IRC log of rif on 2008-06-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:24:46 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
14:24:46 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/06/03-rif-irc
14:24:53 [ChrisW]
zakim, this will be rif
14:24:53 [Zakim]
ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 36 minutes
14:25:10 [ChrisW]
Meeting: RIF Telecon 3-Jun-08
14:25:17 [ChrisW]
Chair: Christian de Sainte-Marie
14:25:44 [ChrisW]
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Jun/0001.html
14:25:58 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has changed the topic to: 3 June RIF Telecon Agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Jun/0001.html
14:26:17 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
14:26:17 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/03-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
14:26:27 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make logs public
14:27:36 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Admin
14:27:41 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Liason
14:27:49 [ChrisW]
agenda+ F2F10 debrief
14:27:55 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Action review
14:28:04 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Publication planning
14:28:09 [ChrisW]
agenda+ F2F11
14:28:13 [ChrisW]
agenda+ UCR
14:28:16 [ChrisW]
agenda+ AOB
14:47:16 [csma]
csma has joined #rif
14:47:38 [csma]
list agenda
14:53:39 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
14:58:50 [Hassan]
Hassan has joined #rif
14:59:29 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
14:59:36 [Zakim]
+??P19
14:59:40 [csma]
zakim, ??P19 is me
14:59:40 [Zakim]
+csma; got it
15:00:21 [Zakim]
+[NRCC]
15:00:57 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
15:01:19 [Zakim]
+ +39.047.101.aaaa
15:01:38 [StellaMitchell]
StellaMitchell has joined #rif
15:02:08 [mdean]
mdean has joined #rif
15:02:22 [Zakim]
+[IBM]
15:02:24 [LeoraMorgenstern]
LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
15:02:29 [ChrisW]
zakim, ibm is temporarily me
15:02:33 [Zakim]
+ChrisW; got it
15:02:58 [Zakim]
+??P38
15:03:02 [Zakim]
+Mike_Dean
15:03:08 [Zakim]
+[IBM]
15:03:10 [IgorMozetic]
IgorMozetic has joined #rif
15:03:12 [Zakim]
+LeoraMorgenstern
15:03:28 [Harold]
zakim, [NRCC] is me
15:03:30 [Zakim]
+Harold; got it
15:03:42 [StellaMitchell]
zakim, ibm is temporarily me
15:03:42 [Zakim]
+StellaMitchell; got it
15:03:58 [Zakim]
+??P52
15:04:02 [Zakim]
+Sandro
15:04:10 [csma]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:04:10 [Zakim]
On the phone I see csma, Harold, josb, ChrisW, Mike_Dean, Hassan (muted), StellaMitchell, LeoraMorgenstern, ??P52, Sandro
15:04:18 [IgorMozetic]
zakim, ??P52 is me
15:04:18 [Zakim]
+IgorMozetic; got it
15:04:29 [IgorMozetic]
zakim, mute me
15:04:29 [Zakim]
IgorMozetic should now be muted
15:04:38 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sure
15:04:40 [LeoraMorgenstern]
I can scribe
15:04:48 [ChrisW]
Scribe: LeoraMorgenstern
15:04:56 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:04:56 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Admin" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:05:11 [csma]
list agendum
15:05:14 [ChrisW]
zakim, list agendum
15:05:14 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'list agendum', ChrisW
15:05:17 [ChrisW]
zakim, list agenda
15:05:17 [Zakim]
I see 8 items remaining on the agenda:
15:05:18 [Zakim]
1. Admin [from ChrisW]
15:05:18 [Zakim]
2. Liason [from ChrisW]
15:05:20 [Zakim]
3. F2F10 debrief [from ChrisW]
15:05:20 [Zakim]
4. Action review [from ChrisW]
15:05:21 [Zakim]
5. Publication planning [from ChrisW]
15:05:21 [Zakim]
6. F2F11 [from ChrisW]
15:05:22 [Zakim]
7. UCR [from ChrisW]
15:05:24 [Zakim]
8. AOB [from ChrisW]
15:05:28 [csma]
drop agendum 6
15:05:36 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: I am removing F2F11 from the agenda, since there are some things that need to be figured out further.
