IRC log of rif on 2008-04-29

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:40:43 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
14:40:43 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:40:59 [csma]
Zakim, this will be rif
14:40:59 [Zakim]
ok, csma; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 20 minutes
14:41:28 [csma]
Meeting: RIF telecon 29 April 08
14:41:44 [csma]
Chair: Christian de Sainte Marie
14:42:17 [csma]
14:43:48 [csma]
csma has changed the topic to: 29 April RIF telecon Agenda:
14:44:52 [csma]
Regrets: IgorMozetic, MohamedZergaoui, PaulVincent
14:45:24 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
14:45:53 [csma]
Hi Harold
14:46:04 [Harold]
Hi Christian.
14:46:24 [Harold]
We should talk more, write less :-)
14:46:32 [csma]
Zakim, clear agenda
14:46:32 [Zakim]
agenda cleared
14:47:17 [csma]
Yes, but writing keeps the group inside the loop. I tried to propose solutions from various angles, but got little reaction from the group :-(
14:47:40 [Harold]
Right, people can hardly keep up reading...
14:48:20 [csma]
Well, participating to a WG is supposed to take around 20% of your time, at least (only participating, not editing or what)
14:49:08 [csma]
On the other hand, if people do not care more, it may mean that we can just keep the solution you propose and move on :-)
14:49:27 [Harold]
I know. For the majority, however, emails often seem to come in huge 'clusters', all in 3-5 hours, then silence again --> lack of continuity.
14:49:50 [Harold]
Yes, let's move on.
14:50:12 [csma]
what can we do about it? (I mean, the email flares)
14:50:36 [csma]
agendum+ F2F10
14:50:51 [csma]
agendum+ Action review
14:51:01 [Harold]
Let's plan (for the last 4 weeks or so).
14:51:13 [csma]
agendum+ Liaisons
14:51:28 [csma]
agendum+ DTB status
14:51:46 [csma]
agendum+ ISSUE-51
14:52:12 [csma]
agendum+ Issues 52, 53, 54
14:52:31 [csma]
agendum+ ISSUE-29
14:52:49 [csma]
agendum+ ISSUE-34
14:53:05 [csma]
agendum+ AOB (pick scribe!)
14:54:18 [csma]
Harold, I still have another proposal in my sleeve, for the case people really care about metadata, not document structure...
14:55:53 [Harold]
Yes, you should have become a magician (maybe you are one :-)
14:57:05 [csma]
anywhere you have object elements inside a role element, allow that object (or series of object) to be wrapped in a Block element, that would have two roles: <meta> and <wraps>, where the original object element(s) would go into the wraps element
14:57:23 [csma]
this is based on discussion you had last week in the telecon
14:57:54 [csma]
would impact the XML only, not anything else (how to render the metadata would be left to implementations)
14:58:00 [csma]
what would you think?
14:59:29 [Harold]
So far I tried to have everything from the XML also in the PS.
15:00:16 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
15:00:34 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
15:00:41 [Zakim]
15:00:46 [Zakim]
15:00:51 [Zakim]
15:00:52 [Zakim]
15:01:07 [Harold]
zakim, [NRCC] is me
15:01:07 [Zakim]
+Harold; got it
15:01:07 [DavidHirtle]
DavidHirtle has joined #rif
15:01:10 [Zakim]
15:01:17 [csma]
zakim, ??P30 is me
15:01:18 [Zakim]
+csma; got it
15:01:37 [StellaMitchell]
StellaMitchell has joined #rif
15:01:49 [csma]
David, would you scribe?
15:01:56 [Zakim]
15:01:59 [Zakim]
15:02:00 [Zakim]
15:02:08 [AlexKozlenkov]
AlexKozlenkov has joined #rif
15:02:08 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #rif
15:02:49 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:02:49 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Harold, josb, csma, DavidHirtle, [IBM], Sandro
15:03:01 [ChrisW]
zakim, ibm is temporarily me
15:03:01 [Zakim]
+ChrisW; got it
15:03:08 [Zakim]
15:03:09 [Hassan]
Hassan has joined #rif
15:03:21 [Zakim]
15:03:35 [StellaMitchell]
zakim, ibm is temporarily me
15:03:35 [Zakim]
+StellaMitchell; got it
15:03:42 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
15:04:01 [StellaMitchell]
did you ask me?
