<csma> Hi Harold

<Harold> Hi Christian.

<Harold> We should talk more, write less :-)

<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 :-(

<Harold> Right, people can hardly keep up reading...

<csma> Well, participating to a WG is supposed to take around 20% of your time, at least (only participating, not editing or what)

<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 :-)

<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.

<Harold> Yes, let's move on.

<csma> what can we do about it? (I mean, the email flares)

<csma> agendum+ Admin

<csma> agendum+ F2F10

<csma> agendum+ Action review

<Harold> Let's plan (for the last 4 weeks or so).

<csma> agendum+ Liaisons

<csma> agendum+ DTB status

<csma> agendum+ ISSUE-51

<csma> agendum+ Issues 52, 53, 54

<csma> agendum+ ISSUE-29

<csma> agendum+ ISSUE-34

<csma> agendum+ AOB (pick scribe!)

<csma> Harold, I still have another proposal in my sleeve, for the case people really care about metadata, not document structure...

<Harold> Yes, you should have become a magician (maybe you are one :-)

<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

<csma> this is based on discussion you had last week in the telecon

<csma> would impact the XML only, not anything else (how to render the metadata would be left to implementations)

<csma> what would you think?

<Harold> So far I tried to have everything from the XML also in the PS.

<csma> David, would you scribe?

did you ask me?

yes, I can scribe

<csma> Scribe: Stella Mitchell

<csma> Scribenick: StellaMitchell

Admin

<csma> PROPOSED: accept minutes of telecon April 22

csma: any objections to accepting minutes of last week telcon?

<csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Apr/att-0145/2008-04-22-rif-minutes.htm

csma: no objections, minutes are accepted

<csma> RESOLVED: accept minutes of telecon April 22

csma: any agenda ammendments?
... MK said in email that he found major bug in BLD

F2F10

csma: we will discuss that bug later in the meeting

<csma> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/38457/f2f10/

<csma> Axel, any update on F2F10?

Action review

csma: Everyone should answer the F2F questionnaire (link above)
... axel, any update on F2F10?

axel: questionnaires should be filled out by May 10, and let me know if you need help with travel arrangements

sandro: Action-470 continued

csma: Action-450 pending discussion
... Action-454 continued
... Action-446 continued

Action-452 continued

Action-439 continued

Action-435 - continued

Action-434, Action-152 continued

Liaisons

csma: any updates?

<AdrianP> no

DTB status

csma: Axel, update on DTB?

<AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Apr/0194.html

<csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DTB

Axel: for curie notation, I would like to adopt last proposal from Sandro
... 2nd issue from my email is that I'm not sure about the URI I'm using, I listed 5 options
... (summarizing the options described in the email above)
... 3rd issue from email - there was a resolution on this at the last F2F - want to confirm my description of errors is OK
... if we settle these 3 issues, I can finalize DTB fairly quickly

csma: Axel, will you be here next week? We can discuss the DTB and these issues next week

axel: yes, will be here

<ChrisW> ACTION: csma to put dtb on next weeks agenda [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/29-rif-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-471 - Put dtb on next weeks agenda [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2008-05-06].

<Harold> Bug in DLB:

<Harold> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#Formulas

csma: mk, can you describe the major bug that you found in BLD

mk: the syntax is not defining rules, but is defining more than rules

<Harold> "Rule implication: If f is a well-formed atomic formula and ? is a RIF-BLD condition then f :- ? is a well-formed formula"

harold: syntax in section 2.4
... problem is that the entire implies is again a formula

csma: ebnf looks ok to me

harold: the problem is in the mathematical english specification of syntax

<josb> it is not really clear where the definition of well-formed formula ends

harold: (ebnf is correct)

<josb> there should be two definitions: one of RIF-BLD condition and one of RIF--BLD rule

harold: the error is in the direct specification of BLD, the derived specification is correct

<Hassan> It looks like this error is a mild one ... and can be easily fixed

csma: So, do we need more reviews of the document

chris: I don't see where the error is?

mk: this error has been there for awhile, and all reviewers missed it

<josb> This error was not there in February.

hassan: I think the editors have the burden to show that the direct and derived specifications are equivalent

<josb> 7

<Hassan> This is undecidable ...