15:05:42 [csma]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/att-0154/rif-minutes-20052008.html
15:05:48 [LeoraMorgenstern]
PROPOSED: Accept minutes of 5-20-08
15:05:58 [IgorMozetic]
+1
15:06:15 [LeoraMorgenstern]
RESOLVED: Accept minutes of 5-20-08 as published on mailing list
15:06:20 [csma]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/att-0184/2008-05-06-rif-minutes.html
15:06:52 [LeoraMorgenstern]
PROPOSED: Accept minutes of 5-06-08
15:07:02 [LeoraMorgenstern]
RESOLVED: Accept minutes of 5-06-08
15:07:30 [PaulVincent]
PaulVincent has joined #RIF
15:07:37 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: agenda amendment: In place of discussing F2F11, we'll discuss some public comments.
15:07:42 [ChrisW]
agenda+ public comments
15:07:51 [LeoraMorgenstern]
(Note to self: change dates of minutes to European format.)
15:07:59 [LeoraMorgenstern]
next item
15:08:12 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Liaison: Nothing new
15:08:23 [LeoraMorgenstern]
next item
15:08:31 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Zakim, no, now it's closed.
15:08:31 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'no, now it's closed', LeoraMorgenstern
15:08:37 [LeoraMorgenstern]
next item
15:08:47 [LeoraMorgenstern]
There is nothing new for liaison
15:08:49 [LeoraMorgenstern]
next item
15:09:25 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sorry, just dropped; will call in again.,
15:09:40 [csma]
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F10
15:09:50 [Zakim]
+LeoraMorgenstern.a
15:10:06 [LeoraMorgenstern]
next item
15:10:11 [LeoraMorgenstern]
F2F10
15:10:24 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Csma: we passed quite a number of resolutions
15:10:42 [LeoraMorgenstern]
on BLD and other docs
15:12:01 [LeoraMorgenstern]
resolved: to publish BLD and SWC (Owl-rdf document) as last call,
15:12:14 [LeoraMorgenstern]
ucr as 3rd wd, dtb and prd as first wd
15:12:43 [LeoraMorgenstern]
(get from wiki page)
15:13:02 [LeoraMorgenstern]
all of this subject to some editorial changes
15:13:56 [LeoraMorgenstern]
labelled a number of features in BLD as being at risk, such as equality being in the head (of rules)
15:14:42 [LeoraMorgenstern]
resolved to ask for 1-year extension.
15:14:53 [LeoraMorgenstern]
along with a work plan describing objectives.
15:15:11 [Zakim]
+Gary_Hallmark
15:15:14 [csma]
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Extension_Request_2008
15:15:58 [LeoraMorgenstern]
plan is to bring bld, swc, fld, dtb, to rec
15:17:22 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: we need to get people to work on prd. Not clear we have the staffing for this.
15:17:51 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: hopefully first published wd on prd will get people working on this.
15:18:04 [Harold]
Both Gary and AdrianP are interested to co-edit PRD.
15:18:08 [PaulVincent]
+1 yes I should get involved in PRD...
15:18:27 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:18:27 [Zakim]
On the phone I see csma, Harold, josb, ChrisW, Mike_Dean, Hassan (muted), StellaMitchell, LeoraMorgenstern, IgorMozetic (muted), Sandro, LeoraMorgenstern.a, Gary_Hallmark
15:18:32 [LeoraMorgenstern]
next item
15:19:30 [LeoraMorgenstern]
ACTION 517 on Jos to review FLD --- FLD not out yet
15:20:28 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Action 515 moved pending review
15:20:59 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: question on Gary's action for 514
15:21:15 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Action 515 completed pending review
15:21:55 [LeoraMorgenstern]
action 513 completed
15:22:02 [Zakim]
+??P57
15:22:09 [LeoraMorgenstern]
action 512 to review axel's change to dtb is continued
15:22:31 [LeoraMorgenstern]
action 510, 511 on csma are continued. (One is done but must be redone.)