15:04:05 [StellaMitchell]
yes, I can scribe
15:04:23 [csma]
Scribe: Stella Mitchell
15:04:33 [csma]
Scribenick: StellaMitchell
15:04:36 [Zakim]
+Dave_Reynolds (was Guest P48 74394)
15:04:36 [Zakim]
15:04:47 [ChrisW]
zakim, list agenda
15:04:49 [Zakim]
I see 10 items remaining on the agenda:
15:04:51 [Zakim]
1. Admin [from csma]
15:04:53 [Zakim]
2. F2F10 [from csma]
15:04:55 [Zakim]
3. Action review [from csma]
15:04:57 [Zakim]
4. Liaisons [from csma]
15:04:59 [Zakim]
5. DTB status [from csma]
15:05:01 [Zakim]
6. ISSUE-51 [from csma]
15:05:03 [Zakim]
7. Issues 52, 53, 54 [from csma]
15:05:05 [Zakim]
8. ISSUE-29 [from csma]
15:05:07 [Zakim]
9. ISSUE-34 [from csma]
15:05:09 [Zakim]
10. AOB (pick scribe!) [from csma]
15:05:09 [ChrisW]
zakim, take up item 1
15:05:10 [AdrianP]
AdrianP has joined #rif
15:05:15 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Admin" taken up [from csma]
15:05:24 [csma]
PROPOSED: accept minutes of telecon April 22
15:05:33 [StellaMitchell]
csma: any objections to accepting minutes of last week telcon?
15:05:36 [csma]
15:05:55 [Zakim]
15:05:58 [StellaMitchell]
csma: no objections, minutes are accepted
15:06:06 [AdrianP]
Zakim, mute me
15:06:06 [Zakim]
AdrianP should now be muted
15:06:11 [csma]
RESOLVED: accept minutes of telecon April 22
15:06:33 [StellaMitchell]
csma: any agenda ammendments?
15:06:57 [StellaMitchell]
csma: MK said in email that he found major bug in BLD
15:07:06 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #rif
15:07:19 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:07:19 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "F2F10" taken up [from csma]
15:07:26 [StellaMitchell]
csma: we will discuss that bug later in the meeting
15:07:36 [Zakim]
15:07:40 [csma]
15:07:52 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:07:52 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Harold, josb, csma, DavidHirtle, ChrisW, Sandro, StellaMitchell, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), Dave_Reynolds, AdrianP (muted), GaryHallmark
15:08:06 [csma]
Axel, any update on F2F10?
15:08:21 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:08:21 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Action review" taken up [from csma]
15:08:23 [StellaMitchell]
csma: Everyone should answer the F2F questionnaire (link above)
15:08:31 [Zakim]
15:08:54 [StellaMitchell]
csma: axel, any update on F2F10?
15:09:46 [StellaMitchell]
axel: questionnaires should be filled out by May 10, and let me know if you need help with travel arrangements
15:10:28 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: Action-470 continued
15:10:42 [StellaMitchell]
csma: Action-450 pending discussion
15:10:52 [StellaMitchell]
csma: Action-454 continued
15:11:14 [StellaMitchell]
csma: Action-446 continued
15:11:36 [StellaMitchell]
Action-452 continued
15:11:50 [StellaMitchell]
Action-439 continued
15:12:03 [StellaMitchell]
Action-435 - on agenda for today
15:12:27 [StellaMitchell]
s/on agenda for today/continued/
15:12:54 [StellaMitchell]
Action-434, Action-152 continued
15:13:08 [StellaMitchell]
zakim, next item
15:13:08 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Liaisons" taken up [from csma]
15:13:20 [StellaMitchell]
csma: any updates?
