IRC log of rif on 2008-09-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:46:25 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
14:46:25 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:47:07 [csma]
Regrets: DaveReynolds
14:47:24 [csma]
list agenda
14:47:53 [csma]
zakim, close agenda
14:47:53 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'close agenda', csma
14:48:13 [csma]
zakim, clear agenda
14:48:13 [Zakim]
agenda cleared
14:49:00 [csma]
agendum+ Admin
14:49:17 [csma]
agendum+ liaisons
14:49:27 [csma]
agendum+ Publicity
14:49:45 [csma]
agendum+ Actions review
14:50:00 [csma]
agendum+ F2F11
14:50:11 [csma]
agendum+ Core
14:50:26 [csma]
agendum+ PRD
14:50:34 [csma]
agendum+ Test Cases
14:50:53 [csma]
agendum+ DTB
14:51:01 [csma]
agendum+ AOB
14:51:09 [csma]
agendum+ Pick scribe!
14:57:38 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #rif
14:58:11 [ChrisW]
zakim, list agenda?
14:58:11 [Zakim]
I see 11 items remaining on the agenda:
14:58:12 [Zakim]
1. Admin [from csma]
14:58:12 [Zakim]
2. liaisons [from csma]
14:58:14 [Zakim]
3. Publicity [from csma]
14:58:14 [Zakim]
4. Actions review [from csma]
14:58:15 [Zakim]
5. F2F11 [from csma]
14:58:15 [Zakim]
6. Core [from csma]
14:58:16 [Zakim]
7. PRD [from csma]
14:58:18 [Zakim]
8. Test Cases [from csma]
14:58:20 [Zakim]
9. DTB [from csma]
14:58:22 [Zakim]
10. AOB [from csma]
14:58:24 [Zakim]
11. Pick scribe! [from csma]
14:58:26 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
14:58:29 [Zakim]
14:58:31 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
14:58:31 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
14:58:38 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make logs public
14:58:48 [StuartTaylor]
StuartTaylor has joined #rif
14:58:51 [csma]
zakim, ??P51 is me
14:58:51 [Zakim]
+csma; got it
14:59:39 [YutingZhao]
YutingZhao has joined #rif
15:00:06 [Zakim]
15:00:35 [Hassan]
Hassan has joined #rif
15:01:19 [Zakim]
+ +1.734.276.aaaa
15:01:22 [Zakim]
15:01:27 [ChrisW]
zakim, ibm is temporarily me
15:01:30 [Zakim]
+ChrisW; got it
15:01:46 [Zakim]
15:01:48 [LeoraMorgenstern]
LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
15:01:49 [ChrisW]
zakim, aaaa is MikeDean
15:01:49 [Zakim]
+MikeDean; got it
15:01:55 [StellaMItchell]
StellaMItchell has joined #rif
15:01:57 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
15:02:10 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
15:02:26 [Zakim]
15:02:33 [Zakim]
15:02:57 [Zakim]
+ +39.047.101.aabb
15:03:01 [Zakim]
15:03:04 [Harold]
zakim, [NRCC] is me
15:03:06 [StellaMItchell]
zakim, ibm is temporarily me
15:03:11 [Zakim]
+Harold; got it
15:03:13 [Zakim]
+StellaMItchell; got it
15:03:17 [Zakim]
15:03:23 [Zakim]
15:03:28 [Zakim]
15:03:35 [Zakim]
- +39.047.101.aabb
15:03:54 [ChrisW]
Scribe: GaryHallmark
15:03:57 [Zakim]
+ +39.047.101.aacc
15:04:00 [csma]
Scribe: GARY hallmark
15:04:08 [ChrisW]
Scribe: GaryHallmark
15:04:15 [csma]
scribenick: GaryHallmark
15:04:23 [csma]
next item
15:04:52 [csma]
15:04:55 [AdrianP]
AdrianP has joined #rif
15:05:03 [csma]
PROPOSED: accept minutes of Aug 26
15:05:18 [csma]
RESOLVED: accept the minutes of Aug 26
15:05:54 [csma]
next item
15:06:12 [Zakim]
15:06:18 [Zakim]
15:07:07 [AdrianP]
Zakim, mute me
15:07:07 [Zakim]
AdrianP should now be muted
15:08:21 [GaryHallmark]
sandro: asks if anyone going to SWIG at W3 TP
15:08:52 [csma]
next item
15:08:59 [Harold]
At I made more precise one aspect from the minutes of Aug 26:
15:09:02 [Harold]
Do not use BCC (which can confuse mailing lists), but FWD all your targeted mailouts to (as the single, comprehensive, reliable archive), especially if they need to be w3c member confidential instead of public.