15:22:50 [LeoraMorgenstern]
action 509 on Adrian and Gary: continued (version to be reviewed not out yet.)
15:23:45 [LeoraMorgenstern]
action 507 on csma to align syntax table between prd and bld awaiting for bld syntax to be frozen by Harold.
15:24:11 [LeoraMorgenstern]
action 506 on Michael to make editorial changes to dtb with links to bld ... not due for tomorrow.
15:24:24 [LeoraMorgenstern]
All Michael's actions due in 2-3 weeks.
15:25:08 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Action 505 on Sandro continued.
15:25:12 [Harold]
June 15
15:25:23 [Harold]
June 16
15:25:24 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Action 504 on Harold dontinued.
15:25:32 [LeoraMorgenstern]
s/dontinued/continued/
15:25:57 [LeoraMorgenstern]
all actions on Harold are continued
15:26:24 [LeoraMorgenstern]
action 495 on Adrian ???
15:27:05 [LeoraMorgenstern]
action 492 on csma to review changes to swc or dtb (?) continued
15:27:28 [LeoraMorgenstern]
action 491 on jos completed.
15:28:10 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Where is the url for the action tracker????
15:29:03 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Does anyone have the url for the action tracker/listing?
15:29:30 [IgorMozetic]
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/
15:30:32 [ChrisW]
action: sandro to review explanatory text in section 2 swc
15:30:32 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-518 - Review explanatory text in section 2 swc [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-06-10].
15:31:03 [LeoraMorgenstern]
action 480 on jos to add explanatory text to swc and reply to Dan's comment : completed.
15:31:13 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: Jos, did you get an answer from Dan?
15:31:18 [LeoraMorgenstern]
jos: Yes (?)
15:31:34 [josb]
I did not get an answer yet
15:31:44 [LeoraMorgenstern]
action 475 to look into mime registration on sandro: continued
15:32:17 [LeoraMorgenstern]
action 454 on Chris: continued
15:32:35 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:32:35 [Zakim]
On the phone I see csma, Harold, josb, ChrisW, Mike_Dean, Hassan (muted), StellaMitchell, LeoraMorgenstern, IgorMozetic (muted), Sandro, LeoraMorgenstern.a, Gary_Hallmark,
15:32:38 [Zakim]
... PaulVincent
15:33:03 [LeoraMorgenstern]
action 152 continued
15:33:07 [LeoraMorgenstern]
next item
15:33:11 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Publication planning
15:33:48 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: publication plan is on main page
15:34:08 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: what are new deadlines for all the documents?
15:34:27 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: is swc available now for review?
15:34:33 [LeoraMorgenstern]
jos: yes
15:34:46 [LeoraMorgenstern]
jos: available for review with exception of proofs and appendix.
15:35:05 [LeoraMorgenstern]
s/proofs and appendix/proofs in the appendix
15:35:20 [LeoraMorgenstern]
jos: should be done in by the end of the week
15:36:15 [LeoraMorgenstern]
jos: can only be frozen after bld and prd are finalized, because there are dependencies.
15:36:33 [josb]
s/prd/dtb/
15:36:34 [LeoraMorgenstern]
jos: but reviews can be done before then, subject to the constraints of the dependencies (marked in editor's notes)
15:37:06 [LeoraMorgenstern]
jos: I am trying to get Axel to review the proofs.
15:38:04 [LeoraMorgenstern]
s/dtd/dtb
15:38:41 [LeoraMorgenstern]
next item
15:40:16 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: not problem with Adrian's reorganization of text
15:40:29 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: but there are some use cases that I just don't like.