15:13:21 [AdrianP]
15:13:45 [StellaMitchell]
zakim, next item
15:13:45 [Zakim]
agendum 4 was just opened, StellaMitchell
15:13:56 [StellaMitchell]
zakim, close item 4
15:13:56 [Zakim]
agendum 4, Liaisons, closed
15:13:57 [Zakim]
I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:13:58 [Zakim]
5. DTB status [from csma]
15:14:06 [StellaMitchell]
zakim, next item
15:14:06 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "DTB status" taken up [from csma]
15:14:19 [MichaelKifer]
MichaelKifer has joined #rif
15:14:20 [StellaMitchell]
csma: Axel, update on DTB?
15:14:29 [AxelPolleres]
15:14:38 [csma]
15:14:49 [markproctor]
markproctor has joined #rif
15:15:14 [StellaMitchell]
Axel: for curie notation, I would like to adopt last proposal from Sandro
15:15:47 [Zakim]
15:15:54 [StellaMitchell]
...2nd issue from my email is that I'm not sure about the URI I'm using, I listed 5 options
15:16:16 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
15:16:16 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
15:17:32 [Zakim]
15:17:36 [StellaMitchell]
axel: (summarizing the options described in the email above)
15:19:22 [StellaMitchell]
axel: 3rd issue from email - there was a resolution on this at the last F2F - want to confirm my description of errors is OK
15:19:47 [StellaMitchell]
axel: if we settle these 3 issues, I can finalize DTB fairly quickly
15:20:05 [StellaMitchell]
csma: Axel, will you be here next week? We can discuss the DTB and these issues next week
15:20:17 [StellaMitchell]
axel: yes, will be here
15:20:27 [ChrisW]
action: csma to put dtb on next weeks agenda
15:20:27 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-471 - Put dtb on next weeks agenda [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2008-05-06].
15:20:52 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
15:20:52 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
15:20:59 [Harold]
Bug in DLB:
15:21:01 [Harold]
15:21:06 [StellaMitchell]
csma: mk, can you describe the major bug that you found in BLD
15:21:32 [StellaMitchell]
mk: the syntax is not defining rules, but is defining more than rules
15:22:16 [Harold]
"Rule implication: If f is a well-formed atomic formula and ? is a RIF-BLD condition then f :- ? is a well-formed formula"
15:22:24 [StellaMitchell]
harold: syntax in section 2.4
15:22:56 [StellaMitchell]
harold: problem is that the entire implies is again a formula
15:23:45 [josb]
15:23:51 [Zakim]
15:24:00 [StellaMitchell]
csma: ebnf looks ok to me
15:24:02 [AlexKozlenkov]
zakim, ??P58 is me
15:24:02 [Zakim]
+AlexKozlenkov; got it
15:24:21 [StellaMitchell]
harold: the problem is in the mathematical english specification of syntax
15:24:39 [AlexKozlenkov]
zakim, mute me
15:24:39 [Zakim]
AlexKozlenkov should now be muted
15:24:47 [ChrisWelty]
ChrisWelty has joined #rif
15:24:47 [josb]
it is not really clear where the definition of well-formed formula ends
15:24:57 [StellaMitchell]
...(ebnf is correct)
15:25:05 [josb]
there should be two definitions: one of RIF-BLD condition and one of RIF--BLD rule
15:25:11 [josb]
15:25:50 [StellaMitchell]
harold: the error is in the direct specification of BLD, the derived specification is correct
15:26:09 [Hassan]
It looks like this error is a mild one ... and can be easily fixed
15:26:39 [StellaMitchell]
csma: So, do we need more reviews of the document
15:26:49 [StellaMitchell]
chris: I don't see where the error is?
15:27:38 [StellaMitchell]
mk: this error has been there for awhile, and all reviewers missed it
15:27:56 [Hassan]
15:27:57 [csma]
15:28:06 [csma]
ack Hassan
15:28:13 [josb]
This error was not there in February.
15:28:51 [Hassan]
15:28:53 [StellaMitchell]
hassan: I think the editors have the burden to show that the direct and derived specifications are equivalent
15:29:02 [josb]
15:29:05 [Hassan]
This is undecidable ...