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

<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

sandro: it is ok to fix bugs such as this after last call

<Harold> Jos, maybe the error was introduced as we changed what '(uni)term' and 'formula' means after being asked to abandon visible Uniterms.

csma: yes, bugs are inevitable, and last call will help us find them when larger audience reviews and implements

<csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/51

mk: still concerned about having flaws in the design

ISSUE-51

chris: I have gone though the various proposals for this
... jos had an original proposal, harold and mk changed it to have group

<MichaelKifer> Document has nothing to do with this issue.

chris: 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

<MichaelKifer> Harold's proposal *does* address individual rules concern!

<ChrisWelty> Document ::= 'Document' '(' IRIMETA? DIRECTIVE* Group? ')'

<ChrisWelty> Group ::= 'Group' IRIMETA? '(' (RULE | Group)* ')'

chris: harold's, csma, and I made proposals

<ChrisWelty> Ruleset ::= 'Ruleset( ' absolute-IRI? Metadata* Rule* ' ) '

<ChrisWelty> Rule ::= 'Rule( ' absolute-IRI? Metadata* RULE ' ) '

<ChrisWelty> CW:

<ChrisWelty> Document ::= 'Document' '(' IRIMETA? DIRECTIVE* (Group | Rule)* ')'

<ChrisWelty> Group ::= 'Group' IRIMETA? '(' (RULE | Group)* ')'

<ChrisWelty> Rule ::= 'Rule' IRIMETA? '(' RULE ')'

cw: I would change my proposal slightly based on csma's
... I think the syntax I proposed addresses everyone's concern...didn't see any feedback on it

<Harold> My earlier proposal (Chris and Michael just referred to): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Apr/0151.html

<Harold> Add:

<Harold> 'Forall' IRIMETA? Var* '(' CLAUSE ')'

<Harold> 'Exists' IRIMETA? Var* '(' FORMULA ')'

cw: ...does this meet everyone's concerns? (re: how to attach, not what type of metadata)

<Harold> My newer proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Apr/0193.html

<Harold> Document ::= 'Document' '(' DIRECTIVE* Group? ')'

<Harold> Group ::= 'Group' IRIMETA? '(' (RULE | Group)* ')'

jos: I'm fine with this proposal

mk: my concern is the complexity of the syntax, I think it makes the syntax harder to define
... ...and also it has to be compatible with BLD and
... there is an inappropriate tag name

csma: are you saying any tag in FLD would have to be in BLD as well?

mk: yes

harold: I agree with mk's concerns
... I think we should take a minimilistic approach to metadata, so that we can quickly move on to the next topics

<AdrianP> +1 for Harold

<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

harold: and this issue is not specific to RIF, so we can have a metadata handle and solicit feedback from other groups

<Harold> "small metadata handle" proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Apr/0193.html

csma: would the rule tag be needed for any other purpose than attaching metadata?

jos: yes, to give it an identifier
... i am fine with renaming the tag to address FLD compatibility

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
... and it is a simple syntax change
... an alternate tag name for one unit of the syntax

mk: if we need a tag with cardinality 1 for rules, why don't we need it for other constructs?

cw: maybe we do, but saying we need it for rule for now
... syntactically, it is just adding to tag

<josb> indeed!

mk: but then we should handle constraints and queries, etc in the same way
... have a wrapper for them too

csma: if a future dialect wants to identify queries individually, that can be added in that dialect
... whether a formula is a rule, fact query,constraint - can this be indicated in the metadata?

<Harold> +1 to Christian (it seems to be like http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Apr/0193.html)

mk: yes, agree

<Hassan> I agree with Jos - this is a hack

jos: this goes beyond bld, my concern was identifiying individual rules

<Harold> Yes, Christian, this is the minimalistic approach which moves us forward.

