RIF-PRD telecon Sept 16

16 Sep 2008


See also: IRC log






<csma> "/invite zakim #channel-name

<csma> "zakim, room for 5?

<Hassan> me zakim, unmute me

<Hassan> yes

resolved: csma chairs, we take turns scribing

I'll scribe now

<scribe> scribe: GaryHallmark

Architectural Principles

hassan: need a brainstorming kickoff to this taskforce
... e.g. why do we need (to start with) an xml schema?

csma: attendance is important!
... taskforce job is to make proposals, not to make decisions
... today we need to organize work for WD2 to have freeze before F2F


finish/polish the model-theory of conditions

hassan: semantics is hard to read
... (in latest wiki version)

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

hassan: unclear what the semantic structures are there for (confusing mix of denotational and operational)

csma: 1st WD was all operational, but did not define "matching theory" -- no links to DTB

now, we want a model-theory for the conditions but not for the rules

hassan: there will be extra-BLD condition constructs, e.g. aggregate, that must be added

should ask Michael how to do aggregates in FLD

<Harold> http://axel.deri.ie/~axepol/publications/poll-etal-2007.pdf

harold: aggregates could be added to DTB

<Harold> I'd like to have a version of aggregates both in PRD and BLD, perhaps via DTB.

<Harold> Aggregate can be semantically treated similarly to external builtins.

I believe that PRD and BLD conditions (not rules) agree on NAF

csma: will PRD and SWC fit?

<Harold> I agree perhaps PRD could be considered a superset of BLD (with only Asserts in conclusions).

<Harold> So RIF-SWC would agree on the BLD subset of PRD.

but BLD is not a subset of PRD - we are still searching for a non-empty CORE

<Harold> Depends on how big PRD will ultimately be.

does current spec have model theory for NAF?

<Harold> (Re aggregates, also see "Aggregate functions in DLV" http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi= and later DLV work).

csma: a bind or let construct makes it easier to specify no-repeat

<Harold> "bind", "let", "where" are equivalent variable-scoping constructs similar to quantifiers.

<Harold> They may also benefit an extension of BLD.

<Hassan> On aggregates and comprehensions: http://lambda.uta.edu/monoid.ps.gz

I will add "assert new" and "object delete" to PRD

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008/09/16 17:57:14 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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/comprehions/comprehensions/
Found Scribe: GaryHallmark
Inferring ScribeNick: GaryHallmark

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: GaryHallmark Hassan_Ait-Kaci NRCC aaaa csma harold hassan is perhaps
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Sep/0110.html

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Got date from IRC log name: 16 Sep 2008
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/09/16-rif-prd-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]