15:30:05 [StellaMitchell]
mk: my point is that is is hard to check this document, so we need to focus now on making sure it is correct and not debate new items too much
15:30:36 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
15:30:40 [Hassan]
On the being pressed with time, I agree that we should stay focused and give time limits for issues to be settled one way or the other
15:30:45 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: it is ok to fix bugs such as this after last call
15:31:16 [csma]
15:32:03 [Harold]
Jos, maybe the error was introduced as we changed what '(uni)term' and 'formula' means after being asked to abandon visible Uniterms.
15:32:11 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
15:32:11 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
15:32:19 [StellaMitchell]
csma: yes, bugs are inevitable, and last call will help us find them when larger audience reviews and implements
15:32:39 [ChrisWelty]
15:32:46 [csma]
15:32:51 [StellaMitchell]
mk: still concerned about having flaws in the design
15:32:55 [StellaMitchell]
zakim, next item
15:32:55 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, StellaMitchell
15:32:57 [csma]
Ack chris
15:33:06 [StellaMitchell]
zakim, next item
15:33:06 [Zakim]
agendum 6. "ISSUE-51" taken up [from csma]
15:33:29 [StellaMitchell]
chris: I have gone though the various proposals for this
15:33:59 [StellaMitchell]
...jos had an original proposal, harold and mk changed it to have group
15:34:17 [MichaelKifer]
Document has nothing to do with this issue.
15:34:40 [StellaMitchell]
...the main objection to the current spec, is that some people would like to be able to have a tag on an individual rule, without wrapping it
15:34:51 [MichaelKifer]
Harold's proposal *does* address individual rules concern!
15:35:36 [ChrisWelty]
Document ::= 'Document' '(' IRIMETA? DIRECTIVE* Group? ')'
15:35:36 [ChrisWelty]
Group ::= 'Group' IRIMETA? '(' (RULE | Group)* ')'
15:35:36 [StellaMitchell]
...harold's, csma, and I made proposals
15:35:46 [ChrisWelty]
Ruleset ::= 'Ruleset( ' absolute-IRI? Metadata* Rule* ' ) '
15:35:46 [ChrisWelty]
Rule ::= 'Rule( ' absolute-IRI? Metadata* RULE ' ) '
15:36:09 [ChrisWelty]
15:36:09 [ChrisWelty]
Document ::= 'Document' '(' IRIMETA? DIRECTIVE* (Group | Rule)* ')'
15:36:09 [ChrisWelty]
Group ::= 'Group' IRIMETA? '(' (RULE | Group)* ')'
15:36:09 [ChrisWelty]
Rule ::= 'Rule' IRIMETA? '(' RULE ')'
15:37:46 [StellaMitchell]
cw: I would change my proposal slightly based on csma's
15:38:21 [StellaMitchell]
cw: I think the syntax I proposed addresses everyone's concern...didn't see any feedback on it
15:38:33 [Harold]
My earlier proposal (Chris and Michael just referred to):
15:38:36 [Harold]
15:38:36 [Harold]
'Forall' IRIMETA? Var* '(' CLAUSE ')'
15:38:36 [Harold]
'Exists' IRIMETA? Var* '(' FORMULA ')'
15:38:42 [Zakim]
15:38:45 [csma]
15:38:48 [josb]
15:38:54 [csma]
ack josb
15:39:08 [MichaelKifer]
15:39:11 [StellaMitchell]
cw: ...does this meet everyone's concerns? (re: how to attach, not what type of metadata)
15:39:14 [Harold]
My newer proposal:
15:39:15 [Harold]
Document ::= 'Document' '(' DIRECTIVE* Group? ')'
15:39:15 [Harold]
Group ::= 'Group' IRIMETA? '(' (RULE | Group)* ')'
15:39:23 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
15:39:23 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
15:39:33 [StellaMitchell]
jos: I'm fine with this proposal
15:39:37 [sandro]
ack MichaelKifer
15:39:38 [csma]
ack michael
15:39:56 [StellaMitchell]
mk: my concern is the complexity of the syntax, I think it makes the syntax harder to define
15:40:09 [Harold]
15:40:47 [StellaMitchell]
mk: ...and also it has to be compatible with BLD and
15:40:56 [StellaMitchell]
...there is an inappropriate tag name
15:41:31 [StellaMitchell]
csma: are you saying any tag in FLD would have to be in BLD as well?