<csma> <Group><meta>identifier[content->"Rule"; otherKey->valeu]</>RULE</>

jos: so in metadata (for BLD) , you indicate whether it's a rule or a ruleset?

<MichaelKifer> id-of-group[type->rule author->Jos]

<josb> <Group><meta>identifier[content->"Ruleset"; otherKey->valeu]</>RULE</>

<Harold> Compelling idea.

<Hassan> OK to call it meta - but why limit it to only Rule/Ruleset ... Allow it everywhere...

csma: in summary, we would just have the one tag (could change the name), and indicate type of construct in the metadata

<sandro> +1 Hassan -- okay to call it Meta, but allow it everywhere

jos: I don't like this proposal

<Harold> This way, we can distinguish not only Rules and Rulesets without proliferation of element names.

<AdrianP> it's a general proposal which allows easy extension

<ChrisWelty> Document ::= 'Document' '(' IRIMETA? DIRECTIVE* (Meta | RULE)* ')'

<ChrisWelty> Meta ::= 'Meta' META-TYPE IRIMETA? '(' (RULE | Meta)* ')'

jos: I can live with this proposal, but I find it ugly

<josb> 'Meta' IRIMETA? '(' (RULE | Meta)*

<ChrisWelty> Document ::= 'Document' '(' IRIMETA? DIRECTIVE* (Meta | RULE)* ')'

<ChrisWelty> Meta ::= 'Meta' IRIMETA? '(' (RULE | Meta)* ')'

mk: I think the proposal is elegant

cw: I think jos is saying that when you write a rule, it is going to be ugly (syntactially)

mk: how will we derive the xml from the presentation syntax?

<ChrisWelty> STRAW POLL: this bnf plus specific metadata for Rule & Ruleset

<GaryHallmark> can't call it 'meta' because it contains rules, etc. 'meta' implies it contains only metadata

<AdrianP> yes, Garry is right

<AdrianP> Group better captures the intented semantics of this construct

<AdrianP> alternatively the type "rule | ruleset" could become an optional attribute with a defaul value "rule"

<ChrisWelty> Document ::= 'Document' '(' IRIMETA? DIRECTIVE* (Meta | RULE)* ')'

cw: voting on design with minimal set, and can add to the set later

<ChrisWelty> Meta ::= 'Meta' IRIMETA '(' (RULE | Meta)* ')'

<csma> +1 to Gary; I would rather call something neutral, like FormulaWrapper or Wrapper, or, well, Group...

<GaryHallmark> I humbly suggest calling it 'Item'

cw: let's vote on design, names will still be up for discussion
... you want to be able have items that don't have metadata (facts, etc)
... don't want syntax to burden you with requirement to always use this tag

harold: refers to email sent just before meeting

<Harold> Document ::= 'Document' '(' DIRECTIVE* (Meta | RULE)* ')'

<Harold> Meta ::= 'Meta' IRIMETA? '(' (RULE | Meta)* ')'

<GaryHallmark> what about a document of ground facts?

<Harold> Document ::= 'Document' '(' DIRECTIVE* Meta ')'

<sandro> NONBINDING-PROPOSED: have only one wrapper construct

<GaryHallmark> is Document a wrapper?

<sandro> NONBINDING-PROPOSED: have only one wrapper construct (by some as-yet-undetermined name), with a minimal set of metadata

<sandro> No, Document is not a wrapper

<sandro> NONBINDING-PROPOSED: have only one wrapper construct [inside Document] (by some as-yet-undetermined name), with a minimal set of metadata

sandro: what do we mean by minimum set of metadata?

<DaveReynolds> e.g. foo[rdf:type->rif:Rule] ?

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"
... for example

<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...

<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)

<DaveReynolds> -0

<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)

<GaryHallmark> -1 I think the difference between rule and ruleset is too important to hide in metadata

<josb> 0

<AdrianP> I would prefer that meta data is optional

<AlexKozlenkov> Seconded Gary

<AdrianP> Group is not meta data

<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)

<MichaelKifer> The whole issue is about METADATA! What does it have to do with "hiding" rules?

