RIF Telecon 4 November 08 -- 04 Nov 2008

<csma> agenda Publication plans

<StuartTaylor> zakim aaaa is me

<ChrisW> no, cannot

<csma> Axel, can you scribe?

<scribe> scribe: Axel Polleres

<csma> Scribe: axelPolleres

<scribe> scribenick: AxelPolleres

Admin

<csma> Propose: to accept the minutes of Ocober 21

<csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Oct/att-0088/2008-10-21-rif-minutes.html

propoesd to accept minutes of 21 october

<csma> RESOLVED: to accept minutes of October 21st telecon

no objections.

<csma> next item

agernda amendments:

rdf: text will be discussed with publ. plan.

csma: anything new with owl?

sandro: OWL wants to go to last call.
... that is why they push on rdf:text.
... current target Dec 1.

csma: HSLS? adrian not here.
... I gave an update at TPAC on RIF and had some questions from HCLS.
... also Policy interest group was interested, but far from using RIF at this point.
... anything relevant from ISWC/RR?

<ChrisW> I did not attend ISWC in the end

Harold: Michael Kifer gave a joint keynote for RuleML & RR. (especially FLD)

Gary: broadcast quality wasn't ideal.

Axel: RDB2RDF had a f2f at ISWC.
... it is an XG, chaired by Ashok from Oracle.

<ChrisW> ACTION: axel to write an email to RDB2RDF on RIF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-rif-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-635 - Write an email to RDB2RDF on RIF [on Axel Polleres - due 2008-11-11].

<Gary> also, nulls are problematic (3 value logic)

Sandro: I believe that RIF Core solved the RDB2RDF problem completely.

axel: maybe not if aggregates are involved in the mappings.
... will send a mail to RDB2RDF inquiring about that.

(csma, can yyou repeat that?)

csma: met with Dave Raggett from W3C about starting XBRL standards work

<ChrisW> mdean: u there?

<csma> next item

Public comments

<Harold> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Oct/0114.html

csma: there has been a mail from harold, see pointer.

chris: my response ready to go unless objections.
... drafted another paragraph in relations to KIF and common logic in the overview of BLD.
... the two new paragraphs should be checked.

<csma> next item

csma: nothing to add on public comments.
... Kowalski will be done by me.

Action review.

Action 633 on chris is continued

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 633

Action 632 on sandro ?

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 632

sandro: that's done.

<StellaMitchell> that's done

Action 631 on stella is done.

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 631

631 is pending review.

Action 630 is continued

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 630

Action 629 on stuart.

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 629

scribe: is continued

stuart: not clear what wher the differences.

josb: check the changelog.

chrisw: we need a snapshot on RDF+OWL.

action 628 on Yuting.

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 628

yuting: similar problem then stuart, I did a review in general, but will provide more details on differences.

chrisw: yuting and stuart, sned your comments to the WG.

action 626,627,629,630 continued.

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 626,627,629,630

<StellaMitchell> done

action 624 on stella is done.

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 624

action 625 on gary is continued.

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 625

action 623 on chris is completed

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 623

action 622 on chris continued.

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 622

action 617 on chris continued as well

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 617

<LeoraMorgenstern> Sorry, both of my actions --- 614 and 588--- need to be continued.

action 614 on leora on testcases is continued

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 614

<ChrisW> ChrisW - please complete your actions on time

<ChrisW> this is your first formal warning

action 606 on Michael Kifer is almost done. last thing to be done... continued.

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 606

<ChrisW> ok, Chris. Sorry about that

csma: 606 is closed

action 604 is continued.

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 604

<josb> where is the changelog in BLD?

action 603 is done.

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 603

csma: 603 can be closed we will discuss it later.

action ??? on adrian done.

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - ???

action 590 on adrian is done.

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 590

<LeoraMorgenstern> continued

csma: action 590 is pending review.

<LeoraMorgenstern> (more complicated than it looks)

action 592 is continued

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 592

leora: action 588 on leora is continued

axel: action 582 is continued
... action 581 is continued

sandro: action 579 is continued, will be done this week.
... action 573 is continued.
... action 565 is moved to Adrian.

<ChrisW> ACTION: adrian to provide an ssh key to sandro for cvs access [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-rif-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - adrian

<ChrisW> ACTION: apaschke to provide an ssh key to sandro for cvs access [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-rif-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - apaschke

csma: all other actions continued, let's move to the pending review actions.

adrian: currently not a member, but maybe I could participate via OMG.

sandro: if not possible we will discuss invited expert.

jos: action 616 is waiting for reply by OWL.

chrisw: talked to ian on that, datatype issue in OWL is difficult, they don't want to reopen it. would we have specific requests or would we go with theirs?

josb: i inquired about some datatypes which only make sense in a specific XML document, which don't make sense for us.

csma: they did not take it into account?

sandro: shall we signela them that we object last call?

josb: I only said we shouldn't adopt them in RIF, and I don't see reasons for them in OWL

<sandro> id, idref, and entity.

josb: it was ID and IDREF and ENTITY

chrisw: you sent it as a public comment.

<josb> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2008Oct/0000.html

discussion on whether we should object or not...

csma: we can expect reply on jkos' public comment.

sandro: I will try to push them a bit to respond quickly.

chrisw: was it the case that except the ID, IDREF and ENTITY data types we would be ok to adopt the others?

axel: that would have impliucations on built-ins?

josb: many are subtypes of types we have already.

csma: wouldn't we need them for interoperatbility with OWL?

josb: well, that depends on what conformance we want. strict vs. non-strict conformance clause. for SWC we don't have a conformance claus there, basically it is defined for any datatype.

csma: anything else on this question?

