14:40:43 RRSAgent has joined #rif 14:40:43 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/04/29-rif-irc 14:40:59 Zakim, this will be rif 14:40:59 ok, csma; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 20 minutes 14:41:28 Meeting: RIF telecon 29 April 08 14:41:44 Chair: Christian de Sainte Marie 14:42:17 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Apr/0155.html 14:43:48 csma has changed the topic to: 29 April RIF telecon Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Apr/0155.html 14:44:52 Regrets: IgorMozetic, MohamedZergaoui, PaulVincent 14:45:24 Harold has joined #rif 14:45:53 Hi Harold 14:46:04 Hi Christian. 14:46:24 We should talk more, write less :-) 14:46:32 Zakim, clear agenda 14:46:32 agenda cleared 14:47:17 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 Right, people can hardly keep up reading... 14:48:20 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 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 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 Yes, let's move on. 14:50:12 what can we do about it? (I mean, the email flares) 14:50:20 agendum+ Admin 14:50:36 agendum+ F2F10 14:50:51 agendum+ Action review 14:51:01 Let's plan (for the last 4 weeks or so). 14:51:13 agendum+ Liaisons 14:51:28 agendum+ DTB status 14:51:46 agendum+ ISSUE-51 14:52:12 agendum+ Issues 52, 53, 54 14:52:31 agendum+ ISSUE-29 14:52:49 agendum+ ISSUE-34 14:53:05 agendum+ AOB (pick scribe!) 14:54:18 Harold, I still have another proposal in my sleeve, for the case people really care about metadata, not document structure... 14:55:53 Yes, you should have become a magician (maybe you are one :-) 14:57:05 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: and , where the original object element(s) would go into the wraps element 14:57:23 this is based on discussion you had last week in the telecon 14:57:54 would impact the XML only, not anything else (how to render the metadata would be left to implementations) 14:58:00 what would you think? 14:59:29 So far I tried to have everything from the XML also in the PS. 15:00:16 josb has joined #rif 15:00:34 SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started 15:00:41 +[NRCC] 15:00:46 +josb 15:00:51 -[NRCC] 15:00:52 +[NRCC] 15:01:07 zakim, [NRCC] is me 15:01:07 +Harold; got it 15:01:07 DavidHirtle has joined #rif 15:01:10 +??P30 15:01:17 zakim, ??P30 is me 15:01:18 +csma; got it 15:01:37 StellaMitchell has joined #rif 15:01:49 David, would you scribe? 15:01:56 +??P20 15:01:59 +Sandro 15:02:00 +[IBM] 15:02:08 AlexKozlenkov has joined #rif 15:02:08 ChrisW has joined #rif 15:02:49 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:02:49 On the phone I see Harold, josb, csma, DavidHirtle, [IBM], Sandro 15:03:01 zakim, ibm is temporarily me 15:03:01 +ChrisW; got it 15:03:08 +[IBM] 15:03:09 Hassan has joined #rif 15:03:21 +Hassan_Ait-Kaci 15:03:35 zakim, ibm is temporarily me 15:03:35 +StellaMitchell; got it 15:03:42 DaveReynolds has joined #rif 15:04:01 did you ask me? 15:04:05 yes, I can scribe 15:04:23 Scribe: Stella Mitchell 15:04:33 Scribenick: StellaMitchell 15:04:36 +Dave_Reynolds (was Guest P48 74394) 15:04:36 +Dave_Reynolds 15:04:47 zakim, list agenda 15:04:49 I see 10 items remaining on the agenda: 15:04:51 1. Admin [from csma] 15:04:53 2. F2F10 [from csma] 15:04:55 3. Action review [from csma] 15:04:57 4. Liaisons [from csma] 15:04:59 5. DTB status [from csma] 15:05:01 6. ISSUE-51 [from csma] 15:05:03 7. Issues 52, 53, 54 [from csma] 15:05:05 8. ISSUE-29 [from csma] 15:05:07 9. ISSUE-34 [from csma] 15:05:09 10. AOB (pick scribe!) [from csma] 15:05:09 zakim, take up item 1 15:05:10 AdrianP has joined #rif 15:05:15 agendum 1. "Admin" taken up [from csma] 15:05:24 PROPOSED: accept minutes of telecon April 22 15:05:33 csma: any objections to accepting minutes of last week telcon? 