IRC log of rif on 2008-09-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:07:37 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #rif

13:07:37 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc

13:09:19 [StellaMitchell]

StellaMitchell has joined #rif

13:09:34 [LeoraMorgenstern]

LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif

13:10:42 [csma]

csma has joined #rif

13:10:59 [DaveReynolds]

DaveReynolds has joined #rif

13:11:43 [sandro]

sandro has joined #rif

13:15:35 [Blaz]

Blaz has joined #rif

13:16:03 [AxelPolleres]

AxelPolleres has joined #rif

13:16:19 [AdrianP]

AdrianP has joined #rif

13:16:31 [AxelPolleres]

scribe: AxelPolleres

13:16:36 [AxelPolleres]

scribenick: AxelPolleres

13:17:11 [AxelPolleres]

chris showing the meeting objectives, cf. http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F11

13:17:45 [AxelPolleres]

chris: we must progress on the test cases before going to CR.

13:17:51 [sandro]

RRSAgent, pointer?

13:17:51 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T13-17-51

13:17:53 [AxelPolleres]

... main issue.

13:18:08 [sandro]

RRSAgent, make record public

13:18:21 [AxelPolleres]

... agenda, cf. http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F11

13:22:38 [AxelPolleres]

sandro: how shall we change morning agenda, since we lost already 1/2 hr.

13:22:49 [AxelPolleres]

adrian: we can cut tc to 1/2 hr

13:24:12 [AdrianP]

RIF test cases

13:24:14 [AdrianP]

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Category:Test_Case

13:24:18 [AxelPolleres]

topic: Test Cases

13:25:22 [AxelPolleres]

csma: let's go through them one by one.

13:25:33 [sandro]

subtopic: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Annotation_Entailment

13:25:52 [AxelPolleres]

1) http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Annotation_Entailment - by jos.

13:26:09 [AxelPolleres]

... found an error.

13:26:23 [AxelPolleres]

chris: let's fix simple errors on the fly.

13:27:41 [AxelPolleres]

jos: testing whether there is an annotation in the ontology imported.

13:28:07 [AxelPolleres]

sandro: how do you know that it is an annotation property.

13:28:32 [AxelPolleres]

jos: for all objects of type owl:Ontology, all properties must be annotation properties...

13:28:36 [AxelPolleres]

... will check again.

13:29:17 [AxelPolleres]

dave: not sure, whether dc:title should be declared an annotation property.

13:29:42 [sandro]

add dc:title rdf:type owl:AnnotationProperty

13:31:06 [AxelPolleres]

axel: I think hijacking dc:title that way is VERY weird.

13:32:24 [AxelPolleres]

sandro: right, you can't use dc:title then in an ontology you merge.

13:32:36 [AxelPolleres]

axel: you can just create a subproperty of dc:title.

13:32:44 [AxelPolleres]

christian: next test case.

13:32:52 [sandro]

subtopic: AnnotationPropertyID rdf:type owl:AnnotationProperty

13:33:02 [sandro]

subtopic: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment

13:33:08 [AxelPolleres]

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

13:33:20 [AxelPolleres]

jos: that is the simplest form of inconsistency in RIF.

13:33:45 [AxelPolleres]

adrian: should we define a separate test category for testing inconsistency?

13:33:52 [mdean]

mdean has joined #rif

13:34:12 [AxelPolleres]

agreement on that trst case.

13:34:23 [AxelPolleres]

chris: a birt more description would be in order.

13:34:53 [AxelPolleres]

resolve this status to "approved"?

13:35:03 [ChrisW]

rrsagent, pointer

13:35:03 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T13-35-03

13:35:07 [AxelPolleres]

s/resolve/...resolve/

13:35:20 [AxelPolleres]

PROPOSED: Accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment

13:35:22 [sandro]

PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment

13:35:36 [sandro]

PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment with more detailed description

13:35:40 [Harold]

Harold has joined #rif

13:35:46 [sandro]

ACTION: jos add more description to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment

13:35:46 [trackbot]

Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - jos

13:35:46 [trackbot]

Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jdebruij2, jderoo)

13:35:50 [josb]

josb has joined #rif

13:35:56 [GaryHallmark]

GaryHallmark has joined #rif

13:36:00 [sandro]

ACTION: jdebruij2 add more description to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment

13:36:02 [trackbot]

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 [sandro]

RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Arbitrary_Entailment with more detailed description

13:36:39 [sandro]

RRSAgent, pointer

13:36:39 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T13-36-39

13:36:59 [AxelPolleres]

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-add_1

13:37:04 [AxelPolleres]

by Axel

13:40:44 [sandro]

Jos: BLD 2.3 says your can't do this -- no externals in head

13:41:00 [sandro]

Jos: oh... no, that's just atoms

13:42:48 [sandro]

PROPOSED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-add_1

13:43:04 [sandro]

RESOLVED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-add_1

13:43:09 [sandro]

RRSAgent, pointer?

13:43:09 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T13-43-09

13:46:14 [sandro]

PROPOSED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-add_2

13:46:31 [sandro]

RESOLVED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-add_2

13:46:42 [sandro]

RRSAgent, pointer?

13:46:42 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T13-46-42

13:50:26 [AxelPolleres]

sandro: the description of subtract-variants should reference the addition variants, highlighting the duality between them.

13:53:21 [AxelPolleres]

axel: I should add a variation testing for a(11) without the "termination condition" X > 0.

13:53:58 [sandro]

PROPOSED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-subtract_1

13:54:28 [sandro]

ACTION: Axel improve the description of chaining strategies

13:54:28 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-581 - Improve the description of chaining strategies [on Axel Polleres - due 2008-10-03].

13:54:35 [sandro]

PROPOSED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-subtract_1 and 2

13:54:46 [sandro]

RESOLVED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-subtract_1 and 2

13:55:09 [AxelPolleres]

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

13:55:11 [AxelPolleres]

by adrian.

13:55:32 [AxelPolleres]

jos: this is not correct.

13:55:55 [AxelPolleres]

... membership can't be used as terms.

13:56:28 [AxelPolleres]

christian: adrian, please adapt, then we can revisit that test case.

13:56:41 [AxelPolleres]

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Classification_non-inheritance

13:56:45 [AxelPolleres]

by stella.

13:58:48 [AxelPolleres]

dave: This testcase shows that RIF doesn't have something like class properties.

13:59:06 [sandro]

Chris: Instances do not inherit the properties of their classes [ Classification non-inheritance]

13:59:28 [sandro]

Chris: You use formulas, not facts, to give properties of all instances of a class.

14:00:04 [sandro]

Chris: It looks kind of like a default, but BLD doesn't have anything like that.

14:02:02 [AxelPolleres]

Dave: if you approach this from an OOP viewpoint, you could expect the conclusion.

14:02:11 [sandro]

Dave: Someone coming at frames from Java might try to do this kind of (disallowed) inheritance

14:02:17 [AxelPolleres]

... that is what that TC shows.

14:02:34 [AxelPolleres]

Axel: we could add a rule in a variation that does entail the conclusion.

14:02:46 [sandro]

PROPOSED: Accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Classification_non-inheritance

14:05:28 [sandro]

csma: instead of using favoritePerson, let's use cardinality->6 billion

14:05:40 [AxelPolleres]

christian: the description should be extended to discuss properties of classes and instances.

14:06:14 [sandro]

q?

14:06:37 [AxelPolleres]

Leora: Would it be helpful to have a variant as suggested by axel?

14:08:07 [sandro]

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 [trackbot]

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 [AxelPolleres]

?X[?P -> ?V] :- And ( ?X#?Y ?Y[?P -> ?V] )

14:12:12 [josb]

josb has joined #rif

14:12:13 [DaveReynolds_]

DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif

14:12:18 [GaryHallmark]

GaryHallmark has joined #rif

14:12:18 [AxelPolleres]

hi back!

14:12:21 [AxelPolleres]

:-)

14:12:30 [_mdean]

_mdean has joined #rif

14:12:53 [Blaz]

Blaz has joined #rif

14:13:43 [sandro]

sandro has joined #rif

14:14:13 [AxelPolleres]

variation of http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Classification_non-inheritance accepted.

14:14:17 [sandro]

RESOLVED: Accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Classification_non-inheritance

14:14:21 [sandro]

RRSAgent, pointer?

14:14:21 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T14-14-21

14:15:03 [AxelPolleres]

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

14:15:12 [AxelPolleres]

by jos.

14:15:28 [AxelPolleres]

jos: that's a nasty one, it needs a constraint solver.

14:17:25 [AxelPolleres]

has equality in the head, which is at risk.