15:41:32 [ChrisWelty]
15:41:34 [StellaMitchell]
mk: yes
15:41:45 [csma]
ack harold
15:41:48 [MichaelKifer]
15:41:54 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
15:41:54 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
15:42:07 [StellaMitchell]
harold: I agree with mk's concerns
15:43:05 [StellaMitchell]
... I think we should take a minimilistic approach to metadata, so that we can quickly move on to the next topics
15:43:23 [AdrianP]
+1 for Harold
15:43:27 [AdrianP]
given that we are running out of time and meta data is not on the critical path of BLD I agree with Harold and favour a minimalistic approach
15:43:38 [StellaMitchell]
...and this issue is not specific to RIF, so we can have a metadata handle and solicit feedback from other groups
15:43:54 [Harold]
"small metadata handle" proposal:
15:44:33 [StellaMitchell]
csma: would the rule tag be needed for any other purpose than attaching metadata?
15:44:55 [MichaelKifer]
15:45:01 [StellaMitchell]
jos: yes, to give it an identifier
15:45:27 [csma]
ack chrisw
15:45:28 [StellaMitchell]
jos: i am fine with renaming the tag to address BLD compatibility
15:45:41 [josb]
15:45:52 [Zakim]
15:46:16 [StellaMitchell]
ChrisW: responding to mk: I think it does extend to BLD because it sets rule apart, and it leaves group there, so it doesn't require you to use rule
15:46:19 [csma]
15:46:32 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
15:46:37 [StellaMitchell]
ChrisW: and it is a simple syntax change
15:46:52 [csma]
ack michael
15:46:54 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
15:46:54 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer was not muted, MichaelKifer
15:47:01 [StellaMitchell] alternate tag name for one unit of the syntax
15:47:46 [StellaMitchell]
mk: if we need a tag with cardinality 1 for rules, why don't we need it for other constructs?
15:48:16 [StellaMitchell]
cw: maybe we do, but saying we need it for rule for now
15:49:16 [StellaMitchell]
cw: syntactically, it is just adding to tag
15:49:17 [josb]
15:49:34 [StellaMitchell]
mk: but then we should handle constraints and queries, etc in the same way
15:49:39 [josb]
15:49:42 [StellaMitchell]
...have a wrapper for them too
15:50:21 [StellaMitchell]
csma: if a future dialect wants to identify queries individually, that can be added in that dialect
15:50:30 [csma]
15:50:42 [csma]
ack csma
15:51:12 [josb]
15:52:07 [StellaMitchell]
csma: whether a formula is a rule, fact query,constraint - can this be indicated in the metadata?
15:52:46 [Harold]
+1 to Christian (it seems to be like
15:53:02 [StellaMitchell]
mk: yes, agree
15:53:53 [Hassan]
I agree with Jos - this is a hack
15:54:07 [StellaMitchell]
jos: this goes beyond bld, my concern was identifiying individual rules
15:55:14 [Harold]
Yes, Christian, this is the minimalistic approach which moves us forward.
15:56:03 [csma]
<Group><meta>identifier[content->"Rule"; otherKey->valeu]</>RULE</>
15:56:16 [StellaMitchell]
jos: so in metadata (for BLD) , you indicate whether it's a rule or a ruleset?
15:56:24 [MichaelKifer]
id-of-group[type->rule author->Jos]
15:56:37 [josb]
<Group><meta>identifier[content->"Ruleset"; otherKey->valeu]</>RULE</>
15:57:09 [Harold]
Compelling idea.
15:57:37 [Hassan]
OK to call it meta - but why limit it to only Rule/Ruleset ... Allow it everywhere...
15:57:51 [StellaMitchell]
csma: in summary, we would just have the one tag (could change the name), and indicate type of construct in the metadata
15:58:08 [sandro]
+1 Hassan -- okay to call it Meta, but allow it everywhere
15:58:09 [StellaMitchell]
jos: I don't like this proposal
15:58:11 [Harold]
This way, we can distinguish not only Rules and Rulesets without proliferation of element names.
