IRC log of rif on 2008-09-22

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:58:13 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #rif

14:58:14 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/22-rif-irc

14:58:24 [AxelPolleres]

AxelPolleres has joined #rif

14:58:36 [Harold]

Hi Axel!

14:58:37 [AxelPolleres]

Hi!

14:58:47 [AxelPolleres]

do we have the Core conf call now?

14:58:59 [AxelPolleres]

dial-in number as usual?

14:59:03 [Harold]

Can u try to join with the EU phone number?

14:59:16 [AxelPolleres]

the normal code?

14:59:18 [Harold]

Yes, try it.

15:00:09 [Harold]

zakim, who is here?

15:00:09 [Zakim]

sorry, Harold, I don't know what conference this is

15:00:10 [Zakim]

On IRC I see AxelPolleres, RRSAgent, Zakim, Harold, MoZ, trackbot

15:00:19 [DaveReynolds]

DaveReynolds has joined #rif

15:00:47 [Harold]

this is RIF-CORE

15:01:06 [Harold]

zakim, this is RIF-CORE

15:01:06 [Zakim]

sorry, Harold, I do not see a conference named 'RIF-CORE' in progress or scheduled at this time

15:01:16 [Harold]

zakim, this is RIF CORE

15:01:16 [Zakim]

sorry, Harold, I do not see a conference named 'RIF CORE' in progress or scheduled at this time

15:02:33 [AxelPolleres]

maybe one word?

15:02:37 [AxelPolleres]

anyway...

15:02:41 [Harold]

zakim, this is RIFCORE

15:02:41 [Zakim]

sorry, Harold, I do not see a conference named 'RIFCORE' in progress or scheduled at this time

15:02:55 [Harold]

zakim, who is on the phone?

15:03:03 [Zakim]

sorry, Harold, I don't know what conference this is

15:03:04 [AxelPolleres]

in the worst case, we can just save and send around the IRClog manually

15:03:15 [Zakim]

On IRC I see DaveReynolds, AxelPolleres, RRSAgent, Zakim, Harold, MoZ, trackbot

15:03:55 [AxelPolleres]

Zakim, who is on the phone?

15:03:55 [Zakim]

sorry, AxelPolleres, I don't know what conference this is

15:03:56 [Zakim]

On IRC I see DaveReynolds, AxelPolleres, RRSAgent, Zakim, Harold, MoZ, trackbot

15:04:16 [GaryHallmark]

GaryHallmark has joined #rif

15:04:46 [AxelPolleres]

Zakim, this is RIF

15:04:46 [Zakim]

ok, AxelPolleres; that matches SW_RIF(CORE)11:00AM

15:04:49 [Harold]

zakim, this is RIF

15:04:49 [Zakim]

Harold, this was already SW_RIF(CORE)11:00AM

15:04:50 [Zakim]

ok, Harold; that matches SW_RIF(CORE)11:00AM

15:05:00 [AxelPolleres]

Zakim, who is on the phone?

15:05:00 [Zakim]

On the phone I see [NRCC], ??P9, ??P10

15:05:20 [Zakim]

+Dave_Reynolds (was ??P10)

15:05:26 [AxelPolleres]

Zakim, ??P9 is me

15:05:26 [Zakim]

+AxelPolleres; got it

15:05:41 [AxelPolleres]

Zakim, who is on the phone?

15:05:41 [Zakim]

On the phone I see [NRCC], AxelPolleres, Dave_Reynolds

15:05:47 [AxelPolleres]

perfect

15:06:03 [Zakim]

+ +1.503.533.aaaa

15:07:59 [MichaelKifer]

MichaelKifer has joined #rif

15:08:02 [AxelPolleres]

scribe: AxelPolleres

15:08:13 [AxelPolleres]

scribenick: Axel Polleres

15:08:52 [AxelPolleres]

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core

15:09:06 [AxelPolleres]

issues are summarized at: ???

15:09:21 [AxelPolleres]

harold: let's go through the issues.

15:09:36 [AxelPolleres]

... first one: keep membership "#" in core.

15:09:49 [Zakim]

+ +1.631.833.aabb

15:10:01 [AxelPolleres]

Dave: trying to keep it as small as possible.

15:10:05 [Harold]

zakim, who is on the phone?

15:10:05 [Zakim]

On the phone I see [NRCC], AxelPolleres, Dave_Reynolds, +1.503.533.aaaa, +1.631.833.aabb

15:10:06 [GaryHallmark]

zakim, mite aabb

15:10:08 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'mite aabb', GaryHallmark

15:10:13 [GaryHallmark]

zakim, mute aabb

15:10:13 [Zakim]

+1.631.833.aabb should now be muted

15:10:19 [Zakim]

- +1.631.833.aabb

15:10:24 [Harold]

Michael, thanks

15:10:36 [Harold]

it was again a high-pitch noice.