15:40:41 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: some have broken links, some have other problems.
15:40:51 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: in some cases, I have suggested (in an email) alternate wording
15:41:47 [sandro]
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/UCR#Requirements
15:41:59 [csma]
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/UCR#Requirements
15:42:24 [ChrisWelty]
ChrisWelty has joined #rif
15:42:57 [sandro]
Topic: 5.1.1 Implementability
15:43:15 [sandro]
I think we're meeting this.
15:43:40 [csma]
q?
15:43:58 [sandro]
Topic: 5.1.2 Semantic precision
15:44:56 [sandro]
BLD passes.
15:45:06 [sandro]
rif-core part unknown.
15:45:10 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: no problem with this, either, except for the fact that there's no real Core --- there's BLD now.
15:45:41 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: will there be text saying how we're doing on these requirements?
15:46:02 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: (agreeing with csma) may be expected, but we don't have to do them.
15:46:02 [Zakim]
-Gary_Hallmark
15:46:10 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: but we must have something to say in case someone asks.
15:46:27 [Zakim]
+Gary_Hallmark
15:46:27 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: where there's something to be said, it would be nice to make a comment. Must discuss with Adrian.
15:46:57 [sandro]
sandro: let's annotate the requirements with respect to where we are right now, maybe?
15:47:00 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: I disagree. Not a good idea at all.
15:47:03 [sandro]
csma: yeah, maybe
15:47:14 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
15:48:03 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: should make the doc crisper and shorter. To discuss in this doc how bld meets the requirements puts too much focus on bld. But to put it into the bld doc would make that unnecessarily long.
15:48:53 [sandro]
Topic: 5.1.3 Extensible Format
15:48:54 [LeoraMorgenstern]
topic 5.1.3. Extensible Format
15:49:56 [sandro]
It must be possible to create new RIF dialects which extend existing
15:49:56 [sandro]
dialects (providing backward compatibility) and are handled
15:49:56 [sandro]
gracefully by systems which support existing dialects (providing
15:49:56 [sandro]
forward compatibility).
15:50:30 [sandro]
change to: (thus providing ...)
15:50:34 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: I think my suggested change to the text of this requirement, pasted above, is clearer.
15:51:05 [PaulVincent]
Surely "fwd compatibility" is a requirement on the translator, not on RIF itself?
15:51:19 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: will propose resolution next week to change text as suggested.
15:52:36 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: (answering Paul) No, this is a requirement on RIF to say what RIF processing software does.
15:53:15 [Harold]
Re 5.1.3: In some sense, we now often specialize (FLD/FOL+ -> BLD -> Core) rather than extend (Core -> BLD -> FOL).
15:53:17 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Paul: sounds like a recommendation, not an enforceable requirement.
15:54:49 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Paul: really just a practicality issue, not a fundamental disagreement of the desirability of this requirement.
15:55:03 [PaulVincent]
-1 - vote now
15:55:24 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: let's just vote on this now, unless anyone wants more time.
15:55:32 [sandro]
PROPOSED: change text of 5.1.3 to: It must be possible to create new RIF dialects which extend existing dialects (thus providing backward compatibility) and are handled gracefully by systems which support existing dialects (thus providing forward compatibility).
15:55:40 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: no one seems to want more time.
15:55:46 [sandro]
+1
15:55:46 [GaryHallmark]
+1
15:56:03 [PaulVincent]
+1
15:56:19 [mdean]
+1
15:56:21 [IgorMozetic]
+1
15:56:25 [sandro]
RESOLVED: change text of 5.1.3 to: It must be possible to create new RIF dialects which extend existing dialects (thus providing backward compatibility) and are handled gracefully by systems which support existing dialects (thus providing forward compatibility).
15:56:30 [sandro]
Topic: 5.1.4 Translators
15:56:45 [sandro]
seems fine
15:56:51 [sandro]
doing fine
15:56:57 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: we're doing fine with this.
