IRC log of rif on 2008-11-10

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:04:45 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #rif
16:04:45 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/11/10-rif-irc
16:05:13 [kifer]: zakim, aaaa is me
16:05:13 [Zakim]: +kifer; got it
16:08:07 [DaveReynolds]: Instructions for rrsagent and script: http://dev.w3.org/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
16:09:40 [DaveReynolds]: Michael: document is almost as long as BLD but they need to read BLD as well anyway
16:10:19 [Harold]: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/index.php?title=Core&diff=6261&oldid=4414
16:12:11 [Harold]: # 7 RIF-BLD as a Specialization of the RIF Framework [RIF-FLD]
16:12:11 [Harold]: * 7.1 The Presentation Syntax of RIF-BLD as a Specialization of RIF-FLD
16:12:11 [Harold]: * 7.2 The Semantics of RIF-BLD as a Specialization of RIF-FLD
16:12:11 [Harold]: * 7.3 The XML Serialization of RIF-BLD as a Specialization of RIF-FLD
16:12:11 [Harold]: * 7.4 RIF-BLD Conformance as a Specialization of RIF-FLD
16:12:46 [Harold]: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#RIF-BLD_as_a_Specialization_of_the_RIF_Framework_.5BRIF-FLD.5D
16:15:22 [AxelPolleres]: AxelPolleres has joined #rif
16:15:28 [AxelPolleres]: sorry, I am late.
16:15:45 [AxelPolleres]: call-in details as usual?
16:16:06 [DaveReynolds]: Michael: suggest replacing 2.1 to 2.5 by just summary of changes without the full summary
16:17:14 [Zakim]: +??P6
16:17:28 [Harold]: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core#RIF-Core_Semantics
16:18:03 [DaveReynolds]: Michael: it is not standalone, too long for something where you need to refer back to BLD anyway
16:20:08 [Harold]: 7.2 The Semantics of RIF-BLD as a Specialization of RIF-FLD
16:20:08 [Harold]: This normative section defines the precise relationship between the semantics of RIF-BLD and the semantic framework of RIF-FLD. Specification of the semantics that does not rely on RIF-FLD is given in Section Direct Specification of RIF-BLD Semantics.
16:20:08 [Harold]: The semantics of the RIF Basic Logic Dialect is defined by specialization from the semantics of the semantic framework for logic dialects of RIF. Section Semantics of a RIF Dialect as a Specialization of the RIF Framework in [RIF-FLD] lists the parameters of the semantic framework that can be specialized. Thus, for RIF-BLD, we need to look at the following parameters:
16:20:10 [Harold]: * The effect of the syntax.
16:20:13 [Harold]: RIF-BLD does not support negation. This is the only obvious simplification with respect to RIF-FLD as far as the semantics is concerned. The restrictions on the signatures of symbols in RIF-BLD do not affect the semantics in a significant way.
16:20:16 [Harold]: * Truth values.
16:20:18 [Harold]: The set TV of truth values in RIF-BLD consists of just two values, t and f such that f <t t. The order <t is total.
16:20:21 [Harold]: * Datatypes.
16:20:23 [Harold]: RIF-BLD supports the datatypes listed in Section Datatypes of [RIF-DTB].
16:20:26 [Harold]: * Logical entailment.
16:20:28 [Harold]: Recall that logical entailment in RIF-FLD is defined with respect to an unspecified set of intended semantic structures and that dialects of RIF must make this notion concrete. For RIF-BLD, this set is defined the set of all models.
16:20:31 [Harold]: * Import directive.
16:20:33 [Harold]: The semantics of the two-argument Import directive is given in [RIF-RDF+OWL]. The semantics of the one-argument directive is the same as in RIF-FLD.