15:05:36 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Apr/att-0145/2008-04-22-rif-minutes.htm 15:05:55 +AdrianP 15:05:58 csma: no objections, minutes are accepted 15:06:06 Zakim, mute me 15:06:06 AdrianP should now be muted 15:06:11 RESOLVED: accept minutes of telecon April 22 15:06:33 csma: any agenda ammendments? 15:06:57 csma: MK said in email that he found major bug in BLD 15:07:06 AxelPolleres has joined #rif 15:07:19 zakim, next item 15:07:19 agendum 2. "F2F10" taken up [from csma] 15:07:26 csma: we will discuss that bug later in the meeting 15:07:36 +GaryHallmark 15:07:40 http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/38457/f2f10/ 15:07:52 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:07:52 On the phone I see Harold, josb, csma, DavidHirtle, ChrisW, Sandro, StellaMitchell, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), Dave_Reynolds, AdrianP (muted), GaryHallmark 15:08:06 Axel, any update on F2F10? 15:08:21 zakim, next item 15:08:21 agendum 3. "Action review" taken up [from csma] 15:08:23 csma: Everyone should answer the F2F questionnaire (link above) 15:08:31 +??P51 15:08:54 csma: axel, any update on F2F10? 15:09:46 axel: questionnaires should be filled out by May 10, and let me know if you need help with travel arrangements 15:10:28 sandro: Action-470 continued 15:10:42 csma: Action-450 pending discussion 15:10:52 csma: Action-454 continued 15:11:14 csma: Action-446 continued 15:11:36 Action-452 continued 15:11:50 Action-439 continued 15:12:03 Action-435 - on agenda for today 15:12:27 s/on agenda for today/continued/ 15:12:54 Action-434, Action-152 continued 15:13:08 zakim, next item 15:13:08 agendum 4. "Liaisons" taken up [from csma] 15:13:20 csma: any updates? 15:13:21 no 15:13:45 zakim, next item 15:13:45 agendum 4 was just opened, StellaMitchell 15:13:56 zakim, close item 4 15:13:56 agendum 4, Liaisons, closed 15:13:57 I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 15:13:58 5. DTB status [from csma] 15:14:06 zakim, next item 15:14:06 agendum 5. "DTB status" taken up [from csma] 15:14:19 MichaelKifer has joined #rif 15:14:20 csma: Axel, update on DTB? 15:14:29 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Apr/0194.html 15:14:38 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DTB 15:14:49 markproctor has joined #rif 15:15:14 Axel: for curie notation, I would like to adopt last proposal from Sandro 15:15:47 +MichaelKifer 15:15:54 ...2nd issue from my email is that I'm not sure about the URI I'm using, I listed 5 options 15:16:16 zakim, mute me 15:16:16 MichaelKifer should now be muted 15:17:32 +Mark_Proctor 15:17:36 axel: (summarizing the options described in the email above) 15:19:22 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 axel: if we settle these 3 issues, I can finalize DTB fairly quickly 15:20:05 csma: Axel, will you be here next week? We can discuss the DTB and these issues next week 15:20:17 axel: yes, will be here 15:20:27 action: csma to put dtb on next weeks agenda 15:20:27 Created ACTION-471 - Put dtb on next weeks agenda [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2008-05-06]. 15:20:52 zakim, unmute me 15:20:52 MichaelKifer should no longer be muted 15:20:59 Bug in DLB: 15:21:01 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#Formulas 15:21:06 csma: mk, can you describe the major bug that you found in BLD 15:21:32 mk: the syntax is not defining rules, but is defining more than rules 15:22:16 "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 harold: syntax in section 2.4 15:22:56 harold: problem is that the entire implies is again a formula 15:23:45 q+ 15:23:51 +??P58 15:24:00 csma: ebnf looks ok to me 15:24:02 zakim, ??P58 is me 15:24:02 +AlexKozlenkov; got it 15:24:21 harold: the problem is in the mathematical english specification of syntax 15:24:39 zakim, mute me 15:24:39 AlexKozlenkov should now be muted 15:24:47 ChrisWelty has joined #rif 15:24:47 it is not really clear where the definition of well-formed formula ends 15:24:57 ...