14:18:23 [AxelPolleres]

Sandro: description should include evil grin of jos :-)

14:19:07 [AxelPolleres]

jos: without negative guards we can't have disjunction here.

14:19:14 [sandro]

sandro has joined #rif

14:19:36 [AxelPolleres]

chris: as long as we have equality in the head, it makes sense to have that.

14:19:52 [AxelPolleres]

sandro: a little bit more description is in order.

14:20:07 [sandro]

RESOLVED: Accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Disjunctive_Information

14:20:15 [Harold]

Harold has joined #rif

14:20:38 [AxelPolleres]

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/EntailEverything_1

14:20:39 [sandro]

action: jos To explain better how/why http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Disjunctive_Information is so tricky

14:20:39 [trackbot]

Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - jos

14:20:39 [trackbot]

Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jdebruij2, jderoo)

14:20:46 [AxelPolleres]

by gary

14:20:51 [sandro]

action: jdebruij2 To explain better how/why http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Disjunctive_Information is so tricky

14:20:51 [trackbot]

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 [AxelPolleres]

gary: this is waht PR systems typically can't do.

14:21:52 [AxelPolleres]

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 [sandro]

RRSAgent, pointer?

14:21:52 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T14-21-52-1

14:24:08 [sandro]

Action: josb remind people that "josb" works for assigning actions to him.

14:24:08 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-584 - Remind people that \"josb\" works for assigning actions to him. [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2008-10-03].

14:24:22 [AxelPolleres]

Axel: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/EntailEverything_1 doesn't need the p(1 2) fact.

14:24:40 [sandro]

ACTION-584 done

14:24:43 [AxelPolleres]

... similarly for http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/EntailEverything_2

14:25:30 [sandro]

ACTION-584 closed

14:25:30 [trackbot]

ACTION-584 Remind people that "josb" works for assigning actions to him. closed

14:26:15 [AxelPolleres]

christian/jos/gary desicuss that we could unify all those into one test case.

14:26:30 [AxelPolleres]

... with a conjunction in the conclusion.

14:28:08 [AxelPolleres]

christian: can we make the decision right now?

14:28:38 [AxelPolleres]

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_conclusion_1

14:28:40 [AxelPolleres]

by adrian

14:29:03 [AxelPolleres]

adrian: that's an implementation of factorial function

14:29:40 [AxelPolleres]

harold: And( .... ) is missing in the body, forall missing, infix-arithmetics not allowed.

14:31:20 [sandro]

subtopic: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality

14:32:00 [sandro]

csma: we don't have an unambiguous translation to XML, so we can't consider this yet.

14:33:13 [AxelPolleres]

Topic: UCR

14:33:23 [AxelPolleres]

christian: which plans and changes?

14:33:59 [AxelPolleres]

adrian: many of the use cases need more expressive dialects than the ones we have at the moment.

14:34:31 [AxelPolleres]

... for example 4.3

14:35:31 [Harold]

Harold has joined #rif

14:35:47 [AxelPolleres]

... first rule uses negation, which is not in BLD.

14:36:53 [AxelPolleres]

... there is many different negations, recall: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/negation?highlight=(Negation)

14:37:43 [AxelPolleres]

christian: not include WRONG language in the document.

14:37:59 [Harold]

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 [AxelPolleres]

... remove "non-encodable" code examples

14:39:49 [AxelPolleres]

Leora: 4.5

14:40:09 [AxelPolleres]

... modalities not easily expressible.

14:40:20 [AxelPolleres]

... also would need negation.

14:42:04 [AxelPolleres]

Adrian: let's discuss 4.6

14:42:07 [Bob]

Bob has joined #rif

14:42:16 [AxelPolleres]

Josb: first a question about abridged syntax.

14:43:22 [AxelPolleres]

in the examples... what is the type of "holdsAt" "ineffective"? is it a URI, a local constant?

14:43:48 [AxelPolleres]

s/in the examples/... in the examples/

14:44:07 [AxelPolleres]

... that is not abridged syntax, needs to be fixed!

14:44:33 [AxelPolleres]

Adrian: needs understanding of event calculus.

14:44:58 [AxelPolleres]

Chris: Is the intention of this rule expressible in BLD? I think yes.

14:50:21 [BobMoore]

BobMoore has joined #rif

14:50:36 [AxelPolleres]

Leora: shall we rediscuss encodings of action languages, sit.calc., event calc. in BLD? (was discussed some time ago in RIFRAF)

14:52:09 [AxelPolleres]

chris: abridged syntax.... we had agreement that we discuss only on syntaxes which people are willing to implement.

14:52:54 [AxelPolleres]

... for the use cases, it should be the same rationale. abridged syntax only allowed where we have a translator.

14:54:36 [AxelPolleres]

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 [ChrisW]

action: adrian to update examples in UCR to presentation syntax

14:55:06 [trackbot]

Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - adrian

14:55:06 [trackbot]

Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. agiurca, apaschke)

14:55:23 [ChrisW]

action: apaschke to update examples in UCR to presentation syntax

14:55:23 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-585 - Update examples in UCR to presentation syntax [on Adrian Paschke - due 2008-10-03].

14:56:35 [AxelPolleres]

christian: What do we do about the syntax?

14:56:42 [ChrisW]

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 [trackbot]

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 [ChrisW]

action: apaschke to remove examples in 4.3 that we have no dialect for, and add comment to make that clear

14:57:34 [trackbot]

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]

AdrianP has joined #rif

14:58:32 [AdrianP]

I update the class membership test case

14:58:41 [ChrisW]

action: leora to remove examples in 4.5 that we have no dialect for, and add comment to make that clear

14:58:41 [trackbot]

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 [AxelPolleres]

dave: volunteer to correct 4.8 BLD transcription

15:00:36 [ChrisW]

action: dave to rewrite BLD examples from UC 4.8

15:00:36 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-589 - Rewrite BLD examples from UC 4.8 [on Dave Reynolds - due 2008-10-03].

15:02:41 [AxelPolleres]

Gary: internaitonalization hasn't yet been discussed.

15:03:22 [AxelPolleres]

axel: does that just mean we should have a UC/TC which uses rdf:text?

15:03:39 [sandro]

Sandro: something that shows off the use of language tags.

15:03:53 [ChrisW]

action: apaschke to add a requirement that is satisfied by rdf:text

15:03:53 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-590 - Add a requirement that is satisfied by rdf:text [on Adrian Paschke - due 2008-10-03].

15:04:03 [AxelPolleres]

COFFEEBREAK!

15:05:09 [bmoore3]

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 [mdean]

scribenick: mdean

15:31:36 [mdean]

reviewing actions

15:31:43 [mdean]

NOT CP = NOT CRITICAL PATH

15:31:53 [csma]

csma has joined #rif

15:31:58 [mdean]

ISSUE-26: roundtripping

15:31:58 [trackbot]

ISSUE-26 Replication of original rules after roundtripping to RIF [NOT CP] notes added

15:33:14 [mdean]

Harold: BLD#Conformance_Clauses addresses roundtripping

15:33:54 [mdean]

ChrisW: issue addresses non-semantic things - semantics are required

15:34:26 [mdean]

ChrisW: metadata SHOULD be preserved

15:35:20 [mdean]

ChrisW: ready to close issue?

15:35:39 [mdean]

josb: not sure what it means for metadata to survive roundtripping

15:36:04 [mdean]

josb: e.g. ordering of conjunction clauses

15:36:14 [mdean]

csma: talking about explicit metadata defined in spec

15:36:30 [mdean]

josb: should be made explicit

15:37:26 [mdean]

josb: talking about conjunctions within metadata

15:37:39 [mdean]

csma: metadata about metadata

15:38:04 [mdean]

ChrisW: who would really care?

