IRC log of rif on 2008-12-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:52:22 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
15:52:22 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:52:29 [ChrisW]
zakim, this will be rif
15:52:29 [Zakim]
ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes
15:52:29 [csma]
no, no scribe
15:52:41 [csma]
I pay you a beer if you find me a scribe
15:52:50 [ChrisW]
Meeting: RIF Telecon 2 Dec 2008
15:52:58 [csma]
zakim, clear agenda
15:52:58 [Zakim]
agenda cleared
15:53:00 [ChrisW]
Chair: Christian de Sainte-Marie
15:53:07 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:53:07 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
15:53:14 [csma]
agendum+ Admin
15:53:21 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make logs public
15:53:21 [csma]
agendum+ liaison
15:53:30 [csma]
agendum+ public comments
15:53:37 [csma]
agendum+ F2F12
15:53:40 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has changed the topic to: 2 Dec RIF Telecon agenda
15:53:43 [ChrisW]
15:53:45 [csma]
agendum+ Publications
15:53:58 [csma]
agendum+ DTB
15:54:31 [csma]
Oops! I forgot the agendum "action review"
15:55:23 [csma]
There is a way to move agenda items up and down, but I do not remember how
15:55:30 [csma]
agendum+ Test cases
15:55:43 [csma]
Agendum+ AOB (pick scribe)
15:56:08 [csma]
agendum+ actions review
15:56:19 [csma]
zakim, move up agendum 9
15:56:19 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'move up agendum 9', csma
15:56:57 [csma]
zakim, you don't have to understand, just do it
15:56:57 [Zakim]
I don't understand you, csma
15:56:59 [ChrisW]
mike dean would be next if he comes
15:57:04 [csma]
15:57:09 [ChrisW]
then stella
16:00:20 [StellaMitchell]
StellaMitchell has joined #rif
16:00:59 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
16:01:41 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
16:01:42 [Zakim]
16:02:05 [Zakim]
16:02:06 [Zakim]
16:02:06 [Zakim]
16:02:08 [StellaMitchell]
zakim, ibm is temporarily me
16:02:08 [Zakim]
+StellaMitchell; got it
16:02:10 [Zakim]
16:02:12 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
16:02:27 [Zakim]
16:02:43 [csma]
zakim, ??P61 is me
16:02:43 [Zakim]
+csma; got it
16:02:52 [LeoraMorgenstern]
LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
16:02:57 [DaveReynolds]
16:03:16 [csma]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:03:16 [Zakim]
On the phone I see StellaMitchell, Sandro, DaveReynolds, csma
16:03:29 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #rif
16:03:34 [Zakim]
16:03:51 [csma]
scribe: Stella Mitchell
16:04:08 [csma]
scribenick: StellaMitchell
16:04:15 [AdrianP]
AdrianP has joined #rif
16:04:27 [csma]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:04:27 [Zakim]
On the phone I see StellaMitchell, Sandro, DaveReynolds, csma, LeoraMorgenstern
16:04:40 [Zakim]
16:04:58 [Zakim]
16:04:59 [Hassan]
Hassan has joined #rif
16:05:23 [csma]
next item
16:05:37 [Zakim]
16:05:45 [ChrisW]
having zakim problems
16:05:46 [csma]
16:05:50 [StellaMitchell]
csma: any objections to accepting minutes from last week's telecon?
16:05:51 [AdrianP]
Zakim, +??P66 is me
16:05:51 [Zakim]
sorry, AdrianP, I do not recognize a party named '+??P66'
16:06:00 [AdrianP]
Zakim, ??P66 is me
16:06:00 [Zakim]
+AdrianP; got it
16:06:03 [StellaMitchell]
16:06:06 [AdrianP]
Zakim, mute me
16:06:06 [Zakim]
AdrianP should now be muted
16:06:23 [StellaMitchell]
csma: resolved: accept minutes from last week's telecon
16:06:29 [StellaMitchell]
csma: any agenda ammendments?
