13:07:37 RRSAgent has joined #rif 13:07:37 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc 13:09:19 StellaMitchell has joined #rif 13:09:34 LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif 13:10:42 csma has joined #rif 13:10:59 DaveReynolds has joined #rif 13:11:43 sandro has joined #rif 13:15:35 Blaz has joined #rif 13:16:03 AxelPolleres has joined #rif 13:16:19 AdrianP has joined #rif 13:16:31 scribe: AxelPolleres 13:16:36 scribenick: AxelPolleres 13:17:11 chris showing the meeting objectives, cf. http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F11 13:17:45 chris: we must progress on the test cases before going to CR. 13:17:51 RRSAgent, pointer? 13:17:51 See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T13-17-51 13:17:53 ... main issue. 13:18:08 RRSAgent, make record public 13:18:21 ... agenda, cf. http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F11 13:22:38 sandro: how shall we change morning agenda, since we lost already 1/2 hr. 13:22:49 adrian: we can cut tc to 1/2 hr 13:24:12 RIF test cases 13:24:14 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Category:Test_Case 13:24:18 topic: Test Cases 13:25:22 csma: let's go through them one by one. 13:25:33 subtopic: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Annotation_Entailment 13:25:52 1) http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Annotation_Entailment - by jos. 13:26:09 ... found an error. 13:26:23 chris: let's fix simple errors on the fly. 13:27:41 jos: testing whether there is an annotation in the ontology imported. 13:28:07 sandro: how do you know that it is an annotation property. 13:28:32 jos: for all objects of type owl:Ontology, all properties must be annotation properties... 13:28:36 ... will check again. 13:29:17 dave: not sure, whether dc:title should be declared an annotation property. 13:29:42 add dc:title rdf:type owl:AnnotationProperty 13:31:06 axel: I think hijacking dc:title that way is VERY weird. 13:32:24 sandro: right, you can't use dc:title then in an ontology you merge. 13:32:36 axel: you can just create a subproperty of dc:title. 13:32:44 christian: next test case. 13:32:52 subtopic: AnnotationPropertyID rdf:type owl:AnnotationProperty 13:33:02 subtopic: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment 13:33:08 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment 13:33:20 jos: that is the simplest form of inconsistency in RIF. 13:33:45 adrian: should we define a separate test category for testing inconsistency? 13:33:52 mdean has joined #rif 13:34:12 agreement on that trst case. 13:34:23 chris: a birt more description would be in order. 13:34:53 resolve this status to "approved"? 13:35:03 rrsagent, pointer 13:35:03 See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T13-35-03 13:35:07 s/resolve/...resolve/ 13:35:20 PROPOSED: Accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment 13:35:22 PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment 13:35:36 PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment with more detailed description 13:35:40 Harold has joined #rif 13:35:46 ACTION: jos add more description to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment 13:35:46 Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - jos 13:35:46 Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jdebruij2, jderoo) 13:35:50 josb has joined #rif 13:35:56 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 13:36:00 ACTION: jdebruij2 add more description to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment 13:36:02 Created ACTION-580 - Add more description to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2008-10-03]. 13:36:34 RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment with more detailed description 13:36:39 RRSAgent, pointer 13:36:39 See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T13-36-39 13:36:59 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-add_1 13:37:04 by Axel 13:40:44 Jos: BLD 2.3 says your can't do this -- no externals in head 13:41:00 Jos: oh... no, that's just atoms 13:42:48 PROPOSED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-add_1 13:43:04 RESOLVED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-add_1 13:43:09 RRSAgent, pointer? 