15:39:45 [DaveReynolds_]

DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif

15:39:47 [GaryHallmark_]

GaryHallmark_ has joined #rif

15:40:11 [josb_]

josb_ has joined #rif

15:41:12 [sandro]

sandro has joined #rif

15:46:20 [josb_]

josb_ has joined #rif

15:46:31 [GaryHallmark_]

GaryHallmark_ has joined #rif

15:46:49 [Blaz]

Blaz has joined #rif

15:46:51 [DaveReynolds_]

DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif

15:47:00 [_mdean]

_mdean has joined #rif

15:47:24 [mdean]

csma: WG should not specify such a mechanism

15:47:45 [mdean]

... should forbid subsets of Core

15:47:58 [mdean]

... otherwise notion of Core disappears

15:48:24 [mdean]

ChrisW: profiles different than dialects

15:48:39 [mdean]

Sandro: only WG can say what RIF is

15:48:58 [mdean]

ChrisW: profile provides way to describe what subset of a dialect you support

15:49:06 [mdean]

... issue predates BLD

15:49:21 [mdean]

... what was Core is now BLD

15:49:49 [mdean]

csma: no mechanism for profiles and don't allow subsets of Core

15:50:06 [mdean]

Sandro: constraints on us vs others

15:50:14 [sandro]

sandro has joined #rif

15:50:48 [mdean]

Gary: forward- vs. backward-chaining example

15:50:56 [mdean]

... how high is bar for translator implementers

15:51:38 [mdean]

csma: will happen - where WG should legislate is different issue

15:51:58 [mdean]

Harold: cannot predict which other subsets of Core will be relevant (e.g. OWL RL)

15:52:29 [mdean]

DaveReynolds: Core document doesn't currently require all dialects to implement

15:53:02 [mdean]

... suggest no to profiles - informal seems good enough - add later if demand warrants

15:53:21 [csma]

csma has joined #rif

15:53:25 [mdean]

ChrisW: no objections to this as proposed resolution

15:53:39 [sandro]

PROPOSED: Close issue-29 saying we will not define a notion of Profiles

15:53:43 [AxelPolleres]

AxelPolleres has joined #rif

15:53:47 [Harold]

Harold has joined #rif

15:53:59 [sandro]

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 [mdean]

csma: wait until tomorrow for resolutions

15:54:43 [mdean]

... like waiting until the next telecon

15:55:13 [Harold]

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 [sandro]

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 [mdean]

ChrisW: should we constrain the WG?

15:55:46 [mdean]

ChrisW: proposing inverse of that

15:55:53 [mdean]

s/constraint/constrain/

15:56:17 [mdean]

Harold: should not constraint ourselves

15:56:26 [mdean]

most people feel we should not

15:56:30 [sandro]

No objections, but CSMA wants to think about it more.

15:57:03 [mdean]

ChrisW: these 2 resolutions will close issue 29

15:57:05 [sandro]

Chris: passing those two resolutions tomorrow will close issue-29

15:57:15 [mdean]

Issue 33: specification of data sources in RIF

15:57:27 [mdean]

csma: special session later, also on 37 and 38

15:57:51 [mdean]

Issue 39 and 46

15:58:03 [mdean]

ChrisW: 46 subsumes 39

15:58:25 [mdean]

ChrisW: Michael had more general thing in mind

15:58:43 [mdean]

ChrisW: can we close 39 because we have it in BLD and then move on to more general

15:59:06 [mdean]

csma: discussed w.r.t. Core? May be a problem for PRD

15:59:40 [mdean]

... semantics of rule set is in conflict resolution strategy - different CRS could be a problem

16:00:12 [mdean]

josb: PRD could preclude loading ruleset with different strategy

16:00:35 [mdean]

josb: maybe change issue

16:00:49 [mdean]

csma: if issue for PRD, then also an issue for Core

16:01:18 [mdean]

ChrisW: keep open for Core and PRD

16:01:32 [mdean]

Issue 46: modules

16:01:38 [mdean]

csma: related to issue 33

16:02:24 [mdean]

Michael: should be in FLD - can't substantiallly change BLD now

16:03:06 [mdean]

josb: add to FLD and write specialization text for BLD

16:03:23 [mdean]

Michael: should leave this open

16:03:49 [mdean]

ChrisW added note that modules apply to FLD

16:04:49 [mdean]

Issue 50: Semantic metadata

16:04:57 [GaryHallmark_]

GaryHallmark_ has joined #rif

16:05:31 [mdean]

ChrisW: opened for metadata that impacts semantics, e.g. import or PR priority, resolution strategy, negation semantics

16:05:52 [mdean]

Michael: problem for FLD not BLD

16:06:18 [mdean]

ChrisW: closed for BLD

16:06:36 [mdean]

Harold: Peter pointed us to that issue

16:07:03 [mdean]

Michael: metadata is annotations, not import

16:07:37 [mdean]

... FLD has no provision for metadata affecting semantics

16:08:03 [mdean]

DaveReynolds: in logic language, would make it part of language not metadata

16:08:27 [sandro]

so the question is what is metadata.... annotations....

16:08:32 [mdean]

Michael: e.g. overrides predicate on identifiers

16:08:53 [mdean]

Michael: depends on where you put stuff

16:09:25 [mdean]

ChrisW: need to decide for FLD, already decided for BLD, what about PRD and Core?

16:09:34 [mdean]

csma: still open

16:09:49 [mdean]

Sandro: would prefer that metadata not be semantic, by definition

16:10:13 [mdean]

csma: point of preserving during round-tripping

16:10:41 [mdean]

ChrisW: how long would this discussion take?

16:12:02 [mdean]

ChrisW: any objections to precluding semantic metadata?

16:12:18 [sandro]

michael: I don't feel comfortable closing this right now, for FLD.

16:12:18 [mdean]

Harold: divide annotations into pragmas and ...

16:13:25 [mdean]

moved to Technical Design product (no conjunctive drop down lists)

16:14:00 [mdean]

Issue 57: Extensibility

16:14:10 [mdean]

ChrisW: XTAN has no official status

16:14:33 [mdean]

csma; relationship to 69

16:14:57 [mdean]

ChrisW: have to close or postpone all issues by Last Call

16:15:15 [mdean]

not in BLD for Last Call

16:15:55 [mdean]

Sandro: can we meet requirements without it?

16:16:04 [mdean]

s/meet/meet our

16:16:13 [sandro]

Sandro: I don't think we can meet our requirements with out.

16:16:33 [mdean]

csma: on tomorrow's agenda?

16:17:14 [mdean]

csma: proposed resolution for profiles

16:19:51 [mdean]

ChrisW: just roundtripping

16:20:26 [mdean]

... return to issues in last session today

16:24:11 [mdean]

Issues 37 and 38

16:24:28 [mdean]

Christian: references to external classes such as Hen

16:24:34 [mdean]

josb: Jim the Hen Handler

16:25:18 [mdean]

DaveReynolds: schema vs. object model (37 vs. 38) - raised but not written down

16:25:40 [mdean]

s/but/but formal spec/

16:25:51 [mdean]

... reuse JAXB mapping

16:26:52 [mdean]

Sandro: write a spec that JAXB happens to implement

16:27:04 [mdean]

Gary: map complex classes to frames

16:27:19 [mdean]

... JAXB is long and complicated - start with something simpler like Java Bean

16:27:40 [mdean]

... handle 1-to-1 vs. set cardinality constraints

16:28:15 [mdean]

... unique properties would probably need equality in the head

16:28:33 [mdean]

... perhaps end up with mini ontology language

16:29:01 [mdean]

DaveReynolds: XML Schema provides cardinalities

16:29:23 [mdean]

... need to know URIs to reference complex classes

16:30:44 [mdean]

s/need/just need/

16:32:04 [mdean]

DaveReynolds: spec'd algorithm vs. annotation mechanism

16:32:23 [mdean]

csma: such schemas already exist

16:32:45 [mdean]

DaveReynolds: focus on algorithm

16:32:55 [bmoore3]

bmoore3 has joined #rif

16:33:03 [mdean]

Gary: JAXB handles most schemas, but it's a huge spec

16:33:43 [mdean]

csma: useful to any dialects?

16:33:50 [mdean]

Gary: seems orthogonal

16:34:02 [mdean]

csma: who could write strawman document?

16:34:50 [mdean]

Sandro: how many people would use this? is it critical?

16:34:57 [mdean]

Gary: yes

16:35:03 [mdean]

csma: agreed

16:35:11 [mdean]

Adrian: what about black box model?

16:35:27 [BobMoore]

BobMoore has joined #rif

16:35:36 [mdean]

csma: requires sharing XML Schema + mappin

16:36:32 [mdean]

ChrisW: black box still requires dealing with uniqueness of slots in frame syntax and access to objects

16:37:03 [BobMoore]

Just to announce I am here - at least for a little while until I have to go down to supper

16:37:40 [BobMoore]

Is it possible to activate the phone bridge

16:38:02 [mdean]

csma: multiple models mapping on to same XML Schema

16:38:28 [mdean]

csma: navigating schema, attribute of sub-sub-element

16:38:40 [AxelPolleres]

AxelPolleres has joined #rif

16:39:05 [mdean]

csma: user-defined builtins for object model methods

16:39:24 [mdean]

... how do you refer to methods

16:39:41 [mdean]

... using frame syntax

16:39:48 [mdean]

... e.g. for Java objects

16:40:28 [sandro]

Hey, BobMoore - one minute.

16:40:41 [mdean]

DaveReynolds: very PRD specific

16:41:01 [sandro]

BobMoore, it looks we're just about to break for lunch.

16:41:15 [sandro]

back in 80 minutes or so.

