26:28 [Harold]
Ruleset ::= 'Ruleset' IRIMETA? '(' (RULE | import(Ruleset))* ')'
15:26:49 [MichaelKifer]
what does it have to do with recursion? this is just a grammar
15:26:52 [JamesOwen]
For Goal-Oriented type programming, you must have recursive rulesets
15:26:52 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: jos raised trhe issue on dealing with local names on imports, any proposals on that?
15:27:16 [MichaelKifer]
this is unrelated to recursive rules
15:27:24 [AxelPolleres]
... Jos can you take an action to flash out a proposal?
15:27:31 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
15:27:31 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
15:27:41 [JamesOwen]
recursive - meaning that a ruleset calls a ruleset that calls itself
15:27:50 [AxelPolleres]
DaveR: Wasn't there previously a proposal on modules which could capture thsat?
15:27:50 [JamesOwen]
15:28:06 [AxelPolleres]
MichaelK: I don't think we have time left for modules.
15:28:15 [sandro]
JamesOwen, this is abot having a ruleset physically or logically INSIDE another ruleset.
15:28:48 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: I think having some import notion is critical path. What's the diff between modules and imports?
15:28:49 [DaveReynolds]
+1 some form of import is needed
15:28:50 [JamesOwen]
Correct - and that would be necessary for Goal-oriented rulebase programming
15:29:13 [AxelPolleres]
MichaelK: modules much more general, allows query on modules without complete import.
15:29:13 [sandro]
mk: a module is more general than imports -- it's another KB, and you can issue queries to the KB, rather than importing the rules.
15:29:21 [PaulVincent]
+1 on some form of "ruleset reference" is that is the same as "import"
15:29:48 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: How's that more general than imports?
15:30:14 [sandro]
15:30:21 [AxelPolleres]
MichaelK: you can represent/simulate imports with modules.
15:31:04 [AxelPolleres]
... all we need is the same semantics as "imports"
15:31:20 [Harold]
Regarding local names, this issues comes up already when dealing with the *union* of two explicitly given Rulesets, not only when one of them is referenced indirectly through an 'import' statement.
15:31:30 [AxelPolleres]
Sandro: It sounds like you have something in mind which you can write up quickly.
15:31:32 [JamesOwen]
In the insurance industry, a ruleset has to import a ruleset as opposed to just "calling" another ruleset
15:31:49 [AxelPolleres]
... would it make sense to write it down or discuss now?
15:32:05 [AxelPolleres]
MichaelK: don't know if I have enough time before final draft.
15:32:09 [Zakim]
15:32:11 [Harold]
James, I agree with your points.
15:32:37 [Zakim]
15:32:53 [LeoraMorgenstern]
zakim, mute me
15:32:53 [Zakim]
LeoraMorgenstern should now be muted
15:33:01 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: Semantics you had in mind was basically like "copy" with renaming/changing local symbols somehow, yes?
15:33:07 [AxelPolleres]
josb: right.
15:33:19 [AxelPolleres]
MichaelK: modules more general.
15:33:33 [sandro]
Chris: Would there be harm in starting with imports and later generalizing to modules.
15:33:34 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: couls modules be added later or are they interferring?
15:33:54 [Harold]
The just "calling" aspect is now handled for builtins with 'External' calls. The "import" aspect is harder, since the rules (with local names) need be consolidated.
15:33:58 [AxelPolleres]
MichaelK: We could later on redefine the semantics of "imports" wrt. "modules"
15:34:03 [sandro]
ACTION: jdebruij to propose a solution for Imports
15:34:03 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - jdebruij
15:34:09 [sandro]
ACTION: jos to propose a solution for Imports
15:34:09 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - jos
15:34:09 [trackbot-ng]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jdebruij2, jderoo)
15:34:20 [Harold]
15:34:23 [sandro]
ACTION: jdebruij2 to propose a solution for Imports
15:34:23 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-459 - Propose a solution for Imports [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2008-04-08].