15:57:04 [sandro]
Topic: 5.1.5 Standard components
15:57:23 [sandro]
doing okay, I think
15:57:56 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: no problem, except for the fact that we don't have such an experience wiht implementation
15:58:20 [LeoraMorgenstern]
harold: (was it harold?) we are having this experience with ??? and doing fine.
15:58:34 [sandro]
Topic: 5.1.6 Rule language coverage
15:58:56 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: this requirement is problematic. We don't have this completed.
15:59:27 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: my thought on what this means is that RIF plus extensions must cover all widely deployed rules languages.
15:59:28 [Harold]
Re 5.1.4: We successfully use W3C's existing XSV validator for BLD's XML schema.
15:59:36 [josb]
and RDF/OWL extensions
16:00:19 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Harold, do you mean re 5.1.5?
16:00:55 [Harold]
Yes, sorry.
16:01:09 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Thanks, Harold.
16:01:21 [Harold]
s/Re 5.1.4:/Re 5.1.5:/
16:02:23 [sandro]
Drop 5.1.6? Or mark it as unattainable?
16:03:01 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Gary: need to weaken the text of 5.1.6
16:03:21 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Gary: but certainly 5.1.4 and 5.1.6 overlap
16:03:25 [sandro]
PROPOSED: drop coverage requirement 5.1.6, since we don't have RIFRAF.
16:03:36 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: the point of 5.1.6 is that we wanted to enumerate what we wanted to cover.
16:03:48 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: but we're not doing that. We don't have RIFRAF.
16:04:43 [sandro]
PROPOSED: drop coverage requirement 5.1.6, since we are not doing RIFRAF.
16:04:46 [sandro]
+1
16:04:52 [josb]
+1
16:04:53 [IgorMozetic]
+1
16:04:55 [PaulVincent]
-0
16:04:59 [LeoraMorgenstern]
-.5
16:05:10 [GaryHallmark]
+1
16:05:23 [LeoraMorgenstern]
That is, I think it's hard to attain, but I don't like the idea of dropping it entirely.
16:05:25 [mdean]
+ .5
16:06:11 [LeoraMorgenstern]
If we did have RIFRAF, we'd be forced to test the existing RIF on selected languages.
16:06:29 [Harold]
Gary, function symbols nested to any fixed depth only (hence, no recursion into these nestings) can theoretically be 'flattened'.
16:06:32 [LeoraMorgenstern]
And very likely, gaps in RIF would show up.
16:07:52 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Change text of 5.1.6 to: RIF standard dialects must cover the major shared features of all widely-deployed rule languages.
16:08:15 [sandro]
+1
16:08:15 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Sandro, will there be an enumeration of "all widely-deployed rule languages"?
16:08:20 [sandro]
no, LeoraMorgenstern
16:08:41 [LeoraMorgenstern]
So, how meaningful is this requirement?
16:08:53 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Will there be an enumeration of "major shared features"?
16:08:58 [sandro]
Jess and Prolog
16:09:01 [sandro]
:-)
16:09:12 [sandro]
Jess and Prolog and FOL.
16:09:15 [GaryHallmark]
Harold, yes, and Skolem functions, too. But lists won't work...
16:09:32 [PaulVincent]
Suggestion: RIF standard dialects must not exclude any rule language feature in any extensively deployed rule language ...
16:09:46 [Harold]
Jess and Prolog and F-logic :-)
16:10:27 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: should be : if there's a feature in at least two widely deployed rules languages, we should cover it.
16:10:43 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: but if it's only in one such language, maybe we don't need to cover it.
16:11:06 [sandro]
PROPOSED: For this next draft of UCR, change 5.1.6 to note that we're still working on this.
16:11:32 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: perhaps we should work on the text of this resolution for next week. (Comment made before Sandro's proposal above.)