16:41:19 [mdean]

ChrisW: meet-odds

16:41:35 [BobMoore]

What timing!!

16:41:41 [mdean]

ChrisW: any other issues or barriers?

16:43:07 [mdean]

csma: use the schema to navigate the data

16:43:09 [sandro]

ACTION: Gary to draft a straw proposal addressing part of ISSUE-37, in the area of navigating the schema/data.

16:43:09 [trackbot]

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 [mdean]

Gary: not going to do arbitrary XML

16:45:55 [mdean]

csma: use XPath?

16:45:57 [mdean]

Gary: no

16:47:01 [sandro]

ACTION: csma to open issue based on the White Board line: "What about methods -- Ignore"

16:47:01 [trackbot]

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 [mdean]

break for lunch

16:47:31 [mdean]

cafeteria somewhere in this building

16:47:45 [mdean]

2 or 3 restaurants in Trump Building

16:47:56 [mdean]

appears to have stopped raining

16:48:12 [mdean]

Sony building also has food

16:48:45 [mdean]

reconvene at 2pm

17:32:08 [Zakim]

There will be an interruption of Zakim-bot services shortly expected to last less than 15 mins

18:10:45 [LeoraMorgenstern]

LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif

18:17:15 [BobMoore]

BobMoore has joined #rif

18:28:50 [BobMoore]

BobMoore has joined #rif

18:31:45 [ChrisW]

ChrisW has joined #rif

18:33:10 [csma]

csma has joined #rif

18:34:28 [csma]

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 [csma]

Ping us if/when you want to join

18:36:00 [BobMoore]

okay trust you had a nice lunch - I am assuming the conference code is 74394

18:37:44 [sandro]

sandro has joined #rif

18:38:49 [BobMoore]

I'm ready to join

18:39:19 [csma]

ok

18:40:05 [csma]

Call Zakim (+1.617.761.6200 (US), +33 4 89 06 34 99 (F) or +44.117.370.6152

18:40:05 [csma]

(GB)

18:40:38 [csma]

Conference code is as usual: 74394# ('RIFWG')

18:40:55 [csma]

We are setting up the communication on our side

18:41:28 [csma]

zakim, what is the code?

18:41:28 [Zakim]

the conference code is hidden, csma

18:41:43 [csma]

zakim, this will be rif

18:41:43 [Zakim]

I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, csma

18:41:49 [StellaMitchell]

StellaMitchell has joined #rif

18:42:14 [csma]

Zakim, room for 4 for 300mn?

18:42:14 [Zakim]

I don't understand your question, csma.

18:42:30 [csma]

Zakim, room for 4 for 300 minutes?

18:42:31 [Zakim]

ok, csma; conference Team_(rif)18:42Z scheduled with code 26631 (CONF1) for 300 minutes until 2342Z

18:43:13 [csma]

Bob, the code is 26631, instead

18:43:22 [josb_]

josb_ has joined #rif

18:43:55 [Zakim]

Team_(rif)18:42Z has now started

18:43:55 [csma]

Scribe: stella Mitchell

18:44:02 [Zakim]

+ +0777841aaaa

18:44:06 [csma]

scribenick: StellaMitchell

18:44:21 [DaveReynolds_]

DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif

18:44:35 [sandro]

BobMoore, we're trying to figure out how to get the phone working.

18:44:37 [DaveReynolds]

DaveReynolds has joined #rif

18:44:49 [csma]

Bob, are you +0777841aaaa?

18:44:59 [BobMoore]

Zakim, aaaa is me

18:44:59 [Zakim]

+BobMoore; got it

18:45:30 [BobMoore]

yes I am - Zakim says I am the first participant and I need to wait for others to join

18:46:11 [Zakim]

+??P1

18:46:20 [sandro]

zakim, ??P1 is Meeting_Room

18:46:20 [Zakim]

+Meeting_Room; got it

18:46:39 [Blaz]

Blaz has joined #rif

18:47:20 [StellaMitchell]

topic: Test Cases, including FPWD plan

18:47:37 [StellaMitchell]

csma: start with FPWD plan

18:47:51 [AdriaP]

AdriaP has joined #rif

18:48:12 [StellaMitchell]

csma: what do we need to publish?

18:48:27 [mdean]

mdean has joined #rif

18:48:46 [StellaMitchell]

csma: document does not currently include the test cases. Should it?

18:49:00 [sandro]

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

18:49:00 [AdriaP]

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

18:49:02 [GaryHallmark]

GaryHallmark has joined #rif

18:49:16 [StellaMitchell]

Sandro: there are 3 options:

18:49:35 [StellaMitchell]

... 1. owl pulbished the tests, but not the format

18:50:04 [StellaMitchell]

... 2.currently for RIF we have the format, and other information, but not the tests themselves

18:50:12 [StellaMitchell]

...3 some groups do neither

18:50:22 [AxelPolleres]

AxelPolleres has joined #rif

18:50:25 [StellaMitchell]

...I can't see reasons to go one way or the other

18:50:56 [StellaMitchell]

csma: do we need to publish anything? or can we just maintain the wiki page?

18:51:02 [StellaMitchell]

jos: need versions

18:51:17 [Harold]

Harold has joined #rif

18:51:54 [ChrisW]

who is on the phone?

18:51:58 [StellaMitchell]

sandro: can't run test cases from wiki, I am writing software to extract the cases from that

18:52:00 [ChrisW]

zakim, who is on the phone?

18:52:00 [Zakim]

On the phone I see BobMoore, Meeting_Room

18:52:25 [StellaMitchell]

adrian: I think it's good to have a separate document also

18:52:41 [StellaMitchell]

csma: but does it need to be on rec track?

18:53:08 [StellaMitchell]

jos: I don't think it needs to be rec track

18:53:29 [StellaMitchell]

csma: needs to be accessible, but rec track is a different quesiton

18:53:41 [StellaMitchell]

leora: what do other groups do?

18:54:24 [StellaMitchell]

sandro: owl did, but they were different because they included the tests and conformance clauses

18:54:26 [ChrisW]

zakim, meeting_room contains AxelPolleres, SandroHawke, JosDeBruijn, MikeDean, StellaMitchell, LeoraMorgenstern, BlazNovak, MichealKifer, DaveReynolds, AdrianPaschke, HaroldBoley, GaryHallmark, ChrisWelty, ChristianDeSainteMarie

18:54:26 [Zakim]

+AxelPolleres, SandroHawke, JosDeBruijn, MikeDean, StellaMitchell, LeoraMorgenstern, BlazNovak, MichealKifer, DaveReynolds, AdrianPaschke, HaroldBoley, GaryHallmark, ChrisWelty,

18:54:29 [Zakim]

... ChristianDeSainteMarie; got it

18:54:57 [ChrisW]

rrsagent, make minutes

18:54:57 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-minutes.html ChrisW

18:55:07 [ChrisW]

rrsagent, make logs public

18:55:18 [StellaMitchell]

csma: if we do not publish the test cases, then this can be on the same web page

18:55:49 [StellaMitchell]

sandro: I don't think it needs to be rec track

18:56:28 [StellaMitchell]

sandro: people may notice it more if there is a document

18:56:58 [StellaMitchell]

csma: question of whether there is a document is separate from the question of whether it is rec track

18:57:38 [StellaMitchell]

sandro: I like that the tests are normative, so you know if someone fails a test case then they have a non-conforning implementation

18:57:52 [StellaMitchell]

jos: there could be errors in the test cases

18:58:41 [StellaMitchell]

harold: there could be errors in the test cases, but it would be good if they are normative - and we should try to make sure they are all correct

18:58:51 [mdean]

mdean has joined #rif

18:59:23 [StellaMitchell]

csma: if we make them normative, then that doesn't add much work to what we have to do anyway

18:59:50 [StellaMitchell]

csma: but other things, such as running the test cases, are a distraction that is not high priority

19:00:38 [StellaMitchell]

csma: how far are we from being able to publish a document if we put all the tests in an appendix?

19:00:47 [StellaMitchell]

adrian: I think it is almost ready

19:01:17 [StellaMitchell]

csma: how much of the document has been discussed and agreed upon?

19:02:17 [StellaMitchell]

harold: we need to bring it to a high quality anyway - so that they can be used

19:02:43 [StellaMitchell]

csma: how hard would it be to agree on properties?

19:02:52 [StellaMitchell]

sandro: it's not done yet

19:04:06 [StellaMitchell]

sandro: should extend rdf and owl

19:04:12 [StellaMitchell]

sandro: I think

19:04:28 [StellaMitchell]

sandro: if the definitions are the same as RDF/OWL used

19:06:37 [StellaMitchell]

chrisw: is everyone ok with doc being published as WD, and including actual test cases?