15:34:29 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: Can we give an action to Jos on writing up imports.
15:34:40 [AxelPolleres]
Josb: fine.
15:34:52 [sandro]
mk: There's a solution -- Peer-to-peer knowledge bases -- from the Romans
15:34:58 [AxelPolleres]
... I think michael has something like flora-2 modules in mind.
15:35:07 [JamesOwen]
15:35:27 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: deadline for action 459 next telecon.
15:35:30 [josb]
15:35:37 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
15:35:37 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
15:35:53 [Harold]
Maurizio Lenzerini's nice slides on Hyper:
15:35:57 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: Issue 34, extensibility of datatype support.
15:36:02 [josb]
15:36:08 [AxelPolleres]
15:36:43 [AxelPolleres]
Harold: still for previous point: we discussed differenct between external calls and modules.
15:36:56 [AxelPolleres]
(who spoke?)
15:37:14 [sandro]
15:37:25 [AxelPolleres]
James: (can you type in what you just said?)
15:37:30 [AdrianP]
and there are sometimes also distinctions between "include vs. import"
15:37:54 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: do we have a proposal about what extensibility actually means?
15:38:43 [AxelPolleres]
... one point was what to do when getting a datatype which you don't support?
15:38:58 [JamesOwen]
we have two or three things going on right now. Extensibility is (I would think) a UML problem that we have to address in ruls
15:39:01 [AxelPolleres]
... "just reject" would be one approach.
15:39:15 [josb]
rejecting is the current approach, as far as I know
15:39:20 [DaveReynolds]
15:39:28 [Harold]
15:39:28 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: I was hoping we would fix this with fallbacks, but we didn't talk about it in the context of fallbacks yet.
15:39:36 [JamesOwen]
An un-supported data type should throw an exception
15:39:53 [AxelPolleres]
... e.g. fallbacks from one datatype to another.
15:40:44 [AxelPolleres]
... there are strategies which work in certain cases, not quite sure about general.
15:41:42 [AxelPolleres]
... fallbacks are triggered by presence of syntactic properties.
15:41:47 [AdrianP]
for fall back we probably would need to define some default type casting rules
15:42:28 [AxelPolleres]
... xs:int could be used as a kind of constant, instead of taking the datatype into account.
15:42:50 [AxelPolleres]
... I should probably take an action to solve issue 34.
15:44:13 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: should this go into DTB? Where does extensibility go?
15:45:15 [Harold]
Let's take an example/uc: If you get a set but can only handle lists, you could try to represent sets as lists without duplicates in lexicographic order. However, set *unification* ist very different from set *unification*.
15:45:24 [Zakim]
15:45:52 [AxelPolleres]
Sandro: I can take the action within 2 weeks.
15:47:00 [AxelPolleres]
DaveR: part of the reason why extensibility works in RDF is that non-understood parts are passed-through "as is"
15:47:06 [sandro]
ACTION: sandro to propose solution to ISSUE-34 -- what do you do when you get a ruleset with data values and/or built-in types you don't know?
15:47:07 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-460 - Propose solution to ISSUE-34 -- what do you do when you get a ruleset with data values and/or built-in types you don't know? [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-04-08].
15:47:19 [AxelPolleres]
... can we have something like that in RIF?
15:48:21 [Zakim]
15:48:30 [ChrisW]
15:48:34 [AxelPolleres]
DaveR: reject is the easy default. but we could also say it is an implementation issue
15:48:44 [AxelPolleres]
Issue 33:
15:49:04 [AxelPolleres]
Specification of data sources in RIF [CP]
15:49:10 [josb]
15:49:22 [Zakim]
15:49:31 [AxelPolleres]
Sandro: that's pretty close to imports.