13:43:09 See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T13-43-09 13:46:14 PROPOSED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-add_2 13:46:31 RESOLVED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-add_2 13:46:42 RRSAgent, pointer? 13:46:42 See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T13-46-42 13:50:26 sandro: the description of subtract-variants should reference the addition variants, highlighting the duality between them. 13:53:21 axel: I should add a variation testing for a(11) without the "termination condition" X > 0. 13:53:58 PROPOSED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-subtract_1 13:54:28 ACTION: Axel improve the description of chaining strategies 13:54:28 Created ACTION-581 - Improve the description of chaining strategies [on Axel Polleres - due 2008-10-03]. 13:54:35 PROPOSED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-subtract_1 and 2 13:54:46 RESOLVED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-subtract_1 and 2 13:55:09 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Class_Membership 13:55:11 by adrian. 13:55:32 jos: this is not correct. 13:55:55 ... membership can't be used as terms. 13:56:28 christian: adrian, please adapt, then we can revisit that test case. 13:56:41 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Classification_non-inheritance 13:56:45 by stella. 13:58:48 dave: This testcase shows that RIF doesn't have something like class properties. 13:59:06 Chris: Instances do not inherit the properties of their classes [ Classification non-inheritance] 13:59:28 Chris: You use formulas, not facts, to give properties of all instances of a class. 14:00:04 Chris: It looks kind of like a default, but BLD doesn't have anything like that. 14:02:02 Dave: if you approach this from an OOP viewpoint, you could expect the conclusion. 14:02:11 Dave: Someone coming at frames from Java might try to do this kind of (disallowed) inheritance 14:02:17 ... that is what that TC shows. 14:02:34 Axel: we could add a rule in a variation that does entail the conclusion. 14:02:46 PROPOSED: Accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Classification_non-inheritance 14:05:28 csma: instead of using favoritePerson, let's use cardinality->6 billion 14:05:40 christian: the description should be extended to discuss properties of classes and instances. 14:06:14 q? 14:06:37 Leora: Would it be helpful to have a variant as suggested by axel? 14:08:07 ACTION: axel add test case related to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Classification_non-inheritance that makes all class properties apply to instances 14:08:08 Created ACTION-582 - Add test case related to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Classification_non-inheritance that makes all class properties apply to instances [on Axel Polleres - due 2008-10-03]. 14:08:51 ?X[?P -> ?V] :- And ( ?X#?Y ?Y[?P -> ?V] ) 14:12:12 josb has joined #rif 14:12:13 DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif 14:12:18 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 14:12:18 hi back! 14:12:21 :-) 14:12:30 <_mdean> _mdean has joined #rif 14:12:53 Blaz has joined #rif 14:13:43 sandro has joined #rif 14:14:13 variation of http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Classification_non-inheritance accepted. 14:14:17 RESOLVED: Accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Classification_non-inheritance 14:14:21 RRSAgent, pointer? 14:14:21 See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T14-14-21 14:15:03 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Disjunctive_Information 14:15:12 by jos. 14:15:28 jos: that's a nasty one, it needs a constraint solver. 14:17:25 has equality in the head, which is at risk. 14:18:23 Sandro: description should include evil grin of jos :-) 14:19:07 jos: without negative guards we can't have disjunction here. 14:19:14 sandro has joined #rif 14:19:36 chris: as long as we have equality in the head, it makes sense to have that. 14:19:52 sandro: a little bit more description is in order. 