16:06:42 [csma]
RESOLVED: accept minutes from last week's telecon
16:06:50 [Zakim]
16:06:50 [josb]
16:06:58 [AdrianP]
Zakim, unmute me
16:06:58 [Zakim]
AdrianP should no longer be muted
16:06:58 [ChrisW]
zakim, ??P25 is me
16:06:59 [Zakim]
+ChrisW; got it
16:07:10 [StellaMitchell]
jos: I would like to discuss the comments on the SWC document by Uli, but that will be covered in the public comments section
16:07:27 [csma]
next item
16:07:30 [AdrianP]
Zakim, mute mem
16:07:30 [Zakim]
sorry, AdrianP, I do not know which phone connection belongs to mem
16:07:36 [AdrianP]
Zakim, mute me
16:07:36 [Zakim]
AdrianP should now be muted
16:08:06 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: OWL hoping to have last call documents out today
16:08:23 [josb]
16:08:25 [AdrianP]
Zakim, unmute me
16:08:25 [Zakim]
AdrianP should no longer be muted
16:08:27 [StellaMitchell]
csma: other liaisons?
16:08:32 [csma]
ack josb
16:09:01 [StellaMitchell]
jos: question for Sandro: how can we get things into the RDF errata document. I sent proposed changes to RIF list.
16:09:13 [csma]
next item
16:09:15 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: haven't figured that out yet
16:09:52 [StellaMitchell]
cw: I will send the OK1 response
16:10:05 [josb]
My proposed text:
16:10:05 [StellaMitchell]
csma: I drafted some comments to RAK1
16:10:36 [StellaMitchell]
...can someone review this?
16:10:53 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
16:11:23 [StellaMitchell]
...Chris, can you look over my response to RAK1?
16:12:17 [Hassan]
16:12:35 [Zakim]
16:12:38 [StellaMitchell]
cw: yes
16:12:47 [ChrisW]
action: chris to look over reply to RAK
16:12:47 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-666 - Look over reply to RAK [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-12-09].
16:13:22 [Gary_Hallmark]
Gary_Hallmark has joined #rif
16:13:24 [Michael_Kifer]
Michael_Kifer has joined #rif
16:13:32 [StellaMitchell]
csma: comments by Uli S. are not yet on the wiki page, but will be added
16:13:34 [Zakim]
16:13:35 [josb]
16:14:01 [Zakim]
16:14:07 [StellaMitchell]
jos: These comments on SWC were sent to RIF mailing list, but not public comments list
16:14:47 [StellaMitchell]
...most comments are editorial, but there is one larger one that we should discuss. The first comment says that the document doesn't fully address OWL2, but OWL2 is now stable enough
16:15:21 [StellaMitchell]
csma: the RDF compatibility document went to last call before OWL2 was sufficiently stable
16:15:46 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: we had asked Uli to say what changes would be needed for OWL2, and I didn't think she identified any
16:15:50 [Zakim]
16:16:05 [StellaMitchell]
Chris, Jos: don't agree with Sandro's assessment
16:16:37 [StellaMitchell]
Jos: I expect it wouldn't be that much work, but there would be changes in the document
16:17:10 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: I sent a message to Ian about this and related issues - given the timelines of both WG's, there is no excuse to not address this now.
16:17:37 [StellaMitchell] I think the updates should be made if Jos has time, and we could consider re-opening the joint RIF-OWL task force
16:18:04 [StellaMitchell]
....and if the outcome that something needs to be changed in OWL, they should be open to doing that also
16:18:40 [StellaMitchell]
jos; so, this would mean re-doing last call of RIF, RDF, OWL compatibility
16:18:56 [StellaMitchell]
csma: did Ian respond?
16:19:02 [StellaMitchell]
cw: no
16:19:26 [StellaMitchell]
csma: if we are going to re-open the joint RIF OWL task force, we should do it as far as possible
16:19:38 [StellaMitchell]
cw: Jos, do you have a sense of what changes would be needed?
16:19:48 [csma]
16:20:05 [StellaMitchell]
jos: profiles....
16:20:40 [StellaMitchell]
cw: We are not talking about changing, right., because there are lots of implementations of OWL1, but we are talking about adding a new section
16:21:03 [StellaMitchell]
jos: depends somewhat on how backward compatible OWL2 is with OWL1
16:21:16 [StellaMitchell]
csma: when could you do it?