16:11:42 [PaulVincent]
+1 and I can take an action to attempt suitable wording...
16:11:55 [ChrisWelty]
how about something like: To achieve widespread adoption, RIF dialects should cover shared features from many well-known rule languages
16:12:18 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: we don't want to refer to RIFRAF anyway
16:12:23 [LeoraMorgenstern]
s/anyway/anymore
16:12:50 [ChrisWelty]
+1 drop reference to RIFRAF
16:12:53 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: any objection to dropping any reference to RIFRAF?
16:13:01 [IgorMozetic]
+1 to drop RIFRAF
16:13:08 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: no objections, so that's what we'll do.
16:13:16 [sandro]
PROPOSED: For this next draft of UCR, add an editor's note to 5.1.6 to note that we're still working on how to define a coverage requirement. (unless we come up with some consensus text before publication)
16:13:45 [sandro]
+1
16:13:48 [IgorMozetic]
+1
16:13:51 [LeoraMorgenstern]
+1
16:13:52 [josb]
+1
16:13:53 [PaulVincent]
+1
16:13:54 [mdean]
+1
16:13:55 [GaryHallmark]
+1
16:13:59 [sandro]
RESOLVED: For this next draft of UCR, add an editor's note to 5.1.6 to note that we're still working on how to define a coverage requirement. (unless we come up with some consensus text before publication)
16:14:10 [sandro]
Topic: 5.2.1 Compliance model
16:14:11 [ChrisWelty]
:)
16:14:37 [sandro]
The RIF specifications must provide clear conformance criteria,
16:14:37 [sandro]
defining what is or is not a conformant RIF implementation.
16:15:25 [ChrisWelty]
its not a rephrasing, but it is more accurate for what we have
16:15:40 [sandro]
PROPOSED: rephrase 5.2.1 to: The RIF specifications must provide clear conformance criteria, defining what is or is not a conformant RIF implementation.
16:15:54 [sandro]
+1
16:16:12 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: it's not a rephrasing. It's a different requirement.
16:16:27 [sandro]
(shrug about "rephrasing". re-articulate? :-)
16:16:42 [sandro]
RESOLVED: rephrase 5.2.1 to: The RIF specifications must provide clear conformance criteria, defining what is or is not a conformant RIF implementation.
16:16:44 [IgorMozetic]
+1
16:16:48 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: passed by lack of objection
16:17:02 [sandro]
Topic: 5.2.2 Default behavior
16:17:54 [sandro]
as well as I understand this, it's part of fallbacks / forward compatibilty.
16:19:25 [sandro]
sandro: ah -- I see what this would be useful
16:19:27 [sandro]
Topic: 5.2.3 Different semantics
16:19:35 [sandro]
all good
16:19:43 [sandro]
Topic: 5.2.4 Embedded comments
16:19:46 [sandro]
all good :-)
16:19:53 [sandro]
Topic: 5.2.5 Embedded metadata
16:19:56 [sandro]
all good :-)
16:20:06 [sandro]
Topic: 5.2.6 Limited number of dialects
16:20:45 [sandro]
prefer "small" number
16:21:12 [sandro]
PROPOSED: in 5.2.6 change "limited" to "small"
16:21:12 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: objection to "limited" --> "small" ?
16:21:21 [sandro]
+1
16:21:27 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: I don't see much of a difference
16:21:35 [sandro]
Topic: 5.2.7 OWL data
16:22:21 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: take out reference to phase 1 semantics
16:22:44 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: phase 1 is defined in the charter
16:23:02 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: we've abandoned that
16:23:17 [GaryHallmark]
suggest changing Phase 1 to RIF
16:23:37 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: in fact, we haven't.
16:23:42 [LeoraMorgenstern]
next item
16:23:59 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Actually: this should be the public comments discussion.
16:24:12 [sandro]
Topic: Public Comments
16:24:22 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: when we responded to Peter's comments from last year, he responded to our response, and we never responded to that response.