16:20:38 [Harold]: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#The_Semantics_of_RIF-BLD_as_a_Specialization_of_RIF-FLD
16:24:49 [DaveReynolds]: Michael: suggests shortening the specialization of 2.1 to 2.5 futher
16:25:05 [DaveReynolds]: Michael: suggests not duplicating examples but referring back to BLD
16:27:37 [DaveReynolds]: Michael: just focus on comparative analysis
16:35:27 [AxelPolleres]: hmmm, my own problem is, I am not 100% sure where I can help at the moment. (I was a bit offline the last two weeks)
16:36:45 [AxelPolleres]: I think for a 1st WD, it is not important to have self-containedness.
16:42:04 [Harold]: * As a direct specification, independently of the RIF framework for logic dialects [RIF-FLD], for the benefit of those who desire a direct path to RIF-BLD, e.g., as prospective implementers, and are not interested in extensibility issues. This version of the RIF-BLD specification is given first.
16:42:04 [Harold]: * As a specialization of the RIF framework for logic dialects [RIF-FLD], which is part of the RIF extensibility framework. Building on RIF-FLD, this version of the RIF-BLD specification is comparatively short and is presented in Section RIF-BLD as a Specialization of the RIF Framework at the end of this document. This is intended for the reader who is already familiar with RIF-FLD and does not need to go through the much longer direct specification of RI
16:43:11 [AxelPolleres]: That's fact, that
16:43:22 [AxelPolleres]: 's not just because I joined ;-)
16:45:37 [AxelPolleres]: Can someone sum up the problem with the PRD semantics again? or paste the pointer to the resp. mails?
16:50:55 [AxelPolleres]: So, it sounds like BLD needs change, I am not really clear on the implications on Core editing. If taking over a part, I would prefer to have it clearly separated from BLD changes.
16:51:45 [Harold]: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core#Mapping_from_the_Presentation_Syntax_to_the_XML_Syntax
16:53:49 [Harold]: (Atom/Expr positional arguments role, with fixed 'ordered' attribute, containing n TERMs)
16:54:03 [Harold]: - args
16:54:15 [Harold]: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#XML_for_the_Condition_Language
16:55:56 [AxelPolleres]: We do have slots in the head, yes?
16:56:28 [DaveReynolds]: Axel - yes frame slots
16:57:02 [Harold]: " As a direct specification"
16:58:37 [Harold]: Core-Self-
16:58:53 [Harold]: CoreSelfContained
17:06:46 [Harold]: Definition (Models). A multi-structure I is a model of a formula, f, written as I |= f, iff TValI(f) = t. Here f can be a RIF-Core document or a non-document formula. ?
17:07:07 [Harold]: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core#RIF-Core_Semantics
17:11:42 [Harold]: Maybe Gary can help us next week (in the Core telecon) with understanding the relevant parts of the PRD semantics?
17:14:10 [Harold]: "In order to allow production rule systems and logic programming systems to interchange rulesets via RIF-Core we define a strictly safe subset of RIF-Core and only require minimally conformant RIF-Core consumers to correctly translate this safe subset."
17:14:39 [Harold]: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core#Conformance_Clauses
17:15:20 [DaveReynolds]: Axel: could replace "strictly safe" by "safe" and so replace "minimally conformant" by "safely conformant"
17:15:50 [AxelPolleres]: We can just talk about "safe" instead of "strictly safe" ... then we can just rename "minimally conformant" to "safely conformant"
17:19:06 [AxelPolleres]: I can do it now.
17:22:48 [Zakim]: -kifer
17:22:53 [DaveReynolds]: rrsagent, make log public
17:23:09 [DaveReynolds]: rrsagent, draft minutes
17:23:09 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/11/10-rif-minutes.html DaveReynolds
17:23:39 [Zakim]: -AxelPolleres
17:25:00 [Zakim]: -DaveReynolds
17:25:04 [Zakim]: -Harold
17:25:05 [Zakim]: SW_RIF(CORE)11:00AM has ended
17:25:07 [Zakim]: Attendees were Harold, DaveReynolds, +1.631.833.aaaa, kifer, AxelPolleres
17:25:26 [DaveReynolds]: rrsagent, draft minutes
17:25:26 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/11/10-rif-minutes.html DaveReynolds