(ebnf is correct) 15:25:05 there should be two definitions: one of RIF-BLD condition and one of RIF--BLD rule 15:25:11 q- 15:25:50 harold: the error is in the direct specification of BLD, the derived specification is correct 15:26:09 It looks like this error is a mild one ... and can be easily fixed 15:26:39 csma: So, do we need more reviews of the document 15:26:49 chris: I don't see where the error is? 15:27:38 mk: this error has been there for awhile, and all reviewers missed it 15:27:56 q+ 15:27:57 q? 15:28:06 ack Hassan 15:28:13 This error was not there in February. 15:28:51 q- 15:28:53 hassan: I think the editors have the burden to show that the direct and derived specifications are equivalent 15:29:02 7 15:29:05 This is undecidable ... 15:30:05 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 has joined #rif 15:30:40 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 sandro: it is ok to fix bugs such as this after last call 15:31:16 q? 15:32:03 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 zakim, mute me 15:32:11 MichaelKifer should now be muted 15:32:19 csma: yes, bugs are inevitable, and last call will help us find them when larger audience reviews and implements 15:32:39 q+ 15:32:46 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/51 15:32:51 mk: still concerned about having flaws in the design 15:32:55 zakim, next item 15:32:55 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, StellaMitchell 15:32:57 Ack chris 15:33:06 zakim, next item 15:33:06 agendum 6. "ISSUE-51" taken up [from csma] 15:33:29 chris: I have gone though the various proposals for this 15:33:59 ...jos had an original proposal, harold and mk changed it to have group 15:34:17 Document has nothing to do with this issue. 15:34:40 ...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 Harold's proposal *does* address individual rules concern! 15:35:36 Document ::= 'Document' '(' IRIMETA? DIRECTIVE* Group? ')' 15:35:36 Group ::= 'Group' IRIMETA? '(' (RULE | Group)* ')' 15:35:36 ...harold's, csma, and I made proposals 15:35:46 Ruleset ::= 'Ruleset( ' absolute-IRI? Metadata* Rule* ' ) ' 15:35:46 Rule ::= 'Rule( ' absolute-IRI? Metadata* RULE ' ) ' 15:36:09 CW: 15:36:09 Document ::= 'Document' '(' IRIMETA? DIRECTIVE* (Group | Rule)* ')' 15:36:09 Group ::= 'Group' IRIMETA? '(' (RULE | Group)* ')' 15:36:09 Rule ::= 'Rule' IRIMETA? '(' RULE ')' 15:37:46 cw: I would change my proposal slightly based on csma's 15:38:21 cw: I think the syntax I proposed addresses everyone's concern...didn't see any feedback on it 15:38:33 My earlier proposal (Chris and Michael just referred to): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Apr/0151.html 15:38:36 Add: 15:38:36 'Forall' IRIMETA? Var* '(' CLAUSE ')' 15:38:36 'Exists' IRIMETA? Var* '(' FORMULA ')' 15:38:42 -GaryHallmark 15:38:45 q? 15:38:48 q+ 15:38:54 ack josb 15:39:08 q+ 15:39:11 cw: ...does this meet everyone's concerns? (re: how to attach, not what type of metadata) 15:39:14 My newer proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Apr/0193.html 15:39:15 Document ::= 'Document' '(' DIRECTIVE* Group? ')' 15:39:15 Group ::= 'Group' IRIMETA? '(' (RULE | Group)* ')' 15:39:23 zakim, unmute me 15:39:23 MichaelKifer should no longer be muted 15:39:33 jos: I'm fine with this proposal 15:39:37 ack MichaelKifer 15:39:38 ack michael 15:39:56 mk: my concern is the