15:09:07 [ChrisW]
15:11:03 [StuartTaylor]
StuartTaylor has joined #rif
15:11:18 [AdrianP]
Zakim, unmute me
15:11:18 [Zakim]
AdrianP should no longer be muted
15:11:55 [GaryHallmark]
csma needs to send publicity emails
15:12:04 [GaryHallmark]
chrisw sent his emails
15:12:16 [josb]
Also, do not send to too many lists at the same time; some mailing lists will reject such mails
15:12:25 [GaryHallmark]
gary will send his emails today
15:13:04 [MichaelKifer]
MichaelKifer has joined #rif
15:13:11 [GaryHallmark]
adrian will send his
15:13:16 [AdrianP]
Zakim, mute me
15:13:16 [Zakim]
AdrianP should now be muted
15:13:45 [GaryHallmark]
harold sent 2/3
15:14:17 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:14:17 [Zakim]
On the phone I see csma, Sandro, MikeDean, ChrisW, Harold, LeoraMorgenstern, StellaMItchell, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), GaryHallmark, josb, AdrianP (muted), JeffP
15:14:40 [ChrisW]
zakim, JeffP is StuartTaylor
15:14:40 [Zakim]
+StuartTaylor; got it
15:15:09 [GaryHallmark]
stuart will remind Jeff to send pub email
15:15:28 [GaryHallmark]
sandro will send to open data
15:16:09 [StuartTaylor]
Zakim, YutingZhao is with StuartTaylor
15:16:09 [Zakim]
+YutingZhao; got it
15:16:59 [GaryHallmark]
harold: how do we monitor discussion on the targeted mailing lists?
15:17:26 [GaryHallmark]
csma: whoever posts should monitor the target list
15:18:10 [GaryHallmark]
sandro: and forward key points to rif-wg
15:19:04 [GaryHallmark]
... and respond promising fuller explanation pending internal RIF discussion
15:19:58 [GaryHallmark]
chrisw: don't need to fwd rants about semweb
15:20:56 [Zakim]
15:21:06 [ChrisW]
zakim, drop MichaelKifer
15:21:06 [Zakim]
MichaelKifer is being disconnected
15:21:08 [Zakim]
15:21:10 [sandro]
MichaelKifer, you brought this loud tone with you again.
15:21:20 [ChrisW]
MichaelKifer, the noise was unbearable
15:21:33 [AdrianP]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:21:33 [Zakim]
On the phone I see csma, Sandro, MikeDean, ChrisW, Harold, LeoraMorgenstern, StellaMItchell, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), GaryHallmark, josb, AdrianP (muted), StuartTaylor
15:21:37 [Zakim]
StuartTaylor has StuartTaylor, YutingZhao
15:21:51 [GaryHallmark]
harold: one reviewer questions why we don't talk about common logic
15:22:07 [Zakim]
15:22:14 [sandro]
tone again, MichaelKifer
15:22:20 [Zakim]
15:23:12 [GaryHallmark]
csma: asks Harold to draft text about CL and BLD
15:23:30 [sandro]
ACTION: Harold to draft text for BLD about relation to Common Logic, KIF, etc, as per O'Keefe comment.