15:50:02 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: not sure. (because beforehand translation to rif necessary)
15:50:08 [AdrianP]
Zakim, unmute me
15:50:08 [Zakim]
AdrianP should no longer be muted
15:51:04 [josb]
15:51:18 [AxelPolleres]
AdrianP: could also be some query-builtin which gets data on from an external database.
15:51:30 [sandro]
Sandro: it's kind of a paramaterized import --- attach this to your-local-whatever.
15:51:40 [AdrianP]
building a constructive view over external data
15:51:41 [AdrianP]
Zakim, mute me
15:51:41 [Zakim]
AdrianP should now be muted
15:51:49 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: I would like to agree to sandro, if we can treat it as imports, it should be easy, otherwise, hard.
15:51:57 [AxelPolleres]
... other discussion on that?
15:52:13 [AxelPolleres]
josb: we need to refer to RDF graphs and OWL ontologies.
15:52:27 [Harold]
Jos, Yes, also we should consider RDF Named Graphs.
15:52:36 [AxelPolleres]
... not necessarily obligatory, but often needed.
15:52:55 [Harold]
Named Graphs are like modules.
15:53:13 [AxelPolleres]
... first we need to include the references to those graphs/ontologies.
15:53:23 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: same as imports?
15:53:38 [AxelPolleres]
josb: not the same, because rdf graphs and ontologies are no rulesets.
15:54:44 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: you point is if the data/ontology doesn't tell you enough how to imprort, e.g. OWL DL vs OWL full import.
15:54:59 [AxelPolleres]
josb: yes, several possibilities.
15:55:46 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: in the reference statement you should mention the semantics for the import/combination as well?
15:56:08 [sandro]
maybe these are flags you throw onto import.... <imports><Ruleset><location>http://.... or <imports><Ontology><variant>Full<...> .
15:56:35 [AxelPolleres]
josb: I was thinking of import through additional directives.
15:56:49 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: imports is a directive.
15:57:10 [AxelPolleres]
... can you do that in your proposal for imports?
15:57:20 [Zakim]
15:57:34 [johnhall]
Sorry, have to go to another meeting. Bye
15:57:44 [Zakim]
15:57:56 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: for the user it should be the same, flags should be allowed and some defaults.
15:58:10 [ChrisW]
15:58:13 [ChrisW]
ack j
15:58:19 [AxelPolleres]
josb: that's possible, I would personally prefer separate tags.
15:59:16 [AxelPolleres]
... i can do the following: assume that "imports" is also used for RDF and OWL and flash out an additional flag for the import-semantics
15:59:52 [JamesOwen]
Is this the UML Round Tripping?
16:00:03 [AxelPolleres]
chrisw: last CP issue: roundtripping (issue 26)
16:00:52 [AxelPolleres]
... anything specific?
16:00:58 [sandro]
16:01:01 [AxelPolleres]
... anyone object to close this?
16:01:21 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: I keep picturing this as a case for 3rd party extensibility.
16:01:50 [markproctor]
without round tripping you get import only. so I think that round tripping is useful for the industry.
16:02:12 [AxelPolleres]
... how can 3rd parties with dialects beyond BLD still use RIF as an exchange formats such that rules are sound-trippable importable and re-exportable.
16:02:25 [Hassan]
I think metadata is adequate for this purpose
16:02:45 [AxelPolleres]
... could be done by stuffing in custom metadata, probably.
16:02:47 [markproctor]
round tripping also allows you to test the soundness of your parser.
16:03:08 [markproctor]
if you can import and export something and the results are the same, you know things are working.
16:03:43 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: the fallback mechanism is a part of this.
16:03:57 [AdrianP]
could be some kind of annotations as used e.g. in model transformations, refactoring
16:03:58 [AxelPolleres]
16:04:32 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: but there is additionally the medadata part (e.g. could be used for order of rules, etc.)
16:04:57 [AxelPolleres]
Sandro: we need some text maybe in UCR talking about the concept of roundtripping.