14:20:07 RESOLVED: Accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Disjunctive_Information 14:20:15 Harold has joined #rif 14:20:38 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/EntailEverything_1 14:20:39 action: jos To explain better how/why http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Disjunctive_Information is so tricky 14:20:39 Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - jos 14:20:39 Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jdebruij2, jderoo) 14:20:46 by gary 14:20:51 action: jdebruij2 To explain better how/why http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Disjunctive_Information is so tricky 14:20:51 Created ACTION-583 - Explain better how/why http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Disjunctive_Information is so tricky [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2008-10-03]. 14:21:03 gary: this is waht PR systems typically can't do. 14:21:52 Gary: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/EntailEverything_1 - http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/EntailEverything_6 are basically all the same. 14:21:52 RRSAgent, pointer? 14:21:52 See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T14-21-52-1 14:24:08 Action: josb remind people that "josb" works for assigning actions to him. 14:24:08 Created ACTION-584 - Remind people that \"josb\" works for assigning actions to him. [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2008-10-03]. 14:24:22 Axel: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/EntailEverything_1 doesn't need the p(1 2) fact. 14:24:40 ACTION-584 done 14:24:43 ... similarly for http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/EntailEverything_2 14:25:30 ACTION-584 closed 14:25:30 ACTION-584 Remind people that "josb" works for assigning actions to him. closed 14:26:15 christian/jos/gary desicuss that we could unify all those into one test case. 14:26:30 ... with a conjunction in the conclusion. 14:28:08 christian: can we make the decision right now? 14:28:38 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_conclusion_1 14:28:40 by adrian 14:29:03 adrian: that's an implementation of factorial function 14:29:40 harold: And( .... ) is missing in the body, forall missing, infix-arithmetics not allowed. 14:31:20 subtopic: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality 14:32:00 csma: we don't have an unambiguous translation to XML, so we can't consider this yet. 14:33:13 Topic: UCR 14:33:23 christian: which plans and changes? 14:33:59 adrian: many of the use cases need more expressive dialects than the ones we have at the moment. 14:34:31 ... for example 4.3 14:35:31 Harold has joined #rif 14:35:47 ... first rule uses negation, which is not in BLD. 14:36:53 ... there is many different negations, recall: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/negation?highlight=(Negation) 14:37:43 christian: not include WRONG language in the document. 14:37:59 I plan to rewrite the relational factorial example (http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality) to a PS version and complement it with a functional version. 14:38:00 ... remove "non-encodable" code examples 14:39:49 Leora: 4.5 14:40:09 ... modalities not easily expressible. 14:40:20 ... also would need negation. 14:42:04 Adrian: let's discuss 4.6 14:42:07 Bob has joined #rif 14:42:16 Josb: first a question about abridged syntax. 14:43:22 in the examples... what is the type of "holdsAt" "ineffective"? is it a URI, a local constant? 14:43:48 s/in the examples/... in the examples/ 14:44:07 ... that is not abridged syntax, needs to be fixed! 14:44:33 Adrian: needs understanding of event calculus. 14:44:58 Chris: Is the intention of this rule expressible in BLD? I think yes. 14:50:21 BobMoore has joined #rif 14:50:36 Leora: shall we rediscuss encodings of action languages, sit.calc., event calc. in BLD? (was discussed some time ago in RIFRAF) 14:52:09 chris: abridged syntax.... we had agreement that we discuss only on syntaxes which people are willing to implement. 14:52:54 ... for the use cases, it should be the same rationale. abridged syntax only allowed where we have a translator. 14:54:36 jos: 4.6 and other examples need to be reparied to have unambiguous syntax. 