19:07:06 [StellaMitchell]

dave: nervous about including test cases in the document

19:08:28 [StellaMitchell]

sandro: the doc could end up being too large

19:08:55 [sandro]

http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/

19:09:00 [StellaMitchell]

sandro: a recommendation can be multple web pages

19:10:51 [StellaMitchell]

adrian: show/hide buttons

19:11:25 [StellaMitchell]

sandro: is it ok to use RDF for the manifest file format?

19:11:56 [Harold]

In response to Sandro, if the document is too long to be printed, it should carry a label warning about this ("Please don't print this long document ...").

19:12:07 [StellaMitchell]

sandro: question to Gary, is this ok for you? will you have tools to parse RDF?

19:14:04 [StellaMitchell]

Sandro wants tests to be maintained on the wiki

19:14:31 [StellaMitchell]

not in a repository like the current document specifies

19:15:41 [StellaMitchell]

Gary: I don't think it's a problem - re: manifest file format

19:16:06 [sandro]

sounds like it's okay to be RDF-centric in test-case management for now.

19:18:42 [sandro]

SPARQL test cases --- looks like a WD, but it's not.... http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/r2

19:19:36 [sandro]

chris: prefer to have text of test cases in WD --- 8

19:19:48 [sandro]

chris: prefer not to have it in --- 3

19:20:14 [StellaMitchell]

chris: what other things do people expect to see in the WD that is not here

19:20:34 [StellaMitchell]

...none were identified

19:20:58 [StellaMitchell]

chris: so, we need to work out properties and include text of test cases

19:21:24 [Harold]

Dave, we could have an "In doubt leave it out" policy for the set of approved WD test cases.

19:23:07 [StellaMitchell]

chris: test cases task force will meet monday 11:00 est

19:23:33 [StellaMitchell]

chris: have estimate by tues of how long it would take to get this ready to be reviewed as a WD

19:24:05 [ChrisW]

action: csma to put Test Cases working draft schedule on agenda for next telecon

19:24:05 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-593 - Put Test Cases working draft schedule on agenda for next telecon [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2008-10-03].

19:24:26 [StellaMitchell]

toplic: reviewing test cases

19:24:47 [sandro]

subtopic: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_conclusion_1

19:25:46 [StellaMitchell]

csma: any problems with this

19:26:05 [StellaMitchell]

chris: could use more in the description

19:26:19 [sandro]

PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_conclusion_1

19:26:29 [sandro]

RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_conclusion_1

19:26:35 [sandro]

RRSAgent, pointer?

19:26:35 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T19-26-35

19:27:19 [ChrisW]

action: Stella to add more to the description of use case equality in conclusion1

19:27:19 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-594 - Add more to the description of use case equality in conclusion1 [on Stella Mitchell - due 2008-10-03].

19:27:39 [StellaMitchell]

csma: equality_in_conculsion2

19:27:45 [StellaMitchell]

csma: any objections?

19:28:58 [sandro]

Chris: It would be nice to have some real-world example for this.

19:29:20 [StellaMitchell]

chris: for description - say why you would write a rule like this

19:29:32 [StellaMitchell]

chris: test cases are examples too

19:29:33 [sandro]

Chris: put in a concrete example....

19:30:04 [sandro]

PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_conclusion_2

19:30:12 [sandro]

RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_conclusion_2

19:30:16 [ChrisW]

action: Stella to add more to the description of use case equality in conclusion2

19:30:16 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-595 - Add more to the description of use case equality in conclusion2 [on Stella Mitchell - due 2008-10-03].

19:30:19 [sandro]

RRSAgent, pointer?

19:30:19 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T19-30-19

19:30:40 [StellaMitchell]

csma: equality_in_condition

19:31:58 [StellaMitchell]

csma: in this test case, the conclusion is exhaustive

19:32:02 [StellaMitchell]

jos: no, it's not

19:32:58 [StellaMitchell]

sandro: would be nice to see what isn't entailed, as well as what is entailed - n the same test case

19:34:19 [StellaMitchell]

various: in this case, the conclusion is not a proper document

19:34:39 [StellaMitchell]

dave: updated to be a document

19:35:07 [sandro]

PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_condition

19:35:13 [sandro]

RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Equality_in_condition

19:35:20 [sandro]

RRSAgent, show pointer

19:35:20 [RRSAgent]

I'm logging. I don't understand 'show pointer', sandro. Try /msg RRSAgent help

19:35:23 [sandro]

RRSAgent, show pointer?

19:35:23 [RRSAgent]

I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'show pointer'

19:35:28 [sandro]

RRSAgent, pointer?

19:35:28 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T19-35-28

19:35:54 [AxelPolleres]

what about testcases like modeling equalities from OWL - e.g. by inverseFunctionalProperties... - for head equality? do we want that? I have one here: http://axel.deri.ie/~axepol/presentations/20080922KeynoteXinnovationsPhDworkshopBerlin.pdf, slide 31, with the test data from slide 22, basically.

19:36:49 [AxelPolleres]

stella, let me know, if that looks worthwhile, I can shape it in the right format.

19:37:48 [ChrisW]

PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Guards_and_subtypes

19:37:54 [ChrisW]

RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Guards_and_subtypes

19:37:59 [ChrisW]

rrsagent, show pointer

19:37:59 [RRSAgent]

I'm logging. I don't understand 'show pointer', ChrisW. Try /msg RRSAgent help

19:38:02 [ChrisW]

rrsagent, show pointer?

19:38:02 [RRSAgent]

I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'show pointer'

19:38:09 [StellaMitchell]

axel, yes that would be good

19:38:11 [ChrisW]

rrsagent, pointer?

19:38:11 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T19-38-11

19:38:22 [ChrisW]

rrsagent, anything

19:38:22 [RRSAgent]

I'm logging. I don't understand 'anything', ChrisW. Try /msg RRSAgent help

19:39:25 [ChrisW]

action: josb to update description of Inconsistent entailment

19:39:25 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-596 - Update description of Inconsistent entailment [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2008-10-03].

19:39:49 [ChrisW]

PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Inconsistent_Entailment

19:39:59 [ChrisW]

RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Inconsistent_Entailment

19:40:05 [ChrisW]

rrsagent, pointer?

19:40:05 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T19-40-05

19:40:57 [StellaMitchell]

test case individual data separation inconsistency

19:41:09 [StellaMitchell]

chris: is this still true?

19:41:44 [StellaMitchell]

jos: a is a class, and then we say everything is of type a

19:41:51 [StellaMitchell]

chris: is this still true in OWL2?

19:41:58 [StellaMitchell]

jos: yes, I think it does

19:42:11 [StellaMitchell]

chris: in owl1.1 you could use same iri as both a class and an instance

19:42:31 [StellaMitchell]

jos: oops, I was talking about a different test case

19:43:06 [StellaMitchell]

jos: in owl-dl there is a separation between individual domains and data value domains

19:44:40 [StellaMitchell]

csma: any objections to this test case?

19:45:00 [sandro]

RRSAgent, pointer?

19:45:00 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T19-45-00

19:45:03 [ChrisW]

PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Individual-Data_Separation_Inconsistency

19:45:08 [ChrisW]

RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Individual-Data_Separation_Inconsistency

19:45:15 [ChrisW]

rrsagent, pointer?

19:45:15 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T19-45-15

19:45:23 [StellaMitchell]

csma: test case "local constant"

19:45:47 [StellaMitchell]

jos: in BLD LC WD, this was true , entailment relation doesn't preserve names of local constants

19:46:20 [StellaMitchell]

mk: in the current BLD, this is no longer true

19:46:33 [StellaMitchell]

mk, jos: this test isn't valid wrt to the current BLD

19:47:18 [StellaMitchell]

csma: test case: named_argument_uniterms/frames1

19:48:06 [StellaMitchell]

daver: tihs case, together with the other named_argument uniterm/frame give the idea

19:48:16 [StellaMitchell]

daver: can cross link between the 2 tests

19:51:17 [StellaMitchell]

jos: for 2nd one, the conclusion is not a valid question

19:52:05 [StellaMitchell]

jos: ...because a predicate can only occur in one context

19:52:15 [sandro]

someone should produce a Negative Syntax Test from this: ex:p(ex:a->1 ex:b->2) and ex:p(ex:a->1)

19:52:25 [StellaMitchell]

jos: even if it is in a separate document

19:53:00 [StellaMitchell]

csma: repeat the arg names

19:53:05 [StellaMitchell]

mk, dave: no, not allowed

19:54:41 [StellaMitchell]

csma: if rhis cannot be expressed in RIF, why do we need named arguement uniterms?