16:21:59 [StellaMitchell]
jos: I think I could have a reasonable draft by the end of December, and then would need reviews by OWL group
16:22:14 [StellaMitchell]
csma: and you may have feedback to OWL
16:22:47 [StellaMitchell]
csma: the joint task force should meet by the end of Dec or early Jan
16:23:20 [ChrisW]
action: chris to set up call with OWL WG for joint RDF&OWL TF
16:23:20 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-667 - Set up call with OWL WG for joint RDF&OWL TF [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-12-09].
16:23:47 [StellaMitchell]
jos: we should send an official response to Uli's comments?
16:24:04 [ChrisW]
action: jdebruij2 to look at what it would take to add OWL-2 compatibility to RDF&OWL
16:24:04 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-668 - Look at what it would take to add OWL-2 compatibility to RDF&OWL [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2008-12-09].
16:24:23 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: I think starting the task force is enough, so we don't need an official response
16:25:01 [csma]
zakim, take item 9
16:25:01 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'take item 9', csma
16:25:47 [csma]
zakim, take up item 9
16:25:47 [Zakim]
agendum 9. "actions review" taken up [from csma]
16:27:01 [StellaMitchell]
action 665 is continued
16:27:01 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - 665
16:27:15 [StellaMitchell]
664 continued
16:27:25 [StellaMitchell]
663 continued
16:27:35 [StellaMitchell]
661 completed
16:27:37 [DaveReynolds]
That wasn't 665, 665 was the problem with the frozen version which is fized.
16:27:45 [DaveReynolds]
16:28:16 [StellaMitchell]
660 continued
16:28:20 [Hassan]
Mostly done - will be done by the end of today ...
16:28:33 [StellaMitchell]
659 continued
16:29:45 [StellaMitchell]
658 continued, because will have to rereview changes before publication
16:29:49 [StellaMitchell]
657 completed
16:29:54 [StellaMitchell]
656 completed
16:30:11 [StellaMitchell]
653 continued
16:30:22 [StellaMitchell]
650 continued
16:30:53 [StellaMitchell]
646 closed, and Gary will review RAK1
16:31:09 [StellaMitchell]
644 completed
16:31:18 [StellaMitchell]
633 continued
16:31:25 [AxelPolleres]
continued, still one full editing pass over DTB needed which I didn't find time yet :-( anyway for the current freeze, I am fine with the current Ed notes.
16:31:40 [StellaMitchell]
604 continued (as above)
16:31:55 [StellaMitchell]
592 continued
16:32:06 [StellaMitchell]
588 continued
16:32:18 [StellaMitchell]
579 continued
16:32:29 [StellaMitchell]
573 completed
16:32:39 [Hassan]
continued - been off this issue for a while ...
16:32:49 [StellaMitchell]
564 as above
16:33:19 [StellaMitchell]
439, 152 continued
16:34:10 [StellaMitchell]
no, it is not accepted
16:34:52 [ChrisW]
action 632 closed
16:34:52 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - 632
16:34:52 [StellaMitchell]
it is still in proposed state
16:36:39 [csma]
next item
16:36:55 [csma]
zakim, close item 3
16:36:55 [Zakim]
agendum 3, public comments, closed
16:36:56 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:36:57 [Zakim]
4. F2F12 [from csma]
16:37:07 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
16:37:07 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "F2F12" taken up [from csma]
16:37:40 [csma]
16:37:41 [StellaMitchell]
csma: there may be difficulties with travel policies
16:37:48 [DaveReynolds]
I won't be able to make it, travel restrictions as you say.
16:37:55 [StellaMitchell]
adrian: Does Gary have recommendations for hotels?
16:38:31 [AxelPolleres]
I won't be able to attend, sorry.
16:38:34 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: I can't travel because of budget, but will attend remotely the whole time
16:39:34 [StellaMitchell]
csma: ilog was been mostly acquired by ibm, which means that ibm travel policy might apply to ilog in january
16:40:00 [StellaMitchell]
cw: I don't know yet what the travel policy for ibm will be early next year
16:40:59 [StellaMitchell] the policy of this quarter, a working group for standards committee would have been acceptable
16:41:07 [StellaMitchell]
dave: I won't be able to make it
16:41:57 [StellaMitchell]
axel: won't attend because of other reasons
16:42:06 [AdrianP]
I already booked my flight
16:42:12 [AdrianP]
so can not change travel plans
16:42:54 [StellaMitchell]
cw: there is a list of hotels on the meeting page
16:43:06 [StellaMitchell]
gary: I just googled for hotels in the area
16:43:30 [csma]
next item
16:43:51 [ChrisW]
zakim, take up item 5
16:43:51 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "Publications" taken up [from csma]
16:44:51 [StellaMitchell]
csma: we have plans to publish UCR, Core, PRD, Test, DTB
16:45:16 [StellaMitchell]
...want to see if we can formally agree on some of these today
16:45:24 [StellaMitchell]
csma: Adrian, UCR?