14:55:01 <_mdean> _mdean has joined #rif 14:55:06 action: adrian to update examples in UCR to presentation syntax 14:55:06 Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - adrian 14:55:06 Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. agiurca, apaschke) 14:55:23 action: apaschke to update examples in UCR to presentation syntax 14:55:23 Created ACTION-585 - Update examples in UCR to presentation syntax [on Adrian Paschke - due 2008-10-03]. 14:56:35 christian: What do we do about the syntax? 14:56:42 action: apaschke to add a comment in UC 4.6 explaining that the example can be translated to BLD using some kind of encoding 14:56:42 Created ACTION-586 - Add a comment in UC 4.6 explaining that the example can be translated to BLD using some kind of encoding [on Adrian Paschke - due 2008-10-03]. 14:57:34 action: apaschke to remove examples in 4.3 that we have no dialect for, and add comment to make that clear 14:57:34 Created ACTION-587 - Remove examples in 4.3 that we have no dialect for, and add comment to make that clear [on Adrian Paschke - due 2008-10-03]. 14:58:30 AdrianP has joined #rif 14:58:32 I update the class membership test case 14:58:41 action: leora to remove examples in 4.5 that we have no dialect for, and add comment to make that clear 14:58:41 Created ACTION-588 - Remove examples in 4.5 that we have no dialect for, and add comment to make that clear [on Leora Morgenstern - due 2008-10-03]. 15:00:32 dave: volunteer to correct 4.8 BLD transcription 15:00:36 action: dave to rewrite BLD examples from UC 4.8 15:00:36 Created ACTION-589 - Rewrite BLD examples from UC 4.8 [on Dave Reynolds - due 2008-10-03]. 15:02:41 Gary: internaitonalization hasn't yet been discussed. 15:03:22 axel: does that just mean we should have a UC/TC which uses rdf:text? 15:03:39 Sandro: something that shows off the use of language tags. 15:03:53 action: apaschke to add a requirement that is satisfied by rdf:text 15:03:53 Created ACTION-590 - Add a requirement that is satisfied by rdf:text [on Adrian Paschke - due 2008-10-03]. 15:04:03 COFFEEBREAK! 15:05:09 bmoore3 has joined #rif 15:30:09 <_mdean> scribe: Mike Dean 15:30:22 <_mdean> scribenick _mdean 15:30:58 <_mdean> nick mdean 15:31:12 scribenick: mdean 15:31:36 reviewing actions 15:31:43 NOT CP = NOT CRITICAL PATH 15:31:53 csma has joined #rif 15:31:58 ISSUE-26: roundtripping 15:31:58 ISSUE-26 Replication of original rules after roundtripping to RIF [NOT CP] notes added 15:33:14 Harold: BLD#Conformance_Clauses addresses roundtripping 15:33:54 ChrisW: issue addresses non-semantic things - semantics are required 15:34:26 ChrisW: metadata SHOULD be preserved 15:35:20 ChrisW: ready to close issue? 15:35:39 josb: not sure what it means for metadata to survive roundtripping 15:36:04 josb: e.g. ordering of conjunction clauses 15:36:14 csma: talking about explicit metadata defined in spec 15:36:30 josb: should be made explicit 15:37:26 josb: talking about conjunctions within metadata 15:37:39 csma: metadata about metadata 15:38:04 ChrisW: who would really care? 15:39:45 DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif 15:39:47 GaryHallmark_ has joined #rif 15:40:11 josb_ has joined #rif 15:41:12 sandro has joined #rif 15:46:20 josb_ has joined #rif 15:46:31 GaryHallmark_ has joined #rif 15:46:49 Blaz has joined #rif 15:46:51 DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif 15:47:00 <_mdean> _mdean has joined #rif 15:47:24 csma: WG should not specify such a mechanism 15:47:45 ... should forbid subsets of Core 15:47:58 ... otherwise notion of Core disappears 15:48:24 ChrisW: profiles different than dialects 15:48:39 Sandro: only WG can say what RIF is 15:48:58 ChrisW: profile provides way to describe what subset of a dialect you support 15:49:06 ... issue predates BLD 15:49:21 ... what was Core is now BLD 15:49:49 csma: no mechanism for profiles and don't allow subsets of Core 15:50:06 Sandro: constraints on us vs others 15:50:14 sandro has joined #rif 15:50:48 Gary: forward- vs. backward-chaining example 15:50:56 ... how high is bar for translator implementers 15:51:38 csma: will happen - where WG should legislate is different issue 15:51:58 Harold: cannot predict which other subsets of Core will be relevant (e.g. OWL RL) 15:52:29 DaveReynolds: Core document doesn't currently require all dialects to implement 15:53:02 ... suggest no to profiles - informal seems good enough - add later if demand warrants 