15:00:49 RRSAgent has joined #rif 15:00:49 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/05/20-rif-irc 15:00:58 rrsagent, make minutes 15:00:58 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/20-rif-minutes.html ChrisW 15:01:14 DaveReynolds has joined #rif 15:01:16 Meeting: RIF Telecon 20 May 2008 15:01:27 +Sandro 15:01:28 Chair: Chris Welty 15:01:30 -Sandro 15:01:42 Dave, you ok to scribe? 15:01:52 + +43.12.aaaa 15:01:54 -Hassan_Ait-Kaci 15:01:59 Yes, once I manage to get on the call - having problems with the relay. 15:02:14 +??P30 15:02:14 IgorMozetic has joined #rif 15:02:18 +Sandro 15:02:28 +Hassan_Ait-Kaci 15:02:29 I had trouble getting on, too. okay now, though. 15:02:32 LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif 15:02:46 JeffP has joined #rif 15:02:47 +[IBM] 15:02:51 AlexKozlenkov has joined #rif 15:02:55 zakim, ibm is temporarily me 15:02:55 +ChrisW; got it 15:02:57 AdrianP has joined #rif 15:02:58 csma has joined #rif 15:02:58 (I am at IRC only) 15:03:22 + +1.212.781.aabb 15:03:28 Scribe: Dave Reynolds 15:03:38 ScribeNick: DaveReynolds 15:03:40 zakim, aabb is me 15:03:40 +LeoraMorgenstern; got it 15:03:41 +??P34 15:03:49 zakim, ??P34 is me 15:03:49 +IgorMozetic; got it 15:03:54 zakim, mute me 15:03:54 IgorMozetic should now be muted 15:04:06 + +49.351.463.4.aacc 15:04:18 Zakim, aacc is me 15:04:18 +AdrianP; got it 15:04:19 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/0142.html 15:04:24 Zakim, mute me 15:04:24 AdrianP should now be muted 15:04:31 ChrisW has changed the topic to: May 20 RIF Agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/0142.html 15:04:43 zakim, +43.12.aaaa is me 15:04:43 +Harold; got it 15:04:43 rrsagent, make logs public 15:05:08 Topic: Admin 15:05:13 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/att-0119/05132008-rif-minutes.html 15:05:34 PROPOSED: Accept May 13 telecon mins 15:05:43 RESOLVED: Accept May 13 telecon mins 15:05:46 +csma 15:06:50 action: to chris to ask mdean for the May 6 minutes 15:06:50 Sorry, couldn't find user - to 15:06:53 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F10 15:07:06 Draft agenda for F2F10 meeting now available 15:07:13 action: chris to ask mdean for the May 6 minutes 15:07:13 Created ACTION-479 - Ask mdean for the May 6 minutes [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-05-27]. 15:07:47 Chris: main objectives for F2F is to publish BLD and SWC as last Call docs 15:08:01 Chris: and move the other documents to next working draft 15:08:06 +Gary_Hallmark 15:09:02 Chris is discussing http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F10#Schedule_.26_Topics 15:09:10 Chris: aim to resolve decisions by am of 2nd day all for SWC and by end of second day for BLD 15:09:11 q+ 15:09:13 -Gary_Hallmark 15:09:25 Chris: may finish a little early on day 3 apart from editors 15:09:41 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:09:41 On the phone I see Harold, DaveReynolds, Sandro, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), ChrisW, LeoraMorgenstern, IgorMozetic (muted), AdrianP (muted), csma 15:10:02 q? 15:10:03 +Gary_Hallmark 15:10:10 Sandro: there has to be an official end time 15:10:17 Zakim, unmute me 15:10:17 AdrianP should no longer be muted 15:11:06 Chris: make 3pm official end time of day 3? 15:12:20 Chris: [after discussion] OK, so leave it as 5pm. 15:12:41 Zakim, mute me 15:12:41 AdrianP should now be muted 15:13:02 Chris: the topics have been up for a while but please review 15:13:10 ack me 15:13:23 q+ 15:13:38 -Hassan_Ait-Kaci 15:14:05 +Hassan_Ait-Kaci 15:14:07 Igor: why isn't FLD going to Last Call? 15:15:39 Igor, Michael and I were also quite surprise about FLD no longer being a on rec track. 15:15:48 Sandro: FLD is a little more open since no one will implement it directly and Last Call should focus on implementations 15:16:01 Chris: FLD hasn't had enough review and feedback yet 15:16:04 Soon we will need FLD for PRD. 15:16:22 (2nd instantiation) 15:16:37 hak -> harold : good luck ! ;-) 15:16:40 Igor: move UCR earlier in the agenda? 