15:23:30 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-570 - Draft text for BLD about relation to Common Logic, KIF, etc, as per O'Keefe comment. [on Harold Boley - due 2008-09-09].
15:23:48 [Zakim]
15:23:52 [sandro]
tone again, MichaelKifer
15:24:11 [ChrisW]
good one, jos
15:24:26 [ChrisW]
MichaelKifer, DON'T UNMUTE!!!!
15:24:37 [sandro]
15:24:44 [csma]
next item
15:25:34 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #rif
15:26:16 [AdrianP]
ok will do
15:26:26 [AdrianP]
15:26:27 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #rif
15:26:28 [AdrianP]
will do today
15:26:40 [Hassan]
15:29:50 [AdrianP]
Zakim, unmute me
15:29:50 [Zakim]
AdrianP should no longer be muted
15:29:56 [ChrisW]
axel - did you look at the PFPS response?
15:30:17 [ChrisW]
15:30:17 [AdrianP]
Zakim, mute me
15:30:17 [Zakim]
AdrianP should now be muted
15:30:30 [Zakim]
15:31:28 [AdrianP]
the action was about test cases for RIF
15:32:19 [csma]
next item
15:32:56 [GaryHallmark]
chrisw: need registration questionaire to know who is coming
15:33:12 [GaryHallmark]
sandro: what about meals, etc.?
15:34:19 [sandro]
ACTION: Sandro open a registration on attendance at F2F11
15:34:20 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-571 - Open a registration on attendance at F2F11 [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-09-09].
15:35:56 [csma]
next item
15:37:04 [Harold]
15:37:12 [GaryHallmark]
harold: summarizes work on Core
15:37:42 [GaryHallmark]
... some subset (probably not maximal) of PRD and BLD
15:38:18 [Harold]
15:39:01 [GaryHallmark]
.. e.g. no logical functions
15:39:25 [GaryHallmark]
... possibly no named arguments, only frames
15:39:45 [GaryHallmark]
... member and subclass is controversial
15:39:51 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
15:40:25 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:40:25 [Zakim]
On the phone I see csma, Sandro, MikeDean, ChrisW, Harold, LeoraMorgenstern, StellaMItchell, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), GaryHallmark, josb, AdrianP (muted), StuartTaylor,
15:40:29 [Zakim]
... MichaelKifer (muted), AxelPolleres
15:40:30 [Zakim]
StuartTaylor has StuartTaylor, YutingZhao
15:41:51 [GaryHallmark]
harold: least contention about removing named arg uniterns (nobody sorry to see them go)
15:42:06 [GaryHallmark]
15:42:51 [GaryHallmark]
harold: equality in conclusion should not be in core
15:44:16 [AxelPolleres]
note, there is some more awkwardness about equality for the abridged syntax here: if we allow < > >= etc. as shortcuts for builtins only where the datatypes match... what it '=' then?
15:44:46 [AxelPolleres]
adrian? opinions on that?
15:45:09 [GaryHallmark]
... we agreed abount no equality in head for core at prior f2f
15:46:16 [GaryHallmark]
chrisw: we need an issue for equality in core
15:46:41 [GaryHallmark]
15:46:52 [csma]
15:47:15 [ChrisW]
action: harold to open an issue on equality in core - explaining choices
15:47:15 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-572 - Open an issue on equality in core - explaining choices [on Harold Boley - due 2008-09-09].
15:47:23 [ChrisW]
Hmmmm, from F2F8: RESOLVED: Core will be what is currently called BLD with Equality removed, function terms removed, and perhaps safeness, and perhaps slotted terms. We will not get rid of BLD. (Ignoring editorial issues for now) Frames stay in core.