<AdrianP> Group might carry an attribute which defines the type of the Group content

<DaveReynolds> -0 (syntactic form and the type metadata interact, it the metadata says it is a fact but looks like a rule syntactically ...)

hassan: we need tags for rule and ruleset, so we need tags for them

<MichaelKifer> +1

<Harold> Syntax: Document ::= 'Document' '(' DIRECTIVE* Meta ')' and Meta ::= 'Meta' IRIMETA? '(' (RULE | Meta)* ')' , where the name 'Meta' still to be found ('Group', 'Block', 'Unit', ...)

<Harold> +1

hassan: and then we need metadata for many things

<Hassan> ???

<ChrisWelty> 0^10^10^10^10^10

<AxelPolleres> chrisW is this a symspace?

<ChrisWelty> those are exponents

<Hassan> MK means that his +1 following what I wrote on the IRC does not mean he agreed with my entry above it

<Hassan> +1 with Jos

jos: current discussion is not only about metadata but also about rule identification

csma: what is your reply to Gary's comment?

jos: I agree with Gary's comment

<AdrianP> +1 (for tonly one wrapper construct for attaching meta data)

<markproctor> +1

csma: any other comments on this topic?

<AxelPolleres> I think at some point we have to put the proposals on the table and make a decision by strict majority votes.

harold: maybe not have any metadata for last call?

<GaryHallmark> rolling back the Groups might help...

chris: that's not the point, there are other concerns and removing metadata will not resolve it

<AxelPolleres> we don't get further with discussing this over and over.

chris: some want to distinguish an individual rule statement

<Hassan> I agree with ChrisW ...

<Zakim> sandro, you wanted to make a process comment

sandro: Harold, charter says we must include a way to include metadata; we must have it for last call

<Hassan> Choose your weapons ... :-)

<AxelPolleres> need to go, sorry.

Issue-29 (profiles in core)

csma: there is an appendix on BLD that talks about profiles, subdialects of FLD

ChrisW: can we move this to FLD?

<csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#Appendix:_Subdialects_of_RIF-BLD

mk: we can remove it from BLD, but I don't think it is related to FLD

chris: it is describing things you can do with the framework (FLD)

harold: it could be a prominent part of FLD

csma: core should be a separate document anyway

<Harold> Michael, the last sentence of the Overview is:

<Harold> The first of such dialects, RIF Basic Logic Dialect, is described in the document RIF-BLD.

cw: simplest may be to remove the appendix from BLD and optionally talk about it more in FLD

<Harold> We can discuss the subdialects here.

<ChrisWelty> ACTION: remove "subdialects of BLD" from BLD [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/29-rif-minutes.html#action02]

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

daver: I don't think this resolves issue-29

chris: no, but it takes it off critical path for BLD

<Hassan> +1

csma: propose to adjourn

<josb> +1

<AdrianP> bye

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/on agenda for today/continued/
Succeeded: s/BLD/FLD/
Succeeded: s/proposall/proposal/
Succeeded: s/whit/with/
Found Scribe: Stella Mitchell
Found ScribeNick: StellaMitchell
Default Present: josb, Harold, csma, Sandro, DavidHirtle, ChrisW, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, StellaMitchell, Dave_Reynolds, AdrianP, GaryHallmark, AxelPolleres, MichaelKifer, Mark_Proctor, AlexKozlenkov, Gary_Hallmark
Present: josb Harold csma Sandro DavidHirtle ChrisW Hassan_Ait-Kaci StellaMitchell Dave_Reynolds AdrianP GaryHallmark AxelPolleres MichaelKifer Mark_Proctor AlexKozlenkov Gary_Hallmark
Regrets: IgorMozetic MohamedZergaoui PaulVincent
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Apr/0155.html
Got date from IRC log name: 29 Apr 2008
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/04/29-rif-minutes.html
People with action items: csma remove