15:17:15 hak, at least what we need for CORE. 15:17:39 hak -> harold : yeah - even JUST that ... good luck ! ;-) 15:17:44 (a common core of FLD) 15:17:50 q? 15:17:54 ack ig 15:18:02 zakim, mute me 15:18:02 IgorMozetic should now be muted 15:18:41 TOPIC: Action Review 15:19:24 Action-452 is completed (will discuss at F2F) 15:19:24 yes, Igor sent a review for UCR 15:19:41 Action-434 closed 15:21:35 Action-470 closed - review scheduled on F2F 15:21:36 yes 15:23:04 TOPIC: Liason 15:23:08 action-470 closed 15:23:20 nothing 15:23:36 TOPIC: UCR 15:23:40 Zakim, unmute me 15:23:40 AdrianP should no longer be muted 15:23:42 zakim, mute me 15:23:42 csma should now be muted 15:25:04 Adrian: currently each use case describes scenario, motivation, requirements 15:25:16 Adrian: added concrete examples now that BLD syntax more stable 15:25:28 q+ on Presentation Syntax 15:25:33 Adrian: reviewers felt requirements and motivations are not so important and should be removed 15:25:50 q+ 15:25:53 q+ to say curie syntax seems wrong (uses "< ...>" which it should not) 15:25:59 Adrian: second question is whether the tailor the use cases to BLD, whereas currently they are more general - e.g. events 15:26:11 s/the tailor/to tailor/ 15:27:10 zakim, unmute me 15:27:10 csma should no longer be muted 15:27:29 csma: so would just keep the use cases in the document? 15:27:58 Adrian: compromise from Gary would be to compact the requirements into a smaller section separated from the use cases 15:28:09 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/0135.html 15:28:11 Compactifying the reqs is a good way to to go at this point. 15:28:20 Gary: just summarize them, get rid of the pictures and the two levels of goals/csf 15:29:13 Gary: drop "critical success factors" and drop the cross-links between the use cases and requirements (because they are uneven) 15:29:54 Gary: some of the links are a stretch and some are missing, just remove them 15:30:16 Chris: it is common to have such links, maybe they need to be more complete? 15:30:40 csma: remove one direction? Leave the motivated-by list but drop the forward links from the use cases? 15:30:54 JeffP has joined #rif 15:31:34 Chris: up to Adrian but if have the links one way it seems trivial to have them both ways 15:31:55 csma: the explanations are the problem - they are too uneven - drop the motivation explanation? 15:32:32 csma: in principle the motivation sections are a good thing but the current ones sometimes don't make sense 15:33:05 Adrian: the original idea of the motivations was to motivate different dialects but currently not clear 15:33:41 there is a terrible echo 15:33:41 Gary: the current very fine grained linkage is too much, would be happy to just have coarse grained link in the requirements section rather than point by point justification 15:34:04 Chris: loath to loose work we've already done, the current structure was a result of previous reviews 15:34:17 I agree with Chris 15:34:19 zakim, unmute me 15:34:19 IgorMozetic should no longer be muted 15:34:27 q? 15:34:34 we don't loose the requirements if we only delete the motivates section 15:34:41 Igor: agrees that the motivates sections and links got in the way. 15:34:47 q+ 15:35:10 Igor: would also drop the critical success factors 15:35:18 q- 15:35:33 Igor: the requirements are self-evident and don't need individual use case links 15:35:53 Igor: would drop both the motivates section on each UC and the whole requirements section so UCR -> UC 15:36:40 I agree with Gary's 'summary-reqs' proposal. 15:36:43 Gary: abbreviate the requirements section but leave it in would be OK, just drop the links and separate motivates sections, summary where we are on requirements and which have been met or not 15:37:07 Chris: as a process matter it may be pretty difficult to completely get rid of the requirements section 15:37:14 +1 with Garry 15:37:39 Use Case and Requirements somehow belong together 15:38:01 Sandro: could put the deleted bits (motivates text, critical success factors) into some design analysis document? 15:38:22 Sandro: the last published version of UCR didn't have the motivates sections, though did have the critical success factors 15:38:54 ack csma 15:39:06 It would be good if it were well done. 15:39:12 The problem is that it is uneven. 