15:47:29 [GaryHallmark]
csma: issue 71 is about externals in core
15:48:10 [AxelPolleres]
15:48:32 [josb]
15:48:37 [GaryHallmark]
harold: may keep restricted equality to allow use of builtin functions and not have to invent pred:foo for all func:foo
15:49:46 [GaryHallmark]
csma: seems easier/better to keep restricted equality
15:49:56 [csma]
ack axel
15:50:01 [AdrianP]
yes, if we have predicates we need to define both a function and a predicate version for the built-ins
15:50:51 [josb]
15:50:54 [GaryHallmark]
axel: could say all functions come with a similar predicate
15:51:21 [csma]
ack josb
15:51:25 [GaryHallmark]
csma: doesn't that add to complexity of implementations
15:51:26 [MichaelKifer]
MichaelKifer has joined #rif
15:52:10 [GaryHallmark]
josb: equality in the body can always be rewritten and removed
15:52:23 [GaryHallmark]
... just repeat the function
15:52:25 [AdrianP]
Zakim, unmute me
15:52:25 [Zakim]
AdrianP should no longer be muted
15:52:40 [AdrianP]
then you would need to repeate the function call several times
15:52:52 [AdrianP]
because you can not bind the result to a variable
15:54:41 [AdrianP]
e.g. Datalog languages
15:54:55 [AdrianP]
e.g. homogenous Datalog + OWL languages
15:55:09 [GaryHallmark]
chrisw: these restrictions affect the subset of rules you can translate
15:55:24 [josb]
josb: either have equality in the body or not have it. Don't introduce a restricted form of equality.
15:55:37 [GaryHallmark]
... BLD doesn't correspond to a rule language
15:55:49 [AxelPolleres]
christian, chrisW these are exactly the two different viewpoints on Core: core as intersection or core as something that almost all languages implement.
15:55:57 [AxelPolleres]
or no?
15:56:12 [Hassan]
no - BLD is a *condition* language - not a *rule* language.
15:56:28 [Zakim]
15:56:43 [GaryHallmark]
csma: if core is smaller than any rule language, maybe it is too small
15:57:06 [josb]
15:57:30 [Harold]
Jos, how would you translate this? p(?x ?y) :- And( q(?x) ?y=func:numeric-add(?x ?x) )
15:57:55 [josb]
p(?x func:numeric-add(?x ?x)) :- And( q(?x) )
15:58:19 [Harold]
But I guess we don't want built-ins in the head.
15:58:25 [josb]
why not?
15:58:41 [josb]
built-in functions should be allowed in the head
15:59:02 [Hassan]
Jos: how do you unify/match interpreted functions in the head?
15:59:10 [GaryHallmark]
csma: when would one translate to Core instead of translating to BLD?
15:59:47 [josb]
Hassan, Harold's rule is equivalent to mine, so you process them in the same way
16:00:20 [Hassan]
equivalent is what sense?
16:00:29 [GaryHallmark]
chrisw: e.g BLD is too expressive for some rule languages, e.g. Jena
16:00:51 [josb]
they have the same models
16:01:18 [AxelPolleres]
restricted equality = assignment?
16:01:34 [GaryHallmark]
csma: agrees Core would be used for languages less expressive than BLD
16:01:38 [Hassan]
so you are proposing some sort of canoncal rep. for Horn rules?
16:01:40 [csma]
16:01:45 [Harold]
Jos, about Hassan's point: how would you avoid that users get confused (if we allowed the same in BLD) between constructors in the head and evaluated functions in the head?