15:58:25 [AdrianP]
it's a general proposal which allows easy extension
15:58:32 [ChrisWelty]
Document ::= 'Document' '(' IRIMETA? DIRECTIVE* (Meta | RULE)* ')'
15:58:32 [ChrisWelty]
Meta ::= 'Meta' META-TYPE IRIMETA? '(' (RULE | Meta)* ')'
15:58:36 [StellaMitchell]
jos: I can live with this proposall, but I find it ugly
15:58:50 [StellaMitchell]
15:58:53 [josb]
'Meta' IRIMETA? '(' (RULE | Meta)*
16:00:06 [ChrisWelty]
Document ::= 'Document' '(' IRIMETA? DIRECTIVE* (Meta | RULE)* ')'
16:00:14 [ChrisWelty]
Meta ::= 'Meta' IRIMETA? '(' (RULE | Meta)* ')'
16:00:16 [StellaMitchell]
mk: I think the proposal is elegant
16:01:32 [StellaMitchell]
cw: I think jos is saying that when you write a rule, it is going to be ugly (syntactially)
16:02:40 [StellaMitchell]
mk: how will we derive the xml from the presentation syntax?
16:04:23 [ChrisWelty]
STRAW POLL: this bnf plus specific metadata for Rule & Ruleset
16:04:53 [GaryHallmark]
can't call it 'meta' because it contains rules, etc. 'meta' implies it contains only metadata
16:05:19 [AdrianP]
yes, Garry is right
16:05:40 [AdrianP]
Group better captures the intented semantics of this construct
16:05:45 [AdrianP]
alternatively the type "rule | ruleset" could become an optional attribute with a defaul value "rule"
16:05:49 [ChrisWelty]
Document ::= 'Document' '(' IRIMETA? DIRECTIVE* (Meta | RULE)* ')'
16:05:56 [StellaMitchell]
cw: voting on design with minimal set, and can add to the set later
16:05:59 [ChrisWelty]
Meta ::= 'Meta' IRIMETA '(' (RULE | Meta)* ')'
16:06:15 [csma]
+1 to Gary; I would rather call something neutral, like FormulaWrapper or Wrapper, or, well, Group...
16:06:34 [GaryHallmark]
I humbly suggest calling it 'Item'
16:07:13 [StellaMitchell]
cw: let's vote on design, names will still be up for discussion
16:07:15 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
16:07:15 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
16:07:17 [MichaelKifer]
16:07:34 [csma]
16:08:14 [StellaMitchell]
cw: you want to be able have items that don't have metadata (facts, etc)
16:09:33 [StellaMitchell]
....don't want syntax to burden you with requirement to always use this tag
16:10:47 [StellaMitchell]
harold: refers to email sent just before meeting
16:10:55 [Harold]
Document ::= 'Document' '(' DIRECTIVE* (Meta | RULE)* ')'
16:10:56 [Harold]
Meta ::= 'Meta' IRIMETA? '(' (RULE | Meta)* ')'
16:11:32 [GaryHallmark]
what about a document of ground facts?
16:11:44 [Harold]
Document ::= 'Document' '(' DIRECTIVE* Meta ')'
16:12:18 [sandro]
NONBINDING-PROPOSED: have only one wrapper construct
16:12:38 [GaryHallmark]
is Document a wrapper?
16:12:48 [sandro]
NONBINDING-PROPOSED: have only one wrapper construct (by some as-yet-undetermined name), with a minimal set of metadata
16:12:52 [sandro]
No, Document is not a wrapper
16:13:09 [sandro]
NONBINDING-PROPOSED: have only one wrapper construct [inside Document] (by some as-yet-undetermined name), with a minimal set of metadata
16:13:10 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
16:13:10 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
16:13:50 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: what do we mean by minimum set of metadata?
16:14:28 [DaveReynolds]
e.g. foo[rdf:type->rif:Rule] ?
16:14:33 [StellaMitchell]
csma: if we keep frame syntax for metadata, one standard slot name wojuld be "content" and there would be standard values for that slot, such as "rule" and "ruleset"
16:14:44 [StellaMitchell]
...for example
16:14:58 [GaryHallmark]
so you could nest a ruleset inside a rule and only by looking at the metadata could you tell that is what is going on...