15:53:21 csma has joined #rif 15:53:25 ChrisW: no objections to this as proposed resolution 15:53:39 PROPOSED: Close issue-29 saying we will not define a notion of Profiles 15:53:43 AxelPolleres has joined #rif 15:53:47 Harold has joined #rif 15:53:59 PROPOSED: Close issue-29 saying we will not define a notion of Profiles (ie subsets of defined dialects, which are not themselves dialects) 15:54:24 csma: wait until tomorrow for resolutions 15:54:43 ... like waiting until the next telecon 15:55:13 We MAY introduce Best Practices for RIF. Example: Attach annotations only to syntactic parts of rulesets that stay unchanged under semantics-preserving ruleset transformation. Rationale: You don't want to lose "annotation attachment points" under such transformations (cf. Gary's/Jos' tautology example). 15:55:20 PROPOSED: We will not constraint ourselves about whether or not there will ever be a RIF dialect which is a subset of Core 15:55:25 ChrisW: should we constrain the WG? 15:55:46 ChrisW: proposing inverse of that 15:55:53 s/constraint/constrain/ 15:56:17 Harold: should not constraint ourselves 15:56:26 most people feel we should not 15:56:30 No objections, but CSMA wants to think about it more. 15:57:03 ChrisW: these 2 resolutions will close issue 29 15:57:05 Chris: passing those two resolutions tomorrow will close issue-29 15:57:15 Issue 33: specification of data sources in RIF 15:57:27 csma: special session later, also on 37 and 38 15:57:51 Issue 39 and 46 15:58:03 ChrisW: 46 subsumes 39 15:58:25 ChrisW: Michael had more general thing in mind 15:58:43 ChrisW: can we close 39 because we have it in BLD and then move on to more general 15:59:06 csma: discussed w.r.t. Core? May be a problem for PRD 15:59:40 ... semantics of rule set is in conflict resolution strategy - different CRS could be a problem 16:00:12 josb: PRD could preclude loading ruleset with different strategy 16:00:35 josb: maybe change issue 16:00:49 csma: if issue for PRD, then also an issue for Core 16:01:18 ChrisW: keep open for Core and PRD 16:01:32 Issue 46: modules 16:01:38 csma: related to issue 33 16:02:24 Michael: should be in FLD - can't substantiallly change BLD now 16:03:06 josb: add to FLD and write specialization text for BLD 16:03:23 Michael: should leave this open 16:03:49 ChrisW added note that modules apply to FLD 16:04:49 Issue 50: Semantic metadata 16:04:57 GaryHallmark_ has joined #rif 16:05:31 ChrisW: opened for metadata that impacts semantics, e.g. import or PR priority, resolution strategy, negation semantics 16:05:52 Michael: problem for FLD not BLD 16:06:18 ChrisW: closed for BLD 16:06:36 Harold: Peter pointed us to that issue 16:07:03 Michael: metadata is annotations, not import 16:07:37 ... FLD has no provision for metadata affecting semantics 16:08:03 DaveReynolds: in logic language, would make it part of language not metadata 16:08:27 so the question is what is metadata.... annotations.... 16:08:32 Michael: e.g. overrides predicate on identifiers 16:08:53 Michael: depends on where you put stuff 16:09:25 ChrisW: need to decide for FLD, already decided for BLD, what about PRD and Core? 16:09:34 csma: still open 16:09:49 Sandro: would prefer that metadata not be semantic, by definition 16:10:13 csma: point of preserving during round-tripping 16:10:41 ChrisW: how long would this discussion take? 16:12:02 ChrisW: any objections to precluding semantic metadata? 16:12:18 michael: I don't feel comfortable closing this right now, for FLD. 16:12:18 Harold: divide annotations into pragmas and ... 16:13:25 moved to Technical Design product (no conjunctive drop down lists) 16:14:00 Issue 57: Extensibility 16:14:10 ChrisW: XTAN has no official status 16:14:33 csma; relationship to 69 16:14:57 ChrisW: have to close or postpone all issues by Last Call 16:15:15 not in BLD for Last Call 16:15:55 Sandro: can we meet requirements without it? 16:16:04 s/meet/meet our 16:16:13 Sandro: I don't think we can meet our requirements with out. 16:16:33 csma: on tomorrow's agenda? 