16:45:50 [StellaMitchell]
Adrian: one of the new proposed requirements still has to be approved
16:46:23 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:46:23 [Zakim]
On the phone I see StellaMitchell, Sandro, DaveReynolds, csma, LeoraMorgenstern, josb, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), AdrianP, ChrisW, AxelPolleres, Harold, Gary, Michael_Kifer
16:46:35 [StellaMitchell]
csma: Are there any objections to publishing UCR as is? not a formal vote, just getitng an idea
16:46:38 [StellaMitchell] objections
16:46:46 [StellaMitchell]
csma: Core?
16:47:12 [StellaMitchell]
...Leora, can you summarize your comments?
16:47:51 [StellaMitchell]
leora: I felt it's a good draft but could use some more examples, clarifying text, restructuings... I gave some specific examples
16:48:08 [StellaMitchell]
...this is a working draft, so it's fine to publish, but could benefit from changes
16:49:07 [StellaMitchell]
harold: can we vote contingent on editorial changes?
16:49:11 [StellaMitchell]
cw: what would the changes be?
16:49:30 [StellaMitchell]
harold: leora would say which comments are editorial and others could be postponed to next WD
16:50:14 [AdrianP]
Zakim, mute me
16:50:14 [Zakim]
AdrianP should now be muted
16:51:04 [StellaMitchell]
leora: section 1, first comment is editorial
16:51:12 [StellaMitchell]
section 2 postpone
16:51:34 [StellaMitchell]
section 3 editorial
16:51:42 [StellaMitchell]
section 5 ?
16:51:49 [StellaMitchell]
section 6 editorial
16:52:34 [StellaMitchell]
section 5 before section 5.1 is editorial
16:52:43 [StellaMitchell]
section 5.1 can be postponed
16:52:57 [StellaMitchell]
section 5.2 not sure, it could be simple or could need to rewrite
16:53:30 [StellaMitchell]
csma: for the postponed ones, do you think we need an editor's note?
16:53:49 [StellaMitchell]
leora: yes, that would be good
16:54:13 [StellaMitchell]
csma; harold, is this ok?
16:54:17 [StellaMitchell]
harold: yes
16:55:34 [StellaMitchell]
csma: I also reviewed Core and think there is no show-stopper. I do think though that section 6 should be replaced by an editor's notes saying that in a future draft, core will also be specified as a specialization of PRD
16:55:53 [StellaMitchell]
...currently the sections for BLD and PRD are not of the same level
16:55:56 [StellaMitchell]
harold: ok
16:56:22 [AdrianP]
16:56:27 [StellaMitchell]
csma: other comments on Core?
16:56:56 [AdrianP]
16:57:06 [StellaMitchell]
...would anyone object to publish conditional on the above comments?
16:57:14 [csma]
16:57:18 [csma]
16:57:25 [AdrianP]
Zakim, unmute me
16:57:25 [Zakim]
AdrianP should no longer be muted
16:57:28 [csma]
16:57:34 [sandro]
csma, hello...
16:58:29 [StellaMitchell]
cw: how far are we from publishing PRD - what timeframe?