15:10:39 [AxelPolleres]

Dave: syntactic suger should rather not be included.

15:10:58 [AxelPolleres]

... similar to but not quite the same as rdf:type.

15:11:12 [Zakim]

+ +1.631.833.aacc

15:11:22 [GaryHallmark]

zakim, mute aacc

15:11:22 [Zakim]

+1.631.833.aacc should now be muted

15:11:24 [AxelPolleres]

... preferences for avoiding confusion.

15:11:32 [Harold]

We are discussing Agenda items

15:11:45 [Harold]

Michael, maybe u have to type here.

15:11:56 [MichaelKifer]

zakim, aacc is me

15:11:56 [Zakim]

+MichaelKifer; got it

15:12:00 [Harold]

Open Core issues [2] and initial PROPOSED resolutions

15:12:06 [AxelPolleres]

Can we summarize the diffs between # and rdf:type again?

15:13:18 [Harold]

Michael, re "PROPOSED: Keep membership/subclass in Core", what is the benefit of "(maybe limiting these constructs to rule bodies)"?

15:13:31 [AxelPolleres]

Axel: type is ok, only subclass is discussed.

15:15:10 [Harold]

Is it this? When we allow membership/subclass only in rule bodies, # and ## cannot be reDEFINEd.

15:15:12 [AxelPolleres]

Gary: main issue is that they are both (subclass/##, membership/#) should not be allowedi n the conclusions

15:15:28 [AxelPolleres]

s/edi n/ed in/

15:15:59 [Harold]

Michael, can u type in something here???

15:16:34 [AxelPolleres]

Gary: datamodels translated into RIF might have memership/subclass (e.g. Java Beans)

15:16:38 [MichaelKifer]

I think the benefit is that in PRD the ##/# things cannot be augmented/redefined by rules.

15:17:49 [AxelPolleres]

... datamodel could be translated rather with OWL or an ontology language rather than RIF

15:18:19 [AxelPolleres]

Dave: you want membership test in Core?

15:18:35 [Harold]

Thanks, Michael!

15:18:40 [AxelPolleres]

... in a PR setting, you say you can't change membership, yes?

15:18:59 [Harold]

Dave, would you be even less object with such a restriction?

15:19:04 [AxelPolleres]

Gary: it is the same status as equal foe me, just as equal.

15:19:21 [Harold]

Dave, would you even less object with such a "(maybe limiting these constructs to rule bodies)" restriction?

15:19:43 [AxelPolleres]

Dave: seems reasonable, #/## only in rule bodies.

15:22:01 [AxelPolleres]

Axel: BUT rdf:type is the same as #, so we can't allow one and disallow the other in Core.

15:22:41 [DaveReynolds]

Dave response to Axel: the use of # is a syntactic restriction only, RDF users could still have rdf:type in conclusion

15:22:46 [Harold]

Dave: Even with the restriction, #/## could still be possibly confused with the similar RDF constructs.

15:22:53 [AxelPolleres]

Gary: Not everyone has to implement RDF as their datamodel

15:24:45 [AxelPolleres]

Axel: Either #/## in both body and head or nowehere, all other is unclear, if the rdf versions are allowd (rdf:type, rdfs:subClassOf)

15:24:52 [DaveReynolds]

Gary: subclass is so rarely used don't require its inclusion in Core

15:25:29 [Harold]

All: Since we are scribing in a distributed manner, "PersonName: ..." (colon) should be restricted to taking notes about what PersonName said. "PersonName, ..." (comma) should be used for addressing PersonName.

15:26:21 [AxelPolleres]

"PROPOSED: Keep membership/subclass in Core"

15:26:25 [AxelPolleres]

was the original

15:26:30 [DaveReynolds]

PROPOSED: RIF Core will not include subclass (##)

15:27:38 [DaveReynolds]

PROPOSED: RIF Core will include member (#) but syntactically restricted to use in rule bodies. Note that in RIF-RDF the equivalent property rdf:type would still be permitted in rule heads.

15:27:49 [DaveReynolds]

s/to use/its use/

15:28:30 [GaryHallmark]

rationale: PRD rules almost always start with "if p is a person and p.age > 16 and ... then ...

15:29:03 [GaryHallmark]

also, almost no PRD system allows ... then p is a person

15:29:36 [AxelPolleres]

Dave: In XML syntax we have "member" for # but also rdf:type is allowed.