16:17:14 csma: proposed resolution for profiles 16:19:51 ChrisW: just roundtripping 16:20:26 ... return to issues in last session today 16:24:11 Issues 37 and 38 16:24:28 Christian: references to external classes such as Hen 16:24:34 josb: Jim the Hen Handler 16:25:18 DaveReynolds: schema vs. object model (37 vs. 38) - raised but not written down 16:25:40 s/but/but formal spec/ 16:25:51 ... reuse JAXB mapping 16:26:52 Sandro: write a spec that JAXB happens to implement 16:27:04 Gary: map complex classes to frames 16:27:19 ... JAXB is long and complicated - start with something simpler like Java Bean 16:27:40 ... handle 1-to-1 vs. set cardinality constraints 16:28:15 ... unique properties would probably need equality in the head 16:28:33 ... perhaps end up with mini ontology language 16:29:01 DaveReynolds: XML Schema provides cardinalities 16:29:23 ... need to know URIs to reference complex classes 16:30:44 s/need/just need/ 16:32:04 DaveReynolds: spec'd algorithm vs. annotation mechanism 16:32:23 csma: such schemas already exist 16:32:45 DaveReynolds: focus on algorithm 16:32:55 bmoore3 has joined #rif 16:33:03 Gary: JAXB handles most schemas, but it's a huge spec 16:33:43 csma: useful to any dialects? 16:33:50 Gary: seems orthogonal 16:34:02 csma: who could write strawman document? 16:34:50 Sandro: how many people would use this? is it critical? 16:34:57 Gary: yes 16:35:03 csma: agreed 16:35:11 Adrian: what about black box model? 16:35:27 BobMoore has joined #rif 16:35:36 csma: requires sharing XML Schema + mappin 16:36:32 ChrisW: black box still requires dealing with uniqueness of slots in frame syntax and access to objects 16:37:03 Just to announce I am here - at least for a little while until I have to go down to supper 16:37:40 Is it possible to activate the phone bridge 16:38:02 csma: multiple models mapping on to same XML Schema 16:38:28 csma: navigating schema, attribute of sub-sub-element 16:38:40 AxelPolleres has joined #rif 16:39:05 csma: user-defined builtins for object model methods 16:39:24 ... how do you refer to methods 16:39:41 ... using frame syntax 16:39:48 ... e.g. for Java objects 16:40:28 Hey, BobMoore - one minute. 16:40:41 DaveReynolds: very PRD specific 16:41:01 BobMoore, it looks we're just about to break for lunch. 16:41:15 back in 80 minutes or so. 16:41:19 ChrisW: meet-odds 16:41:35 What timing!! 16:41:41 ChrisW: any other issues or barriers? 16:43:07 csma: use the schema to navigate the data 16:43:09 ACTION: Gary to draft a straw proposal addressing part of ISSUE-37, in the area of navigating the schema/data. 16:43:09 Created ACTION-591 - Draft a straw proposal addressing part of ISSUE-37, in the area of navigating the schema/data. [on Gary Hallmark - due 2008-10-03]. 16:44:41 Gary: not going to do arbitrary XML 16:45:55 csma: use XPath? 16:45:57 Gary: no 16:47:01 ACTION: csma to open issue based on the White Board line: "What about methods -- Ignore" 16:47:01 Created ACTION-592 - Open issue based on the White Board line: \"What about methods -- Ignore\" [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2008-10-03]. 16:47:14 break for lunch 16:47:31 cafeteria somewhere in this building 16:47:45 2 or 3 restaurants in Trump Building 16:47:56 appears to have stopped raining 16:48:12 Sony building also has food 16:48:45 reconvene at 2pm 17:32:08 There will be an interruption of Zakim-bot services shortly expected to last less than 15 mins 18:10:45 LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif 18:17:15 BobMoore has joined #rif 18:28:50 BobMoore has joined #rif 18:31:45 ChrisW has joined #rif 18:33:10 csma has joined #rif 18:34:28 Bob, we restart in 5 minutes, with about 1 hour on Test cases, then reframing the semantics of conditions in PRD to align it with BLD. 18:35:53 Ping us if/when you want to join 18:36:00 okay trust you had a nice lunch - I am assuming the conference code is 74394 18:37:44 sandro has joined #rif 18:38:49 I'm ready to join 18:39:19 ok 18:40:05 Call Zakim (+1.617.761.6200 (US), +33 4 89 06 34 99 (F) or +44.117.370.6152 18:40:05 (GB) 18:40:38 Conference code is as usual: 74394# ('RIFWG') 18:40:55 We are setting up the communication on our side 18:41:28 zakim, what is the code? 18:41:28 the conference code is hidden, csma 18:41:43 zakim, this will be rif 18:41:43 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, csma 18:41:49 StellaMitchell has joined #rif 18:42:14 Zakim, room for 4 for 300mn? 18:42:14 I don't understand your question, csma. 18:42:30