16:58:32 [AdrianP]
section 6.1. in Core needs to be updated with the "new" construct
16:59:23 [StellaMitchell]
csma: I looked over mk's comments, and I think that we can correct all of them easily, except for the definition of satisfaction
16:59:41 [StellaMitchell]
...but the Michael's review didn't go already to the end of the document
16:59:56 [StellaMitchell]
s/already/all the way/
17:00:15 [StellaMitchell]
Adrian: didn't look at items 12, 13 yet
17:00:24 [StellaMitchell]
csma: we will discuss those 2 at the telcon today
17:00:35 [StellaMitchell]
mk: cannot attend the PRD telecon today
17:01:09 [StellaMitchell]
mk: I did read to the end, but just didn't write up comments on was mostly XMLand execution strategy and I didn't comment on it
17:02:03 [StellaMitchell]
csma: I think we can take all the comments into account by the end of tomorrow, Michael can rereview on the weekend
17:02:28 [StellaMitchell]
mk: also, for such an important document I don't think it's enough to have just one review
17:02:58 [StellaMitchell]
cw: I don't think we need conditional resolutions on other docs then, editor's can update and we can resolve next week
17:03:40 [StellaMitchell]
csma: Test cases, we had 2 reviews, Gary and Sandro, Gary can you comment?
17:04:00 [StellaMitchell]
Gary: my primary concern was the difficulty was building a test harness
17:04:47 [StellaMitchell]
....also I think people who aren't familiar with RDF will be confused by the manifest, so we should have a plain XML one
17:04:59 [StellaMitchell]
Sandro: I agree and commented on this also
17:05:19 [csma]
17:05:23 [StellaMitchell]
cw: can't we have both?
17:05:29 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: yes
17:05:41 [StellaMitchell]
csma: is not having XML a show-stopper?
17:05:49 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: not for this draft, but we should have an editor's note
17:06:23 [StellaMitchell]
gary: my other comments are not show-stoppers
17:07:04 [StellaMitchell]
gary: conclusions are RIF condition formulas not RIF documents and I don't think it's obvious what should be done with those
17:07:17 [StellaMitchell]
....we should give some implementation advice
17:07:53 [StellaMitchell]
....I think every practical implementation will have a way to print a result or query the system, and we can describe how to implement a test harness using those
17:08:33 [StellaMitchell]
....combining conclusion and premise into one document could cause problems for some test cases (local document)
17:08:59 [StellaMitchell]
...but import could be used to include conclusions
17:09:10 [StellaMitchell]
I think we could add some text about that
17:09:42 [AdrianP]
Zakim, unmute me
17:09:42 [Zakim]
AdrianP was not muted, AdrianP
17:09:57 [StellaMitchell]
gary: I don't think it has to stop publication
17:10:05 [StellaMitchell]
adrian: point to repository?
17:10:22 [StellaMitchell]
gary: it already does point to repository, but not clear what to make of premise and conclusion document
17:10:34 [StellaMitchell]
...the section saying you have to build a test harness should be expanded
17:11:04 [StellaMitchell]
Yes, this sounds like a good idea to add to section 6
17:11:09 [Hassan]
user manual
17:11:49 [AdrianP]
"RIF test cases for dummies" ;-)
17:12:49 [StellaMitchell]
csma: don't require for FPWD, but will be good to have, and maybe we can add it before publication anyway
17:13:02 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: I think my comments have been addressed, but I have not verified that yet
17:13:32 [StellaMitchell]
stella: if we are waiting until next week, do we want to address Core in Test document then?
17:13:36 [josb]
17:13:45 [csma]
ack jos
17:13:59 [StellaMitchell]
csma: DTB?
17:14:18 [StellaMitchell]
jos: A week ago, I sent comments on DTB to the list, but I didn't see a response
17:14:36 [josb]
17:15:01 [StellaMitchell]
axel: I need to do one more pass over the document, I still need to address some of Jos' comments
17:15:08 [StellaMitchell]
csma: can you do it before the end of the week?
17:15:24 [StellaMitchell]
axel: yes
17:15:45 [ChrisW]
action: axel to incorporate and address Jos' comments from
17:15:45 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-669 - Incorporate and address Jos' comments from [on Axel Polleres - due 2008-12-09].
17:15:56 [StellaMitchell]
jos: and please respond to my email
17:16:31 [AdrianP]
Zakim, mute me
17:16:31 [Zakim]
AdrianP should now be muted
17:16:33 [StellaMitchell]
cw: what was the decision for test?
17:16:48 [StellaMitchell]
csma: Sandro has to verify his comments, then it could be ready to go.