16:15:28 [sandro]
NONBINDING-PROPOSED: have only one wrapper construct [inside Document] (by some as-yet-undetermined name), with some minimal fixed metadata, eg type (might be "Rule", "Ruleset", etc)
16:15:42 [DaveReynolds]
16:16:14 [sandro]
NONBINDING-PROPOSED: have only one wrapper construct [inside Document] (by some as-yet-undetermined name), with some minimal fixed metadata, minimally type (minimally including values"Rule", "Ruleset", etc)
16:16:14 [GaryHallmark]
-1 I think the difference between rule and ruleset is too important to hide in metadata
16:16:22 [josb]
16:16:40 [AdrianP]
I would prefer that meta data is optional
16:16:46 [AlexKozlenkov]
Seconded Gary
16:16:50 [AdrianP]
Group is not meta data
16:17:06 [AxelPolleres]
+0.27 (actualy being happy to get the issue from the table, it stops us progressing on other stuff for several telecons now already)
16:17:19 [MichaelKifer]
The whole issue is about METADATA! What does it have to do with "hiding" rules?
16:17:27 [AdrianP]
Group might carry an attribute which defines the type of the Group content
16:18:09 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has left #rif
16:18:12 [DaveReynolds]
-0 (syntactic form and the type metadata interact, it the metadata says it is a fact but looks like a rule syntactically ...)
16:18:18 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
16:18:18 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer was not muted, MichaelKifer
16:18:19 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #rif
16:18:21 [StellaMitchell]
hassan: we need tags for rule and ruleset, so we need tags for them
16:18:25 [MichaelKifer]
16:18:26 [Harold]
Syntax: Document ::= 'Document' '(' DIRECTIVE* Meta ')' and Meta ::= 'Meta' IRIMETA? '(' (RULE | Meta)* ')' , where the name 'Meta' still to be found ('Group', 'Block', 'Unit', ...)
16:18:31 [Harold]
16:18:32 [StellaMitchell]
...and then we need metadata for many things
16:18:37 [Hassan]
16:18:42 [ChrisWelty]
16:19:00 [AxelPolleres]
chrisW is this a symspace?
16:19:08 [ChrisWelty]
those are exponents
16:19:39 [Hassan]
MK means that his +1 following what I wrote on the IRC does not mean he agreed whit my entry above it
16:19:52 [josb]
16:19:56 [Hassan]
16:19:59 [csma]
ack josb
16:20:15 [Hassan]
+1 with Jos
16:20:24 [StellaMitchell]
jos: current discussion is not only about metadata but also about rule identification
16:20:38 [StellaMitchell]
csma: what is your reply to Gary's comment?
16:20:44 [StellaMitchell]
jos: I agree with Gary's comment
16:20:45 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
16:20:45 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
16:20:51 [AdrianP]
+1 (for tonly one wrapper construct for attaching meta data)
16:21:10 [markproctor]
16:21:23 [StellaMitchell]
csma: any other comments on this topic?
16:21:35 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
16:21:35 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
16:21:36 [AxelPolleres]
I think at some point we have to put the proposals on the table and make a decision by strict majority votes.
16:21:37 [StellaMitchell]
harold: maybe not have any metadata for last call?
16:21:46 [GaryHallmark]
rolling back the Groups might help...
16:21:49 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
16:21:49 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
16:21:53 [StellaMitchell]
chris: that's not the point, there are other concerns and removing metadata will not resolve it
16:21:57 [AxelPolleres]
we don't get further with discussing this over and over.
16:21:58 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
16:21:58 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
16:22:15 [StellaMitchell]
...some want to distinguish an individual rule statement
16:22:15 [Hassan]
I agree with ChrisW ...