16:06:03 [AxelPolleres]
DaveR: if we say rif preserves nothing but the metadata, than we have to put it there.
16:06:48 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: anything thsat doesn't matter to the semantics, that might change, is not (?) a matter for roundtripping
16:07:05 [AxelPolleres]
16:07:53 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: OWL and RDF people would have waeker concerns about roundtripping than XML people, probably.
16:08:11 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: strawpoll on CP issues.
16:08:46 [josb]
16:08:46 [sandro]
STRAWPOLL: Addressing Roundtripping is critical path for BLD Last Call
16:09:01 [Harold]
16:09:02 [Hassan]
-1 (roundtripping is like a unversal rule translator!)
16:09:02 [sandro]
16:09:03 [AdrianP]
16:09:03 [PaulVincent]
16:09:05 [IgorMozetic]
16:09:06 [DaveReynolds]
16:09:09 [josb]
16:09:12 [AxelPolleres]
16:09:19 [LeoraMorgenstern]
16:09:19 [ChrisW]
16:09:24 [AxelPolleres]
0 (don't know)
16:09:30 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
16:09:34 [LeoraMorgenstern]
(That is, I do think it's important, but I also think it's an impossible task.)
16:09:39 [JamesOwen]
16:09:43 [AxelPolleres]
... instead of "don't care"
16:10:09 [sandro]
Chris: maybe the chairs will take this off the critical path, thanks.
16:10:10 [AdrianP]
we could say that this can be handeled by test cases which implementer define
16:10:12 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: thinking about removing this from critical path.
16:10:20 [ChrisW]
16:10:25 [ChrisW]
TOPIC: Metadata
16:10:59 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: new syntax in BLD for metadata.
16:11:25 [AxelPolleres]
Harold: we found a simple twist to the EBNF by allowing nesting of rulesets.
16:11:34 [DaveReynolds]
16:11:45 [AxelPolleres]
... so we have only a single place where we can attach metadata.
16:12:12 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
16:12:12 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
16:12:32 [AxelPolleres]
DaveR: I would have thought the canonical case was attaching metadata to single rules.
16:12:33 [josb]
+1 to Dave
16:12:48 [PaulVincent]
Comment: Existing BRMS tools tend to apply metadata on a per rule basis...
16:12:55 [sandro]
DaveReynolds: I don't see the advantage of forcing everyone to wrap a rule in a ruleset.
16:12:58 [AxelPolleres]
Harold: you can put a single rule in a ruleset.
16:13:26 [Hassan]
Metadata should be allow at BOTH the ruleset and individual rule level
16:13:26 [sandro]
zakim, who is talking?
16:13:30 [josb]
Why should we make things more complicated than they should be? Nesting of rule sets in BLD is a very bad idea.
16:13:37 [Zakim]
sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ChrisW (14%), Harold (87%), IgorMozetic (29%)
16:13:53 [AxelPolleres]
Harold: attaching metadata to a ruleset which can also be a single rule.
16:13:53 [sandro]
zakim, who is talking?
16:14:00 [IgorMozetic]
zakim, mute me
16:14:00 [Zakim]
IgorMozetic should now be muted
16:14:04 [Zakim]
sandro, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
16:14:09 [josb]
we still want to assign identifiers to individual rules
16:14:29 [AxelPolleres]
MichaelK: think of just having a single tag for rulesets or rules to attach metadata.
16:14:36 [AxelPolleres]
... or anything else.
16:14:58 [josb]
16:15:03 [AxelPolleres]
... with our new proposal we can now use rulesets to process metadata.
16:15:12 [AxelPolleres]
... overall syntax is much more uniform now.
16:15:13 [ChrisW]
(Ruleset A->B (Ruleset B->C))
16:15:38 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW explains his reading of that.
16:15:53 [AxelPolleres]
... ok, misread.
16:15:57 [ChrisW]
16:16:20 [GaryHallmark]
what does the ruleset nesting imply about scope of local symbols?