complexity of the syntax, I think it makes the syntax harder to define 15:40:09 q+ 15:40:47 mk: ...and also it has to be compatible with BLD and 15:40:56 ...there is an inappropriate tag name 15:41:31 csma: are you saying any tag in FLD would have to be in BLD as well? 15:41:32 q+ 15:41:34 mk: yes 15:41:45 ack harold 15:41:48 q- 15:41:54 zakim, mute me 15:41:54 MichaelKifer should now be muted 15:42:07 harold: I agree with mk's concerns 15:43:05 ... I think we should take a minimilistic approach to metadata, so that we can quickly move on to the next topics 15:43:23 +1 for Harold 15:43:27 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 ...and this issue is not specific to RIF, so we can have a metadata handle and solicit feedback from other groups 15:43:54 "small metadata handle" proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Apr/0193.html 15:44:33 csma: would the rule tag be needed for any other purpose than attaching metadata? 15:44:55 q+ 15:45:01 jos: yes, to give it an identifier 15:45:27 ack chrisw 15:45:28 jos: i am fine with renaming the tag to address BLD compatibility 15:45:41 s/BLD/FLD/ 15:45:52 +Gary_Hallmark 15:46:16 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 q+ 15:46:32 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 15:46:37 ChrisW: and it is a simple syntax change 15:46:52 ack michael 15:46:54 zakim, unmute me 15:46:54 MichaelKifer was not muted, MichaelKifer 15:47:01 ....an alternate tag name for one unit of the syntax 15:47:46 mk: if we need a tag with cardinality 1 for rules, why don't we need it for other constructs? 15:48:16 cw: maybe we do, but saying we need it for rule for now 15:49:16 cw: syntactically, it is just adding to tag 15:49:17 indeed! 15:49:34 mk: but then we should handle constraints and queries, etc in the same way 15:49:39 q+ 15:49:42 ...have a wrapper for them too 15:50:21 csma: if a future dialect wants to identify queries individually, that can be added in that dialect 15:50:30 q? 15:50:42 ack csma 15:51:12 q- 15:52:07 csma: whether a formula is a rule, fact query,constraint - can this be indicated in the metadata? 15:52:46 +1 to Christian (it seems to be like http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Apr/0193.html) 15:53:02 mk: yes, agree 15:53:53 I agree with Jos - this is a hack 15:54:07 jos: this goes beyond bld, my concern was identifiying individual rules 15:55:14 Yes, Christian, this is the minimalistic approach which moves us forward. 15:56:03 identifier[content->"Rule"; otherKey->valeu]RULE 15:56:16 jos: so in metadata (for BLD) , you indicate whether it's a rule or a ruleset? 15:56:24 id-of-group[type->rule author->Jos] 15:56:37 identifier[content->"Ruleset"; otherKey->valeu]RULE 15:57:09 Compelling idea. 15:57:37 OK to call it meta - but why limit it to only Rule/Ruleset ... Allow it everywhere... 15:57:51 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 +1 Hassan -- okay to call it Meta, but allow it everywhere 15:58:09 jos: I don't like this proposal 15:58:11 This way, we can distinguish not only Rules and Rulesets without proliferation of element names. 15:58:25 it's a general proposal which allows easy extension 15:58:32 Document ::= 'Document' '(' IRIMETA? DIRECTIVE* (Meta | RULE)* ')' 15:58:32 Meta ::= 'Meta' META-TYPE IRIMETA? '(' (RULE | Meta)* ')' 15:58:36 jos: I can live with this proposall, but I find it ugly 15:58:50 s/proposall/proposal/ 15:58:53 'Meta' IRIMETA? '(' (RULE | Meta)* 16:00:06 Document ::= 'Document' '(' IRIMETA? DIRECTIVE* (Meta | RULE)* ')' 16:00:14 Meta ::= 'Meta' IRIMETA? '(' (RULE | Meta)* ')' 16:00:16 mk: I think the proposal is elegant 16:01:32 cw: I think jos is saying that when you write a rule, it is going to be ugly (syntactially) 16:02:40 mk: how will we derive the xml from the presentation syntax? 