15:29:42 [GaryHallmark]

but ok ... then p.type = "person"

15:29:49 [AxelPolleres]

... so the compromise might work.

15:30:38 [DaveReynolds]

Axel: would prefer both allowed, without restrictions.

15:30:48 [DaveReynolds]

Gary: would object if they are allowed in conclusions.

15:32:09 [AxelPolleres]

Axel: Dave's proposals are fine for me

15:32:20 [Harold]

> > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/71

15:32:20 [Harold]

> > PROPOSED: Core should keep unrestricted equality and external function

15:32:20 [Harold]

> > calls in rule bodies and keep external functions calls in rule heads.

15:32:21 [AxelPolleres]

next one issue 71

15:33:43 [AxelPolleres]

PROPOSED: Core should keep unrestricted equality and external function and predicate calls in rule bodies and keep external functions calls in rule heads.

15:34:05 [AxelPolleres]

Objections?

15:34:11 [DaveReynolds]

Seems fine.

15:34:27 [Harold]

(The above PROPOSED for issue 48 was accepted by us here.)

15:34:36 [AxelPolleres]

agreed by all.

15:34:53 [AxelPolleres]

next one:

15:34:53 [Harold]

> > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/74

15:34:53 [Harold]

> > PROPOSED: Core should keep both frames/objects and

15:34:53 [Harold]

> > (positional-argument) predicates/relations.

15:36:01 [AxelPolleres]

Dave: we don't have predicates in RDF, we have to simulate that, but should work. Just frames would be better for us.

15:36:13 [AxelPolleres]

... but I won't gonna object.

15:36:29 [GaryHallmark]

Just frames is better for us, too

15:36:47 [AxelPolleres]

Harold: Also better for you Gary?

15:37:01 [MichaelKifer]

are all these PROPOSED things the ones to be proposed to the WG?

15:37:49 [Harold]

Michael, yes, that's the idea.

15:37:51 [AxelPolleres]

... Is there a standard relation between datalog rules and frames-only?

15:38:08 [Harold]

Gary: I think that's ok.

15:38:16 [AxelPolleres]

Gary: should be ok.

15:38:26 [Harold]

Axel: Emulate by introducing new IDs?

15:38:35 [Harold]

Gary: Using Java beans.

15:39:01 [AxelPolleres]

Gary: right, new id/object per tuple.

15:39:48 [AxelPolleres]

Harold: Should translator be part of the spec?

15:39:50 [Harold]

We could have a 'standard' translation of this kind.

15:40:03 [AxelPolleres]

...(from tuples to object)

15:40:06 [Harold]

"Two-level Core".

15:41:01 [Harold]

Axel: Cannot be part of spec, since eg in RDF u would use BNodes, in Flogic somthing else...

15:41:25 [Harold]

But maybe some Rel-to-Obj mapping.

15:41:30 [AxelPolleres]

Gary: A Note, as opposed to a concrete guidance, seems suficient here.

15:41:53 [Harold]

(Like there is a more or less standard Obj-to-Rel mapping.)

15:43:38 [AxelPolleres]

PROPOSED: Core should keep both frames/objects and (positional-argument) predicates/relations.

15:43:44 [Harold]

> > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/75

15:43:44 [Harold]

> > PROPOSED: Core should keep disjunction in rule bodies (cf. Gary's UC).

15:46:06 [AxelPolleres]

Gary, you would allow then a(X) :- Or( b(X) c(Y) ). ?

15:47:39 [GaryHallmark]

axel, no I don't need that case

15:48:49 [GaryHallmark]

e.g. if p is a person and p.age < 14 or p.age > 33 or p.smoker = "yes" then ...

15:48:59 [AxelPolleres]

Dave: if it is only a syntactic transformation, then fine.

15:49:43 [GaryHallmark]

note p is bound outside of the Or (i.e. by a membership

15:50:52 [DaveReynolds]

Axel: the issue is safety again, see above rule example, if C(Y) is true then X can be unbound

15:51:01 [Harold]

Strict SafeNESS

15:52:09 [AxelPolleres]

Axel: Or in thbodies is strongly related to safeness.

15:52:46 [AxelPolleres]

... I can formulate the various safeness definitions by the F2F, probably, but won't have time before to write it down :-(

15:53:22 [AxelPolleres]

PROPOSED: Core should keep disjunction in rule bodies, only if this is permitted by the solution to issue-70.

15:53:30 [AxelPolleres]

:-)

15:53:38 [Zakim]

-MichaelKifer

15:53:43 [Harold]

> > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/76

15:53:43 [Harold]

> > PROPOSED: Core should keep unrestricted equality in rule bodies (cf.