16:22:23 [sandro]
q+ to make a process comment
16:22:46 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
16:22:46 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should now be muted
16:22:52 [csma]
ack sandro
16:22:52 [Zakim]
sandro, you wanted to make a process comment
16:23:13 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: Harold, charter says we must include a way to include metadata; we must have it for last call
16:23:51 [Hassan]
Choose your weapons ... :-)
16:24:15 [csma]
zakim, list agenda
16:24:15 [Zakim]
I see 5 items remaining on the agenda:
16:24:17 [Zakim]
6. ISSUE-51 [from csma]
16:24:17 [Zakim]
7. Issues 52, 53, 54 [from csma]
16:24:18 [Zakim]
8. ISSUE-29 [from csma]
16:24:18 [Zakim]
9. ISSUE-34 [from csma]
16:24:19 [Zakim]
10. AOB (pick scribe!) [from csma]
16:24:33 [AxelPolleres]
need to go, sorry.
16:24:50 [StellaMitchell]
Topic: Issue-29 (profiles in core)
16:25:29 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
16:25:29 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer should no longer be muted
16:25:38 [StellaMitchell]
csma: there is an appendix on BLD that talks about profiles, subdialects of FLD
16:25:40 [Zakim]
16:25:48 [StellaMitchell]
ChrisW: can we move this to FLD?
16:25:53 [csma]
16:26:15 [StellaMitchell]
mk: we can remove it from BLD, but I don't think it is related to FLD
16:26:32 [StellaMitchell]
chris: it is describing things you can do with the framework (FLD)
16:27:04 [StellaMitchell]
harold: it could be a prominent part of FLD
16:27:32 [StellaMitchell]
csma: core should be a separate document anyway
16:27:41 [Harold]
Michael, the last sentence of the Overview is:
16:27:42 [Harold]
The first of such dialects, RIF Basic Logic Dialect, is described in the document RIF-BLD.
16:28:00 [StellaMitchell]
cw: simplest may be to remove the appendix from BLD and optionally talk about it more in FLD
16:28:01 [Harold]
We can discuss the subdialects here.
16:28:02 [ChrisWelty]
action: remove "subdialects of BLD" from BLD
16:28:02 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - remove
16:28:27 [DaveReynolds]
16:28:37 [csma]
ack dave
16:29:01 [StellaMitchell]
daver: I don't think this resolves issue-29
16:29:16 [StellaMitchell]
chris: no, but it takes it off critical path for BLD
16:29:34 [ChrisWelty]
Regrets: IgorMozetic MohamedZergaoui PaulVincent
16:29:36 [Hassan]
16:29:37 [StellaMitchell]
csma: propose to adjourn
16:29:38 [josb]
16:29:40 [ChrisWelty]
zakim, list attendees
16:29:40 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been josb, Harold, csma, Sandro, DavidHirtle, ChrisW, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, StellaMitchell, Dave_Reynolds, AdrianP, GaryHallmark, AxelPolleres,
16:29:43 [Zakim]
... MichaelKifer, Mark_Proctor, AlexKozlenkov, Gary_Hallmark
16:29:47 [Zakim]
16:29:49 [AdrianP]
16:29:49 [ChrisWelty]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:29:49 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisWelty
16:29:50 [Zakim]
16:29:51 [Zakim]
16:29:51 [Zakim]
16:29:52 [Zakim]
16:29:54 [Zakim]
16:29:56 [Zakim]
16:29:56 [Zakim]
16:30:01 [ChrisWelty]
rrsagent, make logs public
16:30:09 [Zakim]
16:31:16 [Zakim]
16:31:21 [ChrisWelty]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:31:21 [Zakim]
On the phone I see csma, ChrisW, Sandro, Mark_Proctor
16:31:28 [sandro]
zakim, drop Mark_Proctor
16:31:28 [Zakim]
Mark_Proctor is being disconnected
16:31:30 [Zakim]
16:44:53 [Zakim]
16:44:55 [Zakim]
16:44:56 [Zakim]
16:44:56 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
16:44:58 [Zakim]
Attendees were josb, Harold, csma, Sandro, DavidHirtle, ChrisW, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, StellaMitchell, Dave_Reynolds, AdrianP, GaryHallmark, AxelPolleres, MichaelKifer, Mark_Proctor,
16:45:01 [Zakim]
... AlexKozlenkov, Gary_Hallmark
17:46:47 [csma]
csma has left #rif