15:40:05 csma: need to keep the specific requirements, e.g. the implement-by-translators 15:40:38 Chris: but could take some of the goals section and summarize as an intro paragraph to the requirements section 15:40:41 q+ 15:40:49 zakim, mute me 15:40:49 IgorMozetic should now be muted 15:41:31 Chris: so actions are remove motivates section from use cases, remove goals section and try to summarize as an intro to the requirements section 15:41:36 Process-wise, can we point out into W3C wiki pages from W3C publications? 15:41:49 Chris: what about RIFRAF? 15:42:00 q- 15:42:15 zakim, unmute me 15:42:15 IgorMozetic should no longer be muted 15:42:20 Gary: reads like an outline of some future document, not clear enough as it stands 15:42:30 Igor: RIFRAF should go out, didn't find it relevant 15:43:15 zakim, mute me 15:43:15 IgorMozetic should now be muted 15:44:30 Chris: several of the requirements use the word "cover" which was hard to pin down. If take out coverage section maybe reword those requirements, use some more informal word like "supports"? 15:44:46 Sandro: not a change to make lightly 15:45:18 q? 15:45:19 Adrian: should have it before the F2F 15:45:40 15:45:53 Sandro: misusing the presentation syntax, <> around curis, just get rid of the <> 15:47:05 -Gary_Hallmark 15:47:15 Adrian: have to update the examples with latest change, also to have more frame logic examples 15:47:31 TOPIC: XML Style 15:47:40 zakim, who is on the call> 15:47:40 I don't understand 'who is on the call>', sandro 15:47:42 zakim, who is on the call? 15:47:42 On the phone I see Harold, DaveReynolds, Sandro, ChrisW, LeoraMorgenstern, IgorMozetic (muted), AdrianP, csma, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted) 15:48:01 ack csma 15:48:11 ack sandro 15:48:11 sandro, you wanted to say curie syntax seems wrong (uses "< ...>" which it should not) 15:48:21 Present: Harold, DaveReynolds, Sandro, ChrisW, LeoraMorgenstern, IgorMozetic, AdrianP, csma, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Gary 15:48:48 Zakim, mute me 15:48:48 AdrianP should now be muted 15:48:59 STRAWPOLL: The XML syntax for BLD should avoid abbreviations, using eg Variable instead of Var 15:49:02 q+ 15:49:14 (Sandro, I am on IRC) 15:49:31 (Sandro, I am on IRC) 15:49:32 ack harold 15:49:53 q+ 15:50:04 Harold: we talked about Const vs Constant, at great length. We can't just say "Constant" for the mathematical set. 15:50:19 q? 15:50:27 ack csma 15:51:03 csma: the terms "Var" and "Const" are VERY WIDELY used. But "Pred" vs "Predicate" is a better example. 15:51:05 q+ 15:51:14 csma: Const and Var are sufficiently common that they are not good examples, Pred etc are less common 15:51:14 +1 with csam 15:51:17 ack hassan 15:51:18 q+ 15:51:20 ack Hassan 15:51:32 +1 with csam 15:51:51 s/csam/csma 15:52:01 Hassan: doesn't follow the argument for e.g. Const v. Constant, why not call it by it's full name? 15:52:13 +1 with calling Const 'foobar' instead 15:52:20 q? 15:52:24 ack harold 15:52:39 zakim, mute me 15:52:39 csma should now be muted 15:52:53 +Gary_Hallmark 15:52:56 q+ 15:53:24 Harold: but even for Hassan "op" was OK because it is so common, similarly "Const" is similarly a kind of symbol but if you spell it out as "Constant" it can't be used in a math text 15:53:30 ack csma 15:54:21 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 15:54:25 csma: if we agree some can be abbreviated because those abbreviations are so common we then have a problem that we have to decide case by case which ones to use - it would be easier to just do one or other everywhere 15:54:29 zakim, mute me 15:54:29 csma should now be muted 15:54:30 "Constant" sounds like it almost comes from physics 15:55:15 1: Use abbreviations everywhere 15:55:26 2: Use full names everywhere (no abbrevs) 15:55:41 3: Use abbrevs when common/familiar 15:56:02 q+ 15:56:03 4: Decide on a case by case by basis 15:56:11 sure, WTF... 15:56:20 wrt 3: who decides what is common or familiar? 15:56:50 op. 3 creates process issues 15:57:02 I'll ask my kids what the cool new text abbrevs are, lol 15:57:04 Harold: can't vote for 1, because e.g. that would mean using "declare" instead of "dec" 15:57:11 ack csma 15:57:14 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:57:14 On the phone I see Harold, DaveReynolds, Sandro, ChrisW, LeoraMorgenstern, IgorMozetic (muted), AdrianP (muted), csma, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), Gary_Hallmark 15:57:19 q+ 15:57:26 ack csma 15:57:29 ack harold 15:57:40 q+ to ask Harold why we can't use "Constant" 15:58:29 csma: case 1 is "allow" rather than force abbreviations everywhere [scribe couldn't follow the point] 15:59:03 Sandro: why can't we use the world "Constant" in the mathematical English? 