15:53:43 [Harold]

> > ISSUE-71).

15:53:43 [Harold]

>

15:53:43 [Harold]

> Agreed.

15:54:14 [AxelPolleres]

fine... we don't need that anymore.

15:54:29 [Harold]

> > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/70

15:54:29 [Harold]

> > PROPOSED: Parameterize the conformance clauses of Core with

15:54:29 [Harold]

> > safeness requirements "strict", "weak", and "none" (default: "none").

15:54:53 [Harold]

My clarification:

15:54:53 [Harold]

I meant "strictly-safe" (a), "weakly-safe" (b), and "unsafe" (d)

15:54:53 [Harold]

conformance levels similarly as defined/linked in/from issue 70.

15:54:53 [Harold]

Perhaps a version of Dave's (c) could become another level.

15:56:33 [Harold]

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/70

15:58:07 [DaveReynolds]

Harold: to see safeness have to do data flow analysis, which may not always be possible so have to default back to unsafe

15:58:44 [GaryHallmark]

I think strict safeness is ok for PRD

15:58:45 [DaveReynolds]

Axel: unless binding patterns are declared can't find anything more out. What would be an example?

15:59:05 [DaveReynolds]

Harold: if you know the query, the constants in the query would propagate.

15:59:27 [DaveReynolds]

Axel: but that is safe *use* of ruleset, not that the ruleset itself is safe

16:00:27 [DaveReynolds]

Axel: how would you define weakly safe core without binding patterns?

16:03:23 [AxelPolleres]

ACTION: Axel to write down the definitions of strict and weak safety of a ruleset.

16:03:23 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-577 - Write down the definitions of strict and weak safety of a ruleset. [on Axel Polleres - due 2008-09-29].

16:06:03 [Zakim]

+MichaelKifer

16:06:37 [Harold]

Michael, can u say something?

16:06:53 [AxelPolleres]

Michael, can you type instead?

16:07:02 [Harold]

I only hear the high-pitch noice.

16:07:05 [AxelPolleres]

... on IRC?

16:07:23 [AxelPolleres]

BTW: I have not much time left (5-10min)

16:09:28 [AxelPolleres]

I am afraid they kick me out of the room in some minutes.

16:10:14 [Harold]

It's called SafeNESS.

16:10:19 [AxelPolleres]

Dave: In jena we have both LP style and PR style

16:11:17 [GaryHallmark]

probably the stricter the better (but don't forbid disjunction completely) is best for PRD

16:11:42 [AxelPolleres]

Michael: binding patterns depend on execution strategy

16:11:54 [AxelPolleres]

... strict safety is ok.

16:12:21 [Harold]

The 'Safeness' discussion seems to move us towards procedural semantics ...

16:14:11 [Harold]

PROPOSED: Core will have a strict safeness restriction.

16:14:46 [AxelPolleres]

Dave: would object.

16:15:45 [Harold]

PROPOSED: Parameterize the conformance clauses of Core with safeness requirements "strict" and "none" (default: "none").

16:17:11 [AxelPolleres]

ok, seems we have all, I need to leave!

16:17:24 [Harold]

(modulo nice word for "none")

16:17:31 [Harold]

All agree.

16:17:36 [AxelPolleres]

bye!

16:17:48 [Harold]

zakim, make minutes

16:17:49 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'make minutes', Harold

16:17:51 [Zakim]

-AxelPolleres

16:18:01 [DaveReynolds]

RRSAgent, make minutes

16:18:01 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/22-rif-minutes.html DaveReynolds

16:19:23 [DaveReynolds]

RRSAgent, make public

16:19:23 [RRSAgent]

I'm logging. I don't understand 'make public', DaveReynolds. Try /msg RRSAgent help

16:20:00 [DaveReynolds]

RRSAgent, make logs public

16:20:16 [DaveReynolds]

RRSAgent, make minutes

16:20:16 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/22-rif-minutes.html DaveReynolds

16:20:47 [Zakim]

- +1.503.533.aaaa

16:20:58 [Zakim]

-[NRCC]

16:20:59 [Zakim]

-Dave_Reynolds

16:21:01 [Zakim]

-MichaelKifer

16:21:01 [Zakim]

SW_RIF(CORE)11:00AM has ended

16:21:03 [Zakim]

Attendees were [NRCC], Dave_Reynolds, AxelPolleres, +1.503.533.aaaa, +1.631.833.aabb, +1.631.833.aacc, MichaelKifer

18:27:49 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #rif