19:55:01 [StellaMitchell]

daver: I kind of agree

19:55:31 [StellaMitchell]

mk: can we go back and remove restrictoins such as no polymorphic symbols

19:56:25 [StellaMitchell]

chris: would be nice to capture named-argument uniterms as a negative syntax test

19:56:29 [StellaMitchell]

dave: will do it now

19:56:55 [ChrisW]

PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Named_Argument_Uniterms/Frames_1

19:57:12 [StellaMitchell]

sandro: and change the names of the tests

19:58:44 [sandro]

PROPOSED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/No_polymorphic_symbols

19:58:53 [StellaMitchell]

csma: test case: no polymorphic symbols

19:59:07 [StellaMitchell]

csma: syntax error - rejected by consumer

19:59:29 [StellaMitchell]

sandro: description should highligh that buy has 3 parms in one place, and 4 in another

19:59:55 [ChrisW]

action: Stella to update description in http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/No_polymorphic_symbols

19:59:55 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-597 - Update description in http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/No_polymorphic_symbols [on Stella Mitchell - due 2008-10-03].

20:00:01 [ChrisW]

PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/No_polymorphic_symbols

20:00:10 [ChrisW]

RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/No_polymorphic_symbols

20:00:14 [sandro]

PROPOSED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/No_polymorphic_symbols

20:00:20 [ChrisW]

rrsagent, pointer?

20:00:20 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T20-00-20

20:00:49 [StellaMitchell]

csma: test case: non-annotation entailment

20:00:57 [StellaMitchell]

jos: this is the complement of annotation entailment test case

20:01:45 [StellaMitchell]

jos: in the earlier test case we were talking about owl-dl annotation entialment and this is plain owl-dl enatailment, so annotation properties are not considered in the entailment

20:02:04 [StellaMitchell]

chris: why do we need to prevent entailment of annotation properties?

20:02:32 [StellaMitchell]

jos: just following what is in owl

20:03:09 [ChrisW]

action: josb to update description of http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Non-Annotation_Entailment

20:03:09 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-598 - Update description of http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Non-Annotation_Entailment [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2008-10-03].

20:03:20 [ChrisW]

PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Non-Annotation_Entailment

20:03:26 [ChrisW]

RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Non-Annotation_Entailment

20:03:32 [ChrisW]

rrsagent, pointer?

20:03:32 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T20-03-32

20:03:33 [StellaMitchell]

csma: test case: owl combination vocabulary separation inconsistency1

20:04:05 [StellaMitchell]

jos: again, mixing of individual and concrete domains

20:07:10 [StellaMitchell]

axel: this would not be syntactially correct in owl-dl

20:07:14 [StellaMitchell]

various: but this is RIF

20:07:20 [StellaMitchell]

...combination with OWL-DL

20:08:11 [StellaMitchell]

csma: axel, do you object?

20:08:12 [ChrisW]

PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWL_Combination_Vocabulary_Separation_Inconsistency_1

20:08:16 [StellaMitchell]

axel: no

20:08:51 [ChrisW]

RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWL_Combination_Vocabulary_Separation_Inconsistency_1

20:08:57 [ChrisW]

rrsagent, pointer?

20:08:57 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T20-08-57

20:09:05 [AxelPolleres]

my concern/ confusion basically was along the following lines:

20:09:30 [StellaMitchell]

sandro: will these (the ones applicable to core) turn into core tests?

20:09:55 [StellaMitchell]

test case; owl combination vocabulary separation inconsistency2

20:09:56 [AxelPolleres]

e.g. the pD* entailment rules from ter Horst 2005 would have no problems with http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWL_Combination_Vocabulary_Separation_Inconsistency_1 if written in RIF.

20:10:20 [StellaMitchell]

chris: is this still in owl2, object properties, datatype properties...?

20:10:22 [StellaMitchell]

jos: yes

20:10:46 [StellaMitchell]

jos: but in owl2 you have punning, but you can always determine from the context

20:11:06 [StellaMitchell]

dave: I thought that was dropped for object properties

20:11:08 [AxelPolleres]

... it is just that I was astonished - hadn't realizzed that - when something is not in OWL DL syntactically we infer inconsistency... but if that is the agreement - and I don't have a better suggestion - then that's fine.

20:12:02 [sandro]

recent change in OWL2: "The major change to this document since the version of 11 April 2008 reflects the major revamping of the functional syntax to disallow punning between classes and datatypes and between object, data, and annotation properties. Some minor changes were made to reflect changes in the Functional Syntax."

20:12:36 [StellaMitchell]

axel: punning is not trivially combinable with our rules

20:13:12 [ChrisW]

PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWL_Combination_Vocabulary_Separation_Inconsistency_2

20:13:22 [ChrisW]

RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWL_Combination_Vocabulary_Separation_Inconsistency_2

20:13:29 [ChrisW]

rrsagent, pointer?

20:13:29 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T20-13-29

20:13:58 [StellaMitchell]

test case: frame slots are independent

20:14:24 [StellaMitchell]

...renamed from named/arg untierms...

20:14:44 [StellaMitchell]

csma: any objection to accepting this?

20:14:45 [ChrisW]

PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Frame_slots_are_independent

20:15:14 [ChrisW]

RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Frame_slots_are_independent

20:15:18 [ChrisW]

rrsagent, pointer?

20:15:18 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T20-15-18

20:15:42 [ChrisW]

PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Named_Argument_Uniterms_non-polymorphic

20:16:11 [ChrisW]

RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Named_Argument_Uniterms_non-polymorphic

20:16:22 [ChrisW]

rrsagent, pointer?

20:16:22 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-irc#T20-16-22

20:17:53 [StellaMitchell]

csma: who read the description of semantics of conditions in PRD?

20:17:58 [StellaMitchell]

...a few

20:19:19 [StellaMitchell]

csma: in 1st WD, the semantics was described operationally

20:19:32 [StellaMitchell]

...question was rasied of how we relate this to DTB?

20:19:54 [StellaMitchell]

...suggestion was to describe semantics of conditions in PRD in the same was as in BLD

20:20:38 [StellaMitchell]

chris: I don't understand the link, between need to link to DTB and how to specify conditions

20:21:31 [StellaMitchell]

chris: question about what is being done here, with actions vs. conditions

20:22:06 [StellaMitchell]

gary: prd: start with rules and facts, then ask which rules you want to fire

20:22:21 [StellaMitchell]

...conditions tell you which to fire (might only pick some of them)

20:22:36 [StellaMitchell]

...the rules that fire cause actions to be executed

20:22:52 [StellaMitchell]

...actions change state of things

20:22:55 [StellaMitchell]

...then repeat

20:23:49 [StellaMitchell]

csma: semantics of facts in actions is the same as semantics of facts in conditions

20:24:48 [StellaMitchell]

csma: adrian proposed a definition that is as similar to BLD as possible

20:25:03 [StellaMitchell]

gary: it is possible to just point to BLD from here?

20:26:44 [StellaMitchell]

csma: Definition of Satisfaction is the important point

20:28:39 [StellaMitchell]

gary: why do we need extra substitution step mapping variables to ?

20:29:13 [StellaMitchell]

csma: we wanted to mention this in the plenary so that semantisists can comment

20:29:36 [StellaMitchell]

jos: why don't use you a semantic structure?

20:29:39 [StellaMitchell]

csma: we do

20:30:07 [StellaMitchell]

csma: but we also have operational semantics for the action part

20:30:27 [StellaMitchell]

jos: the set of facts is equivalent to a semantic structure, and go directly from w to w1

20:30:37 [StellaMitchell]

s/w1/w'/

20:31:54 [StellaMitchell]

csma: I'd like to see it written as a draft, and then we have to relate it to the working memory

20:32:01 [StellaMitchell]

...and take into consideration the target audience

20:32:41 [StellaMitchell]

gary: "w" is very syntactic

20:32:52 [StellaMitchell]

,,,2 different things in syntax map to same thing in the domain

20:33:35 [StellaMitchell]

adrian: and it needs to be restructured

20:34:02 [StellaMitchell]

csma: no, I moved it into the "instantiate rules" part

20:34:25 [StellaMitchell]

csma:...but I agree that the document needs to be reorganized

20:35:37 [StellaMitchell]

jos: you need the substitution because of assert and .. in head

20:35:56 [StellaMitchell]

chris: not if you define it as transitions

20:35:58 [StellaMitchell]

jos: ok

20:38:08 [StellaMitchell]

csma: we can in one of several ways, but currently it is incorrect

20:38:56 [StellaMitchell]

... (definition of pattern matching)

20:39:03 [StellaMitchell]

...get rid of sigma

20:41:03 [StellaMitchell]