15:59:08 "Constant" as in fine-structure constant, sorry, difficult to accept 15:59:33 Harold: because want to be able to write the maths without font switches so the words have to separable form the rest of the text 15:59:39 there is a distiction between definabel and computable constants 15:59:42 Harold: the term "Constant" when it occurs in the text doesn't stand out as a symbol. 16:00:35 ??? 16:00:39 Harold: better to use a new word for the name of a set to make the semantics text clearer 16:00:39 q? 16:00:39 The point was just that allowing abbrev did not mean allowing aliases: if we abbreviate "declare" as , the tag does not exist (as Harold seemed to suggest) 16:00:50 Chris: paraphrasing Harold: It's better to use a new made-up word, instead of re-use an existing word, for sets in the semantics. 16:00:55 zakim, mute me 16:00:55 csma should now be muted 16:00:57 q+ 16:00:57 ack sandro 16:00:58 sandro, you wanted to ask Harold why we can't use "Constant" 16:01:22 ++++1 with Dave 16:01:33 q+ 16:01:38 +1 with Dave 16:01:42 DaveReynolds: but isn't this question about the XML? I don't need the mathematical english to use the same word as the XML syntax tag. 16:01:50 q+ to suggest rif:Constant 16:01:59 ack DaveReynolds 16:02:00 ack DaveReynolds 16:02:05 ack Harold 16:02:21 Harold: to simplify the mapping of the semantics to the syntax, so using the same word is simpler 16:02:32 q+ 16:02:37 s/so // 16:02:43 there are also other arguements for abbreviations 16:02:44 ack sandro 16:02:44 sandro, you wanted to suggest rif:Constant 16:03:18 Sandro: one trick is to put a prefix in the mathematical english, e.g. rif:Constant 16:03:38 ack hassan 16:03:42 q? 16:03:49 Harold: Michael probably wouldn't like namespaces in the maths 16:04:13 Hassan: worry about making the XML tags depend on the symbols in the grammar, grammars are not unique 16:04:17 q+ 16:05:16 Hassan: Harold wants a direct map from BNF the XML tags, but then the XML depends on the BNF grammar - the grammar is not canonical, it is the language which is canonical 16:05:50 abbreviated XML tags are more compact -> e.g. creates less traffic on the wire if RIF rule sets are interchanged 16:06:01 that can be critical for practical scalable applications 16:06:04 q? 16:06:08 Hassan: which is why annotations are commonly used 16:06:47 q+ 16:07:11 Harold: XML grammars have sort of visible non-terminals, some of our non-terminals don't appear (TERM) and some (Const) appear, classical tools don't make that distinction 16:07:29 [let's wrap this up with a quick strawpoll. I think we've gotten a better sense of the issue.] 16:07:43 q+ 16:07:52 STRAWPOLL: The XML for BLD should be changed to avoid abbreviations, using eg Variable instead of Var 16:08:21 Hassan: the grammar might evolve in ways which don't preserve the conventions, by separating the grammar and the XML we allow more flexibility 16:09:28 STRAWPOLL: The XML for BLD should be changed to avoid abbreviations, using eg Variable instead of Var 16:09:39 0 16:09:40 0 16:09:41 -1 16:09:44 -1 16:09:47 -1 (I like option 3) 16:09:51 -1 16:09:53 +0 16:10:00 -1 16:10:01 0^100^100 16:10:02 0 16:10:11 0 i guess - I'd like to use more English words in PS and XML 16:10:35 I think it would be silly to diverge XML and PS 16:12:02 abbreviations should be of course meaningful 16:12:14 Rigid RDF [13] VS concise XML [14] (and all in between) 16:12:39 I care about XML being Rigid RDF 16:12:52 s/XML/RIF XML/ 16:13:18 +1 to Gary 16:13:21 STRAWPOLL: Who is interested in using rigid RDF for the BLD serialization format? 16:13:23 What is that - rigid RDF? 16:13:39 q+ 16:13:46 ack hassan 16:13:57 zakim, mute hassan 16:13:57 Hassan_Ait-Kaci should now be muted 16:13:57 Gary: seems like we are nearly there anyway, if it is a minor change, it would at least give us a justification to point to 16:14:14 ack harold 16:14:26 ...disadvantages: 16:14:27 * it makes the XML syntax even more verbose 16:14:27 * the elements from the RDF namespace can be confusing, even 16:14:27 off-putting (especially to people who are allergic to RDF) 16:14:27 * it prevents us from making arbitrary (non-striped) XML constructs 16:14:27 that might be useful and elegant. 