16:16:27 [MichaelKifer]
16:16:49 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: in order to put metadata in a rule you need to wrap it in a ruleset in this syntax.
16:17:11 [AxelPolleres]
... the base case for metadata is single rules.
16:17:41 [sandro]
No, DONT AVOID THAT. Allow MetaData on Everything.
16:17:52 [AxelPolleres]
Harold: looking downwards in our grammar, we could have metadata anywhere, but we wanted to avoid that.
16:18:12 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: but we can now only use it at rulesets.
16:18:30 [AxelPolleres]
Harold: but now with nested rulesets we can again have it anywhere.
16:19:21 [Hassan]
+1 on Sandro (metadata should be allowed on everything)
16:19:38 [AxelPolleres]
Sandro: every single thing in the syntax has URIs, shouldn't we also allwow for metadata anywhere?
16:19:39 [PaulVincent]
+1 on moving RIF metadata to RIF version 2
16:20:26 [sandro]
PaulVincent, did you hear someone say that? ("+1" is usually for agreeing with something you just heard.)
16:20:36 [sandro]
(not that I disagree)
16:21:28 [Hassan]
I also wonder what the real issue is here?...
16:21:35 [PaulVincent]
Sorry: it was a variation on the discussion: should be: Proposal: ...
16:21:55 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: Why do I need to call anything ruleset where I want to add metadata.
16:22:11 [AxelPolleres]
Harold: that was similar in jos' proposal.
16:22:17 [AxelPolleres]
Jos: no.
16:22:33 [Harold]
Just a different 'wrapper name'.
16:22:51 [AxelPolleres]
... you need to assign an identifier to a rule, if you want to talk about it - as a rule.
16:23:27 [Harold]
"One man's metadata is another man's data"
16:23:41 [AxelPolleres]
(jos can you type in the differences agian?)
16:23:48 [sandro]
Jos: I used different syntax for metadata to help clarify that the data is not part of the ruleset.
16:23:51 [Harold]
"meta" is a relation between two levels.
16:24:38 [Harold]
We have already the Frame notion, and know to map it to RDF.
16:24:45 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: while jos proposal is maybe logically more complicated, it is more usable.
16:25:09 [Harold]
So, it would be ironic to not use our RDF-like Frames for metadata.
16:25:11 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: I don't see the big difference between the two metadata proposals.
16:25:14 [sandro]
chris: use of frame syntax is an aesthetic or communication choice there.
16:25:28 [AdrianP]
not necessarily, the new proposal is much more general and supports a set of rules or a singel rule attached with metadata and allows to process meta data with rules
16:25:44 [AxelPolleres]
jos: another important difference: in michaels proposal the ruleset identifier is hidden inside the frame.
16:26:02 [sandro]
Chris: how do you assign a URI to a ruleset?
16:26:08 [MichaelKifer]
16:26:08 [AxelPolleres]
16:26:48 [AxelPolleres]
MichaelK: the main idea is that the metadata is RIF itself, to make metadata processeable.
16:27:04 [sandro]
Um, NO, we don't need to process the metadata using rules. That's NOT a requirement.
16:27:14 [AxelPolleres]
... we can use frames, constants, that's not the point.
16:27:18 [ChrisW]
(Ruleset iri[value -> http://rule1] (A :- B))
16:27:50 [AxelPolleres]
... our approach is more uniform and more powerful.
16:27:56 [IgorMozetic]
I think it's a good idea to process the metadata by rules.
16:28:13 [MichaelKifer]
16:28:20 [sandro]
I agree, IgorMozetic, but it's *not* a requirement, and may be less important than other issues.
16:28:23 [AdrianP]
+1 to Michael and Igor.
16:28:57 [AxelPolleres]
Sandro: Let's see the XML of this.
16:29:17 [AxelPolleres]
... before making a decision on this.