.chris: target audience may not understand what the variable mapping means

20:41:24 [StellaMitchell]

csma: we need to add a paragraph to explain variable binding

20:42:05 [StellaMitchell]

csma: in signature, adrian introduced a function "type"

20:42:14 [StellaMitchell]

adrian: that is to introduce a multi-sorted type system

20:42:35 [StellaMitchell]

csma: I'm not sure this is required for PRD

20:43:06 [StellaMitchell]

gary: you can do type referencing with guards

20:43:33 [StellaMitchell]

csma: and a few other things that could be removed from the signatures

20:43:44 [StellaMitchell]

daver: and another mistake: frames don't have an arity

20:44:15 [StellaMitchell]

gary: this is supposed to be mirroring BLD in the syntax area

20:44:30 [StellaMitchell]

csma: but syntax is what we will define semantics of

20:44:54 [StellaMitchell]

csma: and other simpler things

20:45:22 [ChrisW]

taking a break

20:45:33 [StellaMitchell]

csma: the main point was about the semantics of pattern matching

20:48:42 [ChrisW]

ACTION: AdrianP to reformulate PRD condition semantics without substitution

20:48:42 [trackbot]

Sorry, couldn't find user - AdrianP

20:49:14 [ChrisW]

ACTION: AdrianPaschke to reformulate PRD condition semantics without

20:49:14 [trackbot]

Sorry, couldn't find user - AdrianPaschke

20:49:30 [ChrisW]

ACTION: AdriaP to reformulate PRD condition semantics without

20:49:30 [trackbot]

Sorry, couldn't find user - AdriaP

20:49:59 [ChrisW]

ACTION: APaschke to reformulate PRD condition semantics without

20:49:59 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-599 - Reformulate PRD condition semantics without [on Adrian Paschke - due 2008-10-03].

21:04:29 [AxelPolleres]

AxelPolleres has joined #rif

21:06:44 [BobMoore]

Guys & gals I'm falling asleep - it's been a very long day. I'll try and be a more active participant tomorrow. Enjoy dinner

21:07:01 [sandro]

Enjoy, BobMoore

21:07:01 [Blaz]

scribenick Blaz

21:07:12 [Blaz]

scribenick: Blaz

21:07:21 [Zakim]

-BobMoore

21:07:38 [Blaz]

chrisw: open issues in BLD: roundtripping; at risk: external frames (because there was confusion about exactly what they were), equality in the conclusion, scrictness requirement @ conformance

21:07:41 [StellaMitchell]

ScribeNick: Blaz

21:09:36 [Blaz]

chrisw: at the last f2f we discussed the idea of 'consumer' that implements extensions; we added the clause there may be a strictness mode that will reject everything that is not in BLD

21:10:48 [Blaz]

csma: the point is it is not a requirement

21:11:24 [Blaz]

chrisw: there is no harm in leaving "at risk" in for now

21:12:17 [Zakim]

-Meeting_Room

21:12:18 [Zakim]

Team_(rif)18:42Z has ended

21:12:20 [Zakim]

Attendees were +0777841aaaa, BobMoore, AxelPolleres, SandroHawke, JosDeBruijn, MikeDean, StellaMitchell, LeoraMorgenstern, BlazNovak, MichealKifer, DaveReynolds, AdrianPaschke,

21:12:22 [Zakim]

... HaroldBoley, GaryHallmark, ChrisWelty, ChristianDeSainteMarie

21:12:29 [Blaz]

csma: equality in the conclusion remains 'at risk', because some of the implementers might want not to implement it

21:13:58 [Blaz]

jos: it might be possible to introduce an inconsistency even without this

21:15:18 [Blaz]

mk: nobody will implement this anyway

21:15:29 [Blaz]

mk: we should do something about conformance, then

21:15:50 [Blaz]

csma: we can not remove it now

21:16:22 [josb]

also with RDF and RDFS combinations we can have inconsistencies, because there can be inconsistencies in these languages

21:17:46 [Blaz]

what is the terminology - head/body? condition/conclusion?

21:18:00 [Blaz]

chrisw: the language should be made consistent

21:18:19 [Blaz]

mk: 'premise' is used a lot, 'body' is used in a couple of places

21:18:28 [Blaz]

mk: 'body'/'head' is used in the translation to XML too

21:18:47 [Blaz]

mk: conclusion and premise?

21:19:25 [Blaz]

voting on "premise" and "condition"

21:19:38 [Blaz]

condition wins

21:20:09 [sandro]

ignoring Axel and Sandro saying "if-part"

21:20:19 [sandro]

not really a WG decision.

21:20:32 [sandro]

Chris: At very least, get rid of Body and Head.

21:20:58 [Blaz]

chrisw: leaving equality at risk

21:21:28 [Blaz]

chrisw: what is external about external frames

21:21:42 [Blaz]

mk: it's just like external predicates... it's just the same thing, but different syntax

21:22:20 [Blaz]

csma: P(a,b) .. if P has a fixed interpretation, then this is an external: Ext[P(a,b)]

21:23:13 [StellaMitchell]

mk: you are asking an external source, and it tells you yes or no

21:23:22 [StellaMitchell]

... you are making a query to an external source

21:24:17 [Blaz]

csma: [to mk] is it a way to address 'external methods' ?

21:25:15 [Blaz]

Ext[P(a,b)] vs. Ext(a[P->b]) -- is using the same device for differrent purposes

21:25:31 [Blaz]

csma: my understanding of the current def. of 'external' is that it is a function

21:25:51 [Blaz]

mk: originally, the idea was just to do builtins, then we discussed that people might want to access external datasources

21:25:58 [Blaz]

csma: but this is completely different

21:26:00 [Blaz]

mk: no

21:26:12 [Blaz]

dave: the builtin location is part of a step

21:26:25 [Blaz]

mk: you can not really draw a boundary between external sources and builtins

21:26:30 [Blaz]

csma: I think it is wrong

21:26:56 [Blaz]

mk: it really means a query to some source

21:27:06 [Blaz]

mk: we are just asking a query

21:27:23 [Blaz]

csma: I agree they are the same

21:27:52 [Blaz]

csma: if a and P are both IRIs .. which one is external?

21:28:03 [Blaz]

mk: if a is an IRI, it means 'query me this way'

21:28:25 [Blaz]

mk: if it's not an IRI, but some other constant .. you would do some other thing .. the object tells you how to query it

21:28:49 [Blaz]

mk: it's a matter of modelling. you can model something as a predicate, relation, class,

21:29:22 [Blaz]

csma: in Ext[P(a,b)] there is no ambiguity. what is external is 'P'. if both are equivalent...

21:29:47 [Blaz]

mk: I'm saying I can think of situations where you have an object that is sitting externally and that object can be asked various things

21:29:59 [Blaz]

mk: and that object http://www.ibm.com/ and P would be 'president' ..

21:30:29 [Blaz]

csma: when I receive a document where there is an external frame and I have to deserialize it .. how do I know which is extenral? I know when I'm executing it, but how do I know when I'm deserializing it ?

21:30:46 [Blaz]

csma: this is an interchange format; when I see an XML document I want do deserialize it into my own lanugage

21:30:59 [Blaz]

mk: how do you perform calls to external sources?

21:31:23 [Blaz]

csma: I'm not saying we do not need it

21:32:03 [Blaz]

csma: I have to know wether 'a' is stored in an object database at the address given by 'a' or if 'P' is ____. I need to know it syntactically

21:32:20 [Blaz]

chrisw: I don't understand the role of externals

21:32:55 [Blaz]

mk: if you're getting a document with an ext. and unless you know how to call the external, you can not use it ..

21:33:42 [Blaz]

csma: then, what you're saying, it is indeed related to the question about user defined data models and functions. this is what I hear

21:33:47 [Blaz]

dave nods no

21:34:04 [Blaz]

mk: for the predicate you have to know how many arguments it has. then you also have to know the model of the predicate.

21:34:19 [Blaz]

chrisw: the moment you use it, you find out its model. why do you need external?

21:34:27 [Blaz]

mk: otherwise you'll have to try to match it to your own predicates

21:34:37 [Blaz]

csma: external tells you its interpretation is fixed outside the ruleset

21:34:47 [Blaz]

csma: fixed interpretation is a nice way to say it.

21:34:56 [Blaz]

gary: it's fixed but you might not know what it is

21:35:05 [Blaz]

csma: it's interpretaiton is external to the ruleset

21:35:44 [Blaz]

csma: to me it is clear if I find an ext. predicate I know there is a specification of that predicate somewhere and I have to know it if I want do do something and it might be an extension if it is a call to a database or an intention of ...