16:14:29 * it's a course change, late in the day 16:14:43 Sandro: [describes Rigid RDF as expressed in the email thread] 16:15:16 ack csma 16:15:20 q+ 16:15:35 Harold: Some people don't want the little bits of the rdf namespace. 16:15:37 ack csma 16:15:37 @Gary, I do not understand that "justfication" point. Any _syntactic_ mention of RDF makes RIF dependent on RDF 16:15:42 Chris: Who? Where? Are they on the WG? 16:16:00 The Web Services community (all in XML) doesn't want dependency on rdf name space. 16:16:02 Harold: some production rule folks don't even want namespace dependencies like having rdf: 16:16:02 We are using RDF in JRules 16:16:07 zakim, who is on the call? 16:16:08 On the phone I see Harold, DaveReynolds, Sandro, ChrisW, LeoraMorgenstern, IgorMozetic (muted), AdrianP (muted), csma, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), Gary_Hallmark 16:16:46 csma: doesn't mind about that, rigid RDF does not require knowledge of RDF 16:17:08 Gary: agreed namespaces have been in XML tools for ages, that's simply not an issue 16:18:15 Chris: this is XML not RDF 16:18:34 Harold: thought the current XML, since it is fully striped, is all we need 16:18:58 Sandro: not quite, e.g. handling of datatypes in consts 16:18:59 STRAWPOLL: Who is interested in using rigid RDF for the BLD serialization format? 16:19:21 q? 16:19:34 Harold: OWL2 uses XML and then has mapping to RDF, propose doing same for RIF 16:19:35 Could someone summarize the downsides of using rigid RDF? 16:19:55 they were put into the irc above by Harold 16:19:56 Sandro: that is proposed but not agreed, the normative piece is the functional syntax 16:20:04 I do not want even to face my managers if I even mention RDF 16:20:23 ...in any shape or form 16:21:12 +1 for rigid rdf (I have nothing really for or against RDF. If our customers want it, we'll be happy to sell them some) 16:21:24 Sandro: pretty neutral, but one additional argument - fallback processing seems easier to write in RIF than XSLT and then in turn is easier in the Rigid RDF 16:21:50 Thanks, Chris. 16:21:57 Alex, you will not have to mention RDF. Somewhere deep inside a RIF document, sometimes, there might be a reference to the RDF namespace... 16:22:07 STRAWPOLL: Who is interested in using rigid RDF for the BLD serialization format? 16:22:15 +0.5 16:22:17 +0.5 16:22:18 -1 16:22:21 -1 16:22:29 0 16:22:30 -csma 16:22:31 -1 16:22:32 -AdrianP 16:22:32 All these problems again are caused by dependence on the grammar .... 16:22:33 0 16:22:35 +1 16:22:47 I'm going to lose all support here even of RDF is mentioned 16:22:52 I just got cut off by Zakim... 16:22:56 *if 16:23:01 and we should not map to rdf datatypes 16:23:13 Alex, RDF will NOT be mentionned 16:23:19 AlexKozlenkov, it's very frustrating that you're on IRC but NOT the call..... 16:23:21 I also was thrown out 16:23:38 calling back AdrianP 16:23:43 -1 (from Michael) 16:24:04 +1 16:24:35 +csma 16:24:55 Alex, mere use of the rdf namespace does not commit you to rdf any more than having an rdf mapping to frames commits you to rdf 16:25:12 I understand that the cost is near zero, and I heard people saying they found it useful 16:25:18 PR people, btw... 16:25:19 testing 16:25:21 XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes are very well known in many communities but I don't think that people want to read about RDF datatypes if they don't care about RDF 16:25:40 it seems like an entirely unnecessary sneaking of RDF via back door 16:25:45 We already have RDF datatypes, btw... 16:26:03 + +49.351.6.aadd 16:26:15 Zakim, aadd is me 16:26:15 +AdrianP; got it 16:26:21 Zakim, mute me 16:26:21 AdrianP should now be muted 16:26:31 Harold, you have already the RDF namespace in BLD 16:26:40 Sandro: Harold -- are there any technical reasons? Or is this solely marketing reasons? 16:26:51 zakim, unmute me 16:26:51 csma was not muted, csma 16:26:59 # rdf:XMLLiteral 16:26:59 # rif:text 16:27:01 For me, web services is key, I cannot see RDF making it there--at all 16:27:14 harold, there is nothing really to "buy into" 16:27:38 [Not as scribe] - Alex the proposal is not RDF but XML, there is zero impact on web services 16:27:39 all web services use namespaces 16:27:49