<csma> next item

csma: anything else regarding actions? no.

TF update (core, PRD,PS)

<Harold> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/index.php?title=Core&diff=6168&oldid=6018

harold: we have a lot of progress, everyone should have a look at it, we didn't have a telecon after it yet.
... we are close.
... to have a first WD.

csma: my naive question to Core TF: Does core support unification?

harold: that would mean core would not be a subset of PRD.
... if you only give it facts a la PRD though, nothing bad can happen.

csma: if core is more general than PRD we must decide what to do.

gary: no function symbols solves the problem probably, but we still need to do something on equalities.

<ChrisW> ACTION: christian to open issue about unification in CORE and PRD being limited to pattern matching [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-rif-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-636 - Open issue about unification in CORE and PRD being limited to pattern matching [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2008-11-11].

csma: PRD TF will have concluding teleconf next week.
... next WD will be significantly improved. we still have to finalize gary's work on binding variables in the action part.

gary: things are coming together nicely, we can talk about it after next week.

chris: TF on PS is stalled, I got a flu.

<csma> next item

<csma> PROPOSED: Parameterize the conformance clauses of Core with safeness requirements "strict" and "none" (default: "none"). Closing ISSUE-70.

<csma> RESOLVED: Parameterize the conformance clauses of Core with safeness requirements "strict" and "none" (default: "none"). Closing ISSUE-70.

core

harold: dave found a terminology conflict with the word "strict"

csma: i guess this is editorial.

<csma> next item

publication plan

csma: let's start with SWC... everything seems ready, we just wait for the reviews.
... chris, stuart, yuting, until when can you review?

sutart: mo or tue

chris: by end of next week.

<yuting> for me, by this Saturday to review the swc

csma: BLD? do we want to give out a new version?

sandro: I think we should call it WD, it is still LC.

chrisw: will the comment period reopened then?

sandro: I guess yes.
... we do have some editorial changes.

csma: question is, is it freezable? harold?

michael: I need to change the last section and adapt the changelog.

chris: I added the 2 new paragraphs in overview and put the references, references still need to be added to references section.

michael: what's the point in publishing now another draft?

harold: that people don't read the old version.

chris: new people might come along and find it and give more comments, but I don't feel strongly.
... I think we should publish after all issues are resolved.

csma: shall we resolve that?

sandro: latest version on the wiki is linked from the WD.

chrisw: i would be confused to re-publish LC before CR

csma: I buy this argument.

chrisw: another thing we should have resolved is the result of the PS TF.
... before republishing BLD.

csma: let's move to FLD.

<sandro> sandro: with the new open issues in BLD, yeah, I'm okay with no publishing it right now. Focus on DTB.

michael: I hope to finish FLD by end of nov. gave a talk at RR on it, lot of interest, some people expressed interest to join the group.
... mid dec is realistic for next WD (if we freeze by end nov)

csma: what about SWC, given the decision on BLD?
... shall we also postpone?

<ChrisW> schedule: new FLD WD probably by EOY

csma: nobody insists on publishing now.
... we can still freeze it.
... we have three actions to review it.
... we don't need the reviews now... actions 626,627,628,629 cancelled.
... but the reviews are still welcome.
... DTB?

axel: freezable version by two weeks frm now.
... moves publication to rather end of november.

csma: core?

harold: the unresolved issues could just become editor's notes.

csma: when can we freeze as early as possible?

harold: second half of november.

chris: let's try to freeze in two weeks.

csma: both core and dtb due nov 18th for freeze.
... prd?

gary: we can work two more weeks on that.

csma: also due to nov 18 for freezing prd.
... test cases?

chrisw: actions?

<ChrisW> ACTION: sandro to generate test case manifests [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-rif-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-637 - Generate test case manifests [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-11-11].

csma: also nov 18 as due tate for test cases.
... ucr?

adrian: I got some comments.

<ChrisW> we need to extend the meeting by 5 mins

adrian: should be ready nov 18th as well. we should discuss new requirements on next weeks agenda.

<ChrisW> ACTION: christian put UCR on agenda for next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-rif-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-638 - Put UCR on agenda for next week [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2008-11-11].

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: extend meeting by 5 mins

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: extend meeting by 5 mins

rdf:text

<ChrisW> ACTION: sandro to freeze rdf:text [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-rif-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-639 - Freeze rdf:text [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-11-11].

<josb> josb does

<sandro> csma: freeze rdf:text today, review by friday, FPWD next week.

<ChrisW> ACTION: StuartTaylor to review rdf:text [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-rif-minutes.html#action08]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - StuartTaylor

<ChrisW> ACTION: Stuart to review rdf:text [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-rif-minutes.html#action09]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-640 - Review rdf:text [on Stuart Taylor - due 2008-11-11].

<ChrisW> ACTION: debruij2 to review rdf:text by friday [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-rif-minutes.html#action10]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - debruij2

<ChrisW> ACTION: jdebruij2 to review rdf:text by friday [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-rif-minutes.html#action11]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-641 - Review rdf:text by friday [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2008-11-11].

<ChrisW> ACTION: chris to review rdf:text [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/04-rif-minutes.html#action12]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-642 - Review rdf:text [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-11-11].

<Harold> As we discussed some time ago, DaveR's "OWL 2 RL in RIF" should also become a FPWD: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWLRL

harold: we should also talk about including OWL2 RL to RIF" as a published draft.

adjourn

- DRAFT -

RIF Telecon 4 November 08

04 Nov 2008

Attendees

Contents

Admin

Public comments

Action review.

TF update (core, PRD,PS)

core

publication plan

rdf:text

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output