16:29:19 [AdrianP]
e.g. for building a constructive view / scope on a set of rules, e.g. all rules from a particular author
16:29:27 [MichaelKifer]
"http://rule1"^^iri(A :- B)
16:29:39 [AxelPolleres]
josb: michael or harold should send a mail explaining the proposal to the list.
16:29:59 [AxelPolleres]
harold: there is already an example.
16:30:00 [Harold]
16:30:01 [Harold]
16:30:01 [Harold]
16:30:01 [Harold]
16:30:01 [Harold]
<Const type="rif:iri">w3:homepage</Const>
16:30:01 [Harold]
16:30:01 [MichaelKifer]
"http://rule1"^^iri[](A :- B)
16:30:03 [Harold]
16:30:05 [Harold]
16:30:07 [Harold]
<key><Const type="rif:iri">dc:publisher</Const></key>
16:30:09 [Harold]
<val><Const type="rif:iri">w3:W3C</Const></val>
16:30:11 [Harold]
16:30:13 [Harold]
16:30:15 [Harold]
16:30:17 [Harold]
16:30:19 [Harold]
<key><Const type="rif:iri">dc:date</Const></key>
16:30:21 [Harold]
<val><Const type="xsd:date">2008-04-04</Const></val>
16:30:22 [AxelPolleres]
... example 5 of BLD
16:30:23 [Harold]
16:30:25 [Harold]
16:30:27 [Harold]
16:30:29 [Harold]
16:30:31 [Harold]
16:30:33 [Harold]
. . .
16:30:35 [Harold]
16:30:37 [Harold]
16:30:42 [AxelPolleres]
... in section 5.2.
16:30:57 [josb]
Wasn't it possible to make this more complex?
16:31:01 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: is there a presentation syntax version of this example.
16:31:12 [AxelPolleres]
Harold: we should bring it back, yes.
16:31:21 [sandro]
josb :-)
16:31:27 [ChrisW]
16:31:31 [josb]
16:31:43 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: we are over time.
16:31:50 [josb]
16:31:53 [AxelPolleres]
16:31:56 [Zakim]
16:31:58 [Zakim]
16:31:59 [Zakim]
16:32:01 [Zakim]
16:32:01 [Zakim]
16:32:02 [Zakim]
16:32:02 [Zakim]
16:32:02 [Zakim]
16:32:03 [AdrianP]
16:32:03 [Zakim]
16:32:05 [Zakim]
16:32:07 [Zakim]
16:32:09 [Zakim]
16:32:11 [Zakim]
16:32:20 [AxelPolleres]
Zakim, unmute me
16:32:20 [Zakim]
AxelPolleres was not muted, AxelPolleres
16:32:24 [ChrisW]
zakim, list attendees
16:32:24 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been JamesOwen, AxelPolleres, +49.351.463.4.aaaa, AdrianP, Dave_Reynolds, Harold, ChrisW, +39.047.101.aabb, josb, StellaMitchell, Sandro,
16:32:27 [Zakim]
... Mark_Proctor, IgorMozetic, PaulVincent, johnhall, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Gary_Hallmark, MichaelKifer, LeoraMorgenstern
16:32:32 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:32:32 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
16:32:32 [Zakim]
16:32:45 [AxelPolleres]
Where is the URI of the minutes... ah, yes
16:33:02 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:33:02 [Zakim]
On the phone I see AxelPolleres, ChrisW
16:33:07 [Zakim]
16:33:17 [Zakim]
16:33:18 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
16:33:19 [Zakim]
Attendees were JamesOwen, AxelPolleres, +49.351.463.4.aaaa, AdrianP, Dave_Reynolds, Harold, ChrisW, +39.047.101.aabb, josb, StellaMitchell, Sandro, Mark_Proctor, IgorMozetic,
16:33:22 [Zakim]
... PaulVincent, johnhall, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Gary_Hallmark, MichaelKifer, LeoraMorgenstern