16:01:53 [Hassan]
16:02:00 [josb]
16:02:01 [AdrianP]
Zakim, mute me
16:02:01 [Zakim]
AdrianP should now be muted
16:02:03 [AxelPolleres]
I don't understand why assignment in the body is not assignment
16:02:04 [Hassan]
16:03:09 [Harold]
From table in 7.1:
16:03:10 [Harold]
Remark: under discussion; Core might have frames and user predicates plus built-in predicates, or frames and built-in predicates, or frames, user predicates, and built-in functions (with restricted equality), or frames and built-in functions (with restricted equality)
16:03:12 [josb]
Hassan, I'm just saying we need to choose between yes/no allowing equality in the body, and not introduce some silly restricted kind of equality
16:03:43 [josb]
16:04:01 [ChrisW]
16:05:16 [GaryHallmark]
note that some rule languages, e.g. Jena and OBR, do not have user predicates
16:06:14 [AdrianP]
Zakim, unmute me
16:06:14 [Zakim]
AdrianP should no longer be muted
16:06:34 [AdrianP]
I think we need predicates in PRD, e.g. for CLIPS like languages
16:07:08 [AdrianP]
Zakim, mute me
16:07:08 [Zakim]
AdrianP should now be muted
16:07:45 [csma]
16:09:25 [ChrisW]
proposed resolution for next week: no named argument uniterms in CORE
16:09:40 [csma]
next item
16:10:21 [csma]
16:10:24 [csma]
16:10:35 [ChrisW]
Scribe: ChrisW
16:11:05 [ChrisW]
constructs for PRD: object creation
16:11:31 [ChrisW]
Gary: try something taht could be used for BLD also, skolem functions did not work
16:11:50 [ChrisW]
...probably there is no common solution
16:12:22 [ChrisW]
...special builtin requires all the quantified variables
16:12:35 [ChrisW]
...variable arity - too much burden on prules
16:13:16 [ChrisW] proposed some syntax with keyword "new" and the name of a type/class
16:13:21 [ChrisW]
...with slots and values
16:14:01 [MichaelKifer]
MichaelKifer has joined #rif
16:14:04 [ChrisW]
...would be equivalent to BLD frame syntax
16:14:09 [csma]
New ::= 'New' CLASS '[' (TERM '->' TERM)* ']'
16:14:47 [AdrianP]
Zakim, unmute me
16:14:47 [Zakim]
AdrianP should no longer be muted
16:15:06 [ChrisW]
Adrian: in priciple this is like a constructor
16:15:56 [Hassan]
a constructor is *not* interpreted - a builtin function symbol *is*
16:16:36 [ChrisW]
...and should be a builtin
16:16:45 [ChrisW]
csma: how would that work in PRD
16:17:12 [ChrisW]
AdrianP: i'm thinking of it like a language where you can create objects dynamically at run-time
16:18:10 [csma]
16:18:34 [MichaelKifer]
the new builtin or a function symbol act differently from object creation in PR systems. In particular, multiple invocation of the same new will give the same new object.
16:18:38 [ChrisW] what is the semantics of NEW - does it behave that way? Could you use it for mapping constructor calls?
16:19:10 [ChrisW]
GaryHallmark: i intend the semantics to be the same as if you replaced it in logic with a conjunction of
16:19:39 [ChrisW]
...frames and membership
16:19:55 [MichaelKifer]
new is just a builtin relation n+1 args that is supposed to be interpreted by a 1-1 function from D^n -> D.
16:24:42 [ChrisW]
csma: thinking about using exists with new
16:25:58 [AdrianP]
?X = javal.lang.String("abc")
16:26:04 [ChrisW]
GaryHallmark: like a predicate where you pass in a variable to be bound to the new object?
16:26:31 [AdrianP]
Zakim, mute me
16:26:31 [Zakim]
AdrianP should now be muted
16:26:45 [ChrisW]
csma: anyway, "new" makes sense but should be able to use the new object in the action list
16:27:04 [ChrisW]
GaryHallmark: Yes, but we don't have any notion of binding in the conclusion
16:27:16 [ChrisW]
csma: that's why I was thinking of using exists
16:27:32 [ChrisW]
GaryHallmark: but if you use exists in the conclusion you don't need new
16:28:14 [ChrisW]
...maybe you can use equality?