21:35:57 [Blaz]

csma: I can not get what an external frame means

21:37:17 [Blaz]

chrisw: the question is: what is external: in Ext[P(a b)] it's P. how about in Ext(a(P->b]) ?

21:37:26 [Blaz]

mk: the meaning of this is not a part of your ruleset

21:37:39 [Blaz]

jos: could you view this as an external ternary predicate [the second one]

21:37:44 [Blaz]

jos: that has a fixed interpretation

21:38:03 [Blaz]

mk: you also know there should be some protocol to say 'send me this stuff..'

21:38:16 [AxelPolleres]

"This section introduces the notion of external schemas, which serve as templates for externally defined terms. These schemas determine which externally defined terms are acceptable in a RIF dialect." from FLD, section 2.5

21:38:38 [AxelPolleres]

THis means the externally definined schemas are hard-wired with a dialect.

21:39:16 [MoZ]

MoZ has joined #rif

21:39:19 [Blaz]

csma: in the second case, even if you have an IRI, where do I send my query?

21:39:49 [Blaz]

csma: I did not say you have to send it there; but if you have that address, then being able to identify P tells you exactly what to do

21:40:24 [Blaz]

csma: I'm not thinking about anything magical

21:40:54 [Blaz]

mk: you have an address and there is some XML. if you want to talk to this address, you have to know what message to send. wether there are 2 or 5 arguments. what this message is to be

21:41:20 [Blaz]

csma: I perfectly understand this. my question is:

21:41:39 [Blaz]

csma: my understanding was: P unambigously identifies this address

21:41:41 [Blaz]

mk: no

21:41:48 [Blaz]

csma: how do I know this address?

21:42:11 [Blaz]

chrisw interrupts the discussion

21:42:31 [Blaz]

chrisw: who understands external frames?

21:42:37 [Blaz]

chrisw: jos you try to explain it

21:42:55 [Blaz]

csma: give me an example

21:42:59 [Blaz]

jos: I have no idea what they are good for

21:43:12 [Blaz]

axel: I think they are completely redundant

21:43:45 [Blaz]

axel: which external things are allowed in External? it is defined in RIF DTB in coherent set of schemata. it is fixed for a dialect.

21:43:54 [Blaz]

axel: the dialect has to define what the fixed semantics of this is

21:44:26 [Blaz]

csma: the point is, your dialect has to specifiy a consistent schema and define what it means

21:44:47 [Blaz]

csma: BLD does not specify any consistent schema for external frames

21:44:57 [Blaz]

csma: if you want to have them, you have to provide a schema

21:45:21 [Blaz]

chrisw: the claim that 4 people just agreed to is that external frames are useless

21:45:34 [Blaz]

chrisw: this only has use if you're extending BLD with your datatypes

21:45:59 [Blaz]

csma: I did not think of that you have to provide a consistent schema

21:46:24 [Blaz]

chrisw: so maybe extending a definition of external frames .. just a little note: "meant for extending datatypes for use with BLD"

21:47:40 [Blaz]

chrisw: don't ever question understanding ...

21:48:00 [Blaz]

chrisw: does it make sense to pull the 'at risk' statement?

21:49:41 [Blaz]

chrisw: would you object to removing external frames?

21:50:58 [Blaz]

mk: you have one KB somewhere and this tells you how to represent things

21:51:46 [Blaz]

axel: if that is a datasource that allows you to query frames, then you'd need to give the address anyway; so you couldn't pack it in an external schema

21:51:57 [Blaz]

mk: we are going to a different level

21:52:14 [Blaz]

mk: we can express everything with predicates and do not need frames at all ...

21:52:37 [Blaz]

axel: but frames are convenient

21:53:06 [Blaz]

mk: the question is 'do we need frames at all or not' -- it's the same discussion

21:53:20 [Blaz]

chrisw: anyway. let's stop.

21:53:35 [Blaz]

chrisw: so we got to the point of 'there would be objections to removing external frames'

21:53:45 [Blaz]

chrisw: anyone against removing 'at risk' ?

21:53:48 [Blaz]

noone against

21:54:00 [Blaz]

chrisw: let's add this to the list of resolutions to be passed tomorow

21:54:14 [Blaz]

: remove at-risk for external.

21:54:21 [Blaz]

chrisw: roundtriping

21:54:43 [Blaz]

mk: did we decide on at-risk on equality?

21:54:52 [Blaz]

chrisw: we're keeping it

21:54:59 [AxelPolleres]

Why then not allow any "parametrizable string template" for external schemata? by that, we could e.g. for free get external calls to SPARQL endpoints or SQL databases, etc. etc.

21:55:34 [Blaz]

csma: did we decide to keep at risk for 'strictness conformance'?

21:55:34 [AxelPolleres]

... That would generalize the external schemas in a very beneficial way!

21:55:40 [Blaz]

chrisw: no

21:57:19 [AxelPolleres]

... e.g. External( ?X ?Y "SELECT ?X FROM WHERE { ... ?Y ... }" ) would be a possible schema.

21:57:19 [Blaz]

csma: we kept it because we'll wait for implementations

21:58:11 [AxelPolleres]

... whereas we currently enforce "RIF term syntax" for the external calls, which is unnecessarily restrictive.

21:58:12 [Blaz]

chrisw: the only place we talked about roundtripping is in conformance section

21:58:49 [Blaz]

chrisw: jos complained that 'what does it mean to maintain the semantic meaning' is not specific enough

21:59:33 [Blaz]

jos: this whole paragraph can be removed; it doesn't say much

21:59:52 [Blaz]

chrisw: it's trying to say that conformance does not mean things need to look the same

22:00:02 [Blaz]

jos: this paragraph does not say anything about conformance

22:00:30 [Blaz]

csma: [reads] "a nonconformant implementation might not preserve the semantics in the roundtrip"

22:00:55 [Blaz]

jos: does anyone want to have some paragraph about roundtripping?

22:01:23 [Blaz]

csma: the question was should we say something about survivability of metadata? this is the important point

22:01:56 [Blaz]

chrisw: we could add metadata survivability here [a couple paragraphs earlier]

22:02:46 [Blaz]

csma: in some test cases there is a notion of 'the same ruleset' if you send me the ruleset back

22:03:10 [Blaz]

jos: the only notion we have now is 'semantics preserving mapping'

22:03:53 [Blaz]

csma: if we have that notion of keeping the identity of a document, they can keep the metadata as XML and send it back when they return the document

22:04:00 [Blaz]

csma: wedo not have the notion of the identity of document here

22:04:07 [Blaz]

csma: this is probably why it does not make sense

22:04:27 [Blaz]

csma: our processing model is just producer/consumer. it does not define roundtripping of documents

22:04:38 [Blaz]

csma: so the notion of surviving metadata is not defined as well

22:04:41 [Blaz]

mk: it could be a recommendation

22:05:11 [Blaz]

csma: we have test cases where the notion of passing metadata along makes sense .. but perhaps not in BLD .. maybe in PRD

22:05:22 [Blaz]

harold: it could be just conformant, or annotation conformant

22:05:32 [Blaz]

harold: it is a stronger level of 'conformant'

22:06:11 [Blaz]

csma: you have metadata about something that is identified uniquely -- if you use the same identifier for something, you can use the same metadata

22:06:15 [Blaz]

jos: it is attached to structural elements

22:06:45 [Blaz]

chrisw: here is the proposal: I proposed we remove this paragraph because it does not say anything

22:07:08 [Blaz]

chrisw: and add here the intention of 'metadata survivability' to [first bulletpoint in RIF-BLD specific clauses]

22:08:07 [Blaz]

chrisw: "conformant producers and consumers ... should ... preserve annotations ... where possible"

22:08:31 [Blaz]

chrisw: anyone opposed?

22:08:34 [Blaz]

noone.

22:08:46 [Blaz]

chrisw: for tomorow, we will vote on this resolution

22:09:20 [Harold]

Annotations ''should'' survive BLD round-tripping whenever possible.

22:09:40 [Harold]

Annotations ''should'' survive BLD transformations whenever possible.

22:10:28 [DaveReynolds]

action: chrisw to draft revised metadata conformance wording for BLD

22:10:28 [trackbot]

Sorry, couldn't find user - chrisw

22:10:37 [DaveReynolds]

action: chris to draft revised metadata conformance wording for BLD

22:10:37 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-600 - Draft revised metadata conformance wording for BLD [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-10-03].

22:13:59 [AdriaP]

logout

22:14:03 [ChrisW]

rrsagent, make logs public

22:14:08 [ChrisW]

zakim, list attendees

22:14:08 [Zakim]

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

22:14:17 [ChrisW]

rrsagent, make minutes

22:14:17 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/26-rif-minutes.html ChrisW