16:04:23 STRAW POLL: this bnf plus specific metadata for Rule & Ruleset 16:04:53 can't call it 'meta' because it contains rules, etc. 'meta' implies it contains only metadata 16:05:19 yes, Garry is right 16:05:40 Group better captures the intented semantics of this construct 16:05:45 alternatively the type "rule | ruleset" could become an optional attribute with a defaul value "rule" 16:05:49 Document ::= 'Document' '(' IRIMETA? DIRECTIVE* (Meta | RULE)* ')' 16:05:56 cw: voting on design with minimal set, and can add to the set later 16:05:59 Meta ::= 'Meta' IRIMETA '(' (RULE | Meta)* ')' 16:06:15 +1 to Gary; I would rather call something neutral, like FormulaWrapper or Wrapper, or, well, Group... 16:06:34 I humbly suggest calling it 'Item' 16:07:13 cw: let's vote on design, names will still be up for discussion 16:07:15 zakim, mute me 16:07:15 MichaelKifer should now be muted 16:07:17 q- 16:07:34 q? 16:08:14 cw: you want to be able have items that don't have metadata (facts, etc) 16:09:33 ....don't want syntax to burden you with requirement to always use this tag 16:10:47 harold: refers to email sent just before meeting 16:10:55 Document ::= 'Document' '(' DIRECTIVE* (Meta | RULE)* ')' 16:10:56 Meta ::= 'Meta' IRIMETA? '(' (RULE | Meta)* ')' 16:11:32 what about a document of ground facts? 16:11:44 Document ::= 'Document' '(' DIRECTIVE* Meta ')' 16:12:18 NONBINDING-PROPOSED: have only one wrapper construct 16:12:38 is Document a wrapper? 16:12:48 NONBINDING-PROPOSED: have only one wrapper construct (by some as-yet-undetermined name), with a minimal set of metadata 16:12:52 No, Document is not a wrapper 16:13:09 NONBINDING-PROPOSED: have only one wrapper construct [inside Document] (by some as-yet-undetermined name), with a minimal set of metadata 16:13:10 zakim, unmute me 16:13:10 MichaelKifer should no longer be muted 16:13:50 sandro: what do we mean by minimum set of metadata? 16:14:28 e.g. foo[rdf:type->rif:Rule] ? 16:14:33 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 ...for example 16:14:58 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 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 -0 16:16:14 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 -1 I think the difference between rule and ruleset is too important to hide in metadata 16:16:22 0 16:16:40 I would prefer that meta data is optional 16:16:46 Seconded Gary 16:16:50 Group is not meta data 16:17:06 +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 The whole issue is about METADATA! What does it have to do with "hiding" rules? 16:17:27 Group might carry an attribute which defines the type of the Group content 16:18:09 AxelPolleres has left #rif 16:18:12 -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 zakim, unmute me 16:18:18 MichaelKifer was not muted, MichaelKifer 16:18:19 AxelPolleres has joined #rif 16:18:21 hassan: we need tags for rule and ruleset, so we need tags for them 16:18:25 +1 16:18:26 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 +1 16:18:32 ...and then we need metadata for many things 16:18:37 ??? 16:18:42 0^10^10^10^10^10 16:19:00 chrisW is this a symspace? 16:19:08 those are exponents 16:19:39 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 q+ 16:19:56 s/whit/with/ 16:19:59 ack josb 16:20:15 +1 with Jos 16:20:24 jos: current discussion is not only about metadata but also about rule identification 16:20:38 csma: what is your reply to Gary's comment? 16:20:44 jos: I agree with Gary's comment 16:20:45 zakim, mute me 16:20:45 MichaelKifer should now be muted 16:20:51 +1 (for tonly one wrapper construct for attaching meta data) 16:21:10 +1 16:21:23 csma: any other comments on this topic? 