16:28:25 [ChrisW]
zakim, list agenda
16:28:25 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
16:28:26 [Zakim]
7. PRD [from csma]
16:28:26 [Zakim]
8. Test Cases [from csma]
16:28:27 [Zakim]
9. DTB [from csma]
16:28:27 [Zakim]
11. Pick scribe! [from csma]
16:29:02 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: Extend meeting for 5 minutes
16:29:19 [ChrisW]
to discuss one last PRD topic
16:29:58 [ChrisW]
GaryHallmark: user-defined predicates and frames, the latter correspond to the rdf data model
16:30:13 [ChrisW] business rules don't support either
16:30:24 [ChrisW]
...more aligned with e.g. javabeans
16:30:39 [sandro]
Yes, the OO model is different from the RDF/Frame/Relational model.
16:31:21 [Zakim]
16:31:25 [ChrisW]
...more common to have a "slot" that can have only a single value
16:31:40 [ChrisW] any new value would "change" the value of the slot
16:31:43 [sandro]
I wonder how Oracle deals with this difference between Beans and Databases.....
16:31:53 [sandro]
16:32:06 [ChrisW]
...frames seem like the more likley place to map from javabeans
16:32:22 [ChrisW]
...but not a perfect match
16:32:22 [Hassan]
With the JDBC?
16:32:53 [Hassan]
(this answers Sandro's question)
16:32:57 [ChrisW]
csma: yes they are different, but what is the impact on PRD? What about using retract/assert?
16:33:10 [AdrianP]
but then we would need to define actions as atomic
16:33:11 [csma]
ack sandro
16:33:43 [AdrianP]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:33:43 [Zakim]
On the phone I see csma, Sandro, ChrisW, Harold, LeoraMorgenstern, StellaMItchell, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), GaryHallmark, josb, AdrianP (muted), StuartTaylor, AxelPolleres
16:33:46 [Zakim]
StuartTaylor has StuartTaylor, YutingZhao
16:33:52 [ChrisW]
sandro: isn't this difference (objects vs. relations) already dealt with in ORM?
16:34:18 [Zakim]
16:34:27 [AxelPolleres]
update can only be delete old value, add new val per frame, that is your problem?
16:34:39 [Hassan]
16:35:02 [ChrisW]
GaryHallmark: would be nice to have teh same semantics for frames so Core is common, so can you embed the differences as more rules (what I meant by "frame axioms")
16:35:07 [sandro]
16:35:59 [ChrisW]
...maybe we can talk about "embedding" these axioms in PRD
16:36:52 [ChrisW]
zakim, list attendees
16:36:52 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been csma, Sandro, +1.734.276.aaaa, ChrisW, MikeDean, LeoraMorgenstern, +39.047.101.aabb, Harold, StellaMItchell, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, GaryHallmark,
16:36:55 [Zakim]
... +39.047.101.aacc, josb, AdrianP, StuartTaylor, YutingZhao, MichaelKifer, AxelPolleres
16:36:55 [Hassan]
+1 to adjourn
16:36:56 [Zakim]
16:36:58 [AdrianP]
16:37:00 [Zakim]
16:37:01 [Zakim]
16:37:04 [Zakim]
16:37:09 [Zakim]
16:37:11 [Zakim]
16:37:13 [Zakim]
16:37:18 [ChrisW]
Regrets: DaveReynolds
16:37:20 [csma]
rrsagent, make log public
16:37:22 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
16:37:24 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:37:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
16:37:42 [Zakim]
16:37:43 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:37:43 [Zakim]
On the phone I see csma, Sandro, ChrisW
16:37:47 [csma]
zakim, who is on the call
16:37:47 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is on the call', csma
16:38:00 [sandro]
Hassan, is your sense that JDBC *solves* the OR impedence mismatch?
16:39:23 [Zakim]
16:39:25 [Zakim]
16:39:27 [Zakim]
16:39:29 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
16:39:30 [Zakim]
Attendees were csma, Sandro, +1.734.276.aaaa, ChrisW, MikeDean, LeoraMorgenstern, +39.047.101.aabb, Harold, StellaMItchell, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, GaryHallmark, +39.047.101.aacc, josb,
16:39:32 [Zakim]
... AdrianP, StuartTaylor, YutingZhao, MichaelKifer, AxelPolleres