16:24:55 [sandro]
Looking at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RIF_Working_Group
16:25:54 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Action on Jos to respond to Peter.
16:26:02 [sandro]
ACTION: jos to start work on response to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_PPS3
16:26:02 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - jos
16:26:02 [trackbot-ng]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jdebruij2, jderoo)
16:26:03 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Jos: can look at it by next week, but not necessarily to respond .
16:26:12 [sandro]
ACTION: jdebruiij2 to start work on response to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_PPS3
16:26:12 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - jdebruiij2
16:26:23 [sandro]
ACTION: jdebruij2 to start work on response to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_PPS3
16:26:27 [ChrisWelty]
ONE EYE
16:26:40 [sandro]
Topic: 5.2.8 RDF data
16:26:45 [sandro]
Topic: 5.2.9 Dialect Identification
16:27:48 [Harold]
Gary, finitely nested lists could also be flattened, somehow like this: p(a,[1,[2],3],c) => p(a,%L1,1,%L2,%L1,2,%L3,3,c), where %Li 'indexes' list elements.
16:28:02 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: would like to drop this, since it's confusing.
16:28:55 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: I know what we meant by it. We don't want to run into what we ran into with OWL.
16:29:04 [josb]
then, it is in both dialects
16:29:42 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: regarding integration with RDF.
16:30:09 [sandro]
sandro: if an implementation is labeled, and the label is used in deciding whether to process, then documents in the intersection are rejected when they should not be.
16:30:22 [sandro]
PROPOSED: extend meeting by 10 minutes
16:30:24 [LeoraMorgenstern]
let's continue next week:
16:30:32 [LeoraMorgenstern]
-1
16:30:35 [josb]
-1
16:30:38 [IgorMozetic]
-1
16:30:39 [PaulVincent]
-1
16:30:40 [Hassan]
-1
16:30:43 [mdean]
-1
16:30:56 [ChrisWelty]
+1 adjourn
16:30:57 [Zakim]
-Gary_Hallmark
16:30:58 [Zakim]
-Harold
16:31:01 [Zakim]
-Hassan
16:31:03 [Zakim]
-josb
16:31:03 [Zakim]
-Mike_Dean
16:31:05 [Zakim]
-StellaMitchell
16:31:06 [ChrisWelty]
zakim, list attendees
16:31:07 [sandro]
csma: restart at 5.2.9 Dialect Identification next week.
16:31:07 [Zakim]
-PaulVincent
16:31:08 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been csma, +39.047.101.aaaa, josb, ChrisW, Mike_Dean, LeoraMorgenstern, Harold, Hassan, StellaMitchell, Sandro, IgorMozetic, Gary_Hallmark,
16:31:10 [Zakim]
... PaulVincent
16:31:12 [Zakim]
-IgorMozetic
16:31:25 [ChrisWelty]
Regrets: AdrianPaschke DaveReynolds MichaelKifer MohamedZergaoui
16:31:31 [ChrisWelty]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:31:31 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/06/03-rif-minutes.html ChrisWelty
16:31:33 [josb]
+39.047.101.aaaa=josb
16:32:03 [Zakim]
-LeoraMorgenstern.a
16:32:04 [Zakim]
-LeoraMorgenstern
16:33:36 [ChrisWelty]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:33:36 [Zakim]
On the phone I see csma, ChrisW, Sandro
16:36:03 [Zakim]
-ChrisW
16:36:05 [Zakim]
-Sandro
16:36:07 [Zakim]
-csma
16:36:08 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
16:36:10 [Zakim]
Attendees were csma, +39.047.101.aaaa, josb, ChrisW, Mike_Dean, LeoraMorgenstern, Harold, Hassan, StellaMitchell, Sandro, IgorMozetic, Gary_Hallmark, PaulVincent
16:53:19 [csma]
csma has left #rif