16:21:35 zakim, unmute me 16:21:35 MichaelKifer should no longer be muted 16:21:36 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 harold: maybe not have any metadata for last call? 16:21:46 rolling back the Groups might help... 16:21:49 zakim, mute me 16:21:49 MichaelKifer should now be muted 16:21:53 chris: that's not the point, there are other concerns and removing metadata will not resolve it 16:21:57 we don't get further with discussing this over and over. 16:21:58 zakim, unmute me 16:21:58 MichaelKifer should no longer be muted 16:22:15 ...some want to distinguish an individual rule statement 16:22:15 I agree with ChrisW ... 16:22:23 q+ to make a process comment 16:22:46 zakim, mute me 16:22:46 MichaelKifer should now be muted 16:22:52 ack sandro 16:22:52 sandro, you wanted to make a process comment 16:23:13 sandro: Harold, charter says we must include a way to include metadata; we must have it for last call 16:23:51 Choose your weapons ... :-) 16:24:15 zakim, list agenda 16:24:15 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda: 16:24:17 6. ISSUE-51 [from csma] 16:24:17 7. Issues 52, 53, 54 [from csma] 16:24:18 8. ISSUE-29 [from csma] 16:24:18 9. ISSUE-34 [from csma] 16:24:19 10. AOB (pick scribe!) [from csma] 16:24:33 need to go, sorry. 16:24:50 Topic: Issue-29 (profiles in core) 16:25:29 zakim, unmute me 16:25:29 MichaelKifer should no longer be muted 16:25:38 csma: there is an appendix on BLD that talks about profiles, subdialects of FLD 16:25:40 -AxelPolleres 16:25:48 ChrisW: can we move this to FLD? 16:25:53 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#Appendix:_Subdialects_of_RIF-BLD 16:26:15 mk: we can remove it from BLD, but I don't think it is related to FLD 16:26:32 chris: it is describing things you can do with the framework (FLD) 16:27:04 harold: it could be a prominent part of FLD 16:27:32 csma: core should be a separate document anyway 16:27:41 Michael, the last sentence of the Overview is: 16:27:42 The first of such dialects, RIF Basic Logic Dialect, is described in the document RIF-BLD. 16:28:00 cw: simplest may be to remove the appendix from BLD and optionally talk about it more in FLD 16:28:01 We can discuss the subdialects here. 16:28:02 action: remove "subdialects of BLD" from BLD 16:28:02 Sorry, couldn't find user - remove 16:28:27 q+ 16:28:37 ack dave 16:29:01 daver: I don't think this resolves issue-29 16:29:16 chris: no, but it takes it off critical path for BLD 16:29:34 Regrets: IgorMozetic MohamedZergaoui PaulVincent 16:29:36 +1 16:29:37 csma: propose to adjourn 16:29:38 +1 16:29:40 zakim, list attendees 16:29:40 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 ... MichaelKifer, Mark_Proctor, AlexKozlenkov, Gary_Hallmark 16:29:47 -Harold 16:29:49 bye 16:29:49 rrsagent, make minutes 16:29:49 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/04/29-rif-minutes.html ChrisWelty 16:29:50 -Gary_Hallmark 16:29:51 -Hassan_Ait-Kaci 16:29:51 -DavidHirtle 16:29:52 -MichaelKifer 16:29:54 -AdrianP 16:29:56 -AlexKozlenkov 16:29:56 -Dave_Reynolds 16:30:01 rrsagent, make logs public 16:30:09 -josb 16:31:16 -StellaMitchell 16:31:21 zakim, who is on the phone? 16:31:21 On the phone I see csma, ChrisW, Sandro, Mark_Proctor 16:31:28 zakim, drop Mark_Proctor 16:31:28 Mark_Proctor is being disconnected 16:31:30 -Mark_Proctor 16:44:53 -ChrisW 16:44:55 -csma 16:44:56 -Sandro 16:44:56 SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended 16:44:58 Attendees were josb, Harold, csma, Sandro, DavidHirtle, ChrisW, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, StellaMitchell, Dave_Reynolds, AdrianP, GaryHallmark, AxelPolleres, MichaelKifer, Mark_Proctor, 16:45:01 ... AlexKozlenkov, Gary_Hallmark 17:46:47 csma has left #rif