17:17:03 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: we don't have to wait until next week for that
17:17:31 [AdrianP]
Zakim, unmute me
17:17:31 [Zakim]
AdrianP should no longer be muted
17:17:58 [StellaMitchell]
cw: if we resolve now, we could avoid the discussion again next week
17:18:18 [StellaMitchell]
csma: does anyone have something to add or objections about the test cases document?
17:18:43 [csma]
PROPOSED: to publish the test case document (conditionned on Sandro's approval of modifications)
17:19:13 [csma]
PROPOSED: to publish the test case document as FPWD (conditionned on Sandro's approval of modifications)
17:19:23 [StellaMitchell]
cw: this is the only public fpwd, and it takes more process, which is why it's good to resolve today
17:20:20 [csma]
zakim, who is on the phone?
17:20:20 [Zakim]
On the phone I see StellaMitchell, Sandro, DaveReynolds, csma, LeoraMorgenstern, josb, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), AdrianP, ChrisW, AxelPolleres, Harold, Gary, Michael_Kifer
17:20:46 [LeoraMorgenstern]
17:20:50 [LeoraMorgenstern]
+1, IBM
17:20:52 [josb]
+1 (FUB)
17:20:53 [sandro]
+1 (W3C)
17:20:56 [DaveReynolds]
+1 (HP)
17:20:57 [AxelPolleres]
+1 (DERI)
17:21:02 [AdrianP]
+1 (FUB)
17:21:04 [Harold]
+1 (NRC)
17:21:04 [Michael_Kifer]
+1, self
17:21:06 [Gary]
+1 Oracle
17:21:08 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
17:21:08 [RRSAgent]
17:21:23 [AxelPolleres]
17:21:26 [josb]
+1 (UNIBZ)
17:21:27 [AdrianP]
+1, (Free University Berlin)
17:22:02 [Hassan]
zakim, unmute me
17:22:02 [Zakim]
Hassan_Ait-Kaci should no longer be muted
17:22:23 [csma]
17:22:25 [Hassan]
ilog +1
17:23:05 [csma]
RESOLVED: to publish the test case document as FPWD (conditionned on Sandro's approval of modifications)
17:23:07 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, pointer?
17:23:07 [RRSAgent]
17:23:13 [StellaMitchell]
csma: we will publish together with other documents that we decide on next week
17:24:00 [AdrianP]
17:24:13 [StellaMitchell]
csma: time remaining is too short for DTB issues. Let's discuss the proposed new requirement for UCR
17:24:22 [csma]
Rule language coverage
17:24:22 [csma]
Because of the great diversity of rule languages, no one interchange language is likely to be able to bridge between all. Instead, RIF provides dialects which are each targeted at a cluster of similar rule languages. Within that cluster, each feature of each rule language will have some degree of commonality with corresponding features of other rule languages in that cluster. The RIF dialect targeting a cluster must support, at a minimum, interchange of rules using al
17:25:29 [josb]
q+ on vote
17:26:22 [StellaMitchell]
csma: the way that this is written, it is more than just a requirement, it also talks about how we will fulfill the requirement
17:26:31 [csma]
17:26:32 [StellaMitchell]
...can't we shorten it?
17:26:52 [csma]
Because of the great diversity of rule languages, no one interchange language is likely to be able to bridge between all. Instead, RIF provides dialects which are each targeted at a cluster of similar rule languages.
17:26:54 [csma]
RIF must allow intra-dialect interoperation, i.e. interoperability between semantically similar rule languages (via interchange of RIF rules) within one dialect, and it should support inter-dialect interoperation, i.e. interoperation between dialects with maximum overlap.
17:28:11 [StellaMitchell]
cw: we could move the design oriented text out of the requirement into the beginning of the section
17:28:36 [csma]
ack jos
17:28:36 [Zakim]
josb, you wanted to comment on vote
17:29:07 [AdrianP]
+1, self
17:29:59 [ChrisW]
+1, self
17:30:03 [Hassan]
+1 to adhourn
17:30:07 [AxelPolleres]
+1 bye
17:30:08 [StellaMitchell]
csma: propose to adjourn
17:30:15 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has left #rif
17:30:15 [AdrianP]
17:30:16 [Zakim]
17:30:17 [Zakim]
17:30:17 [Zakim]
17:30:19 [Zakim]
17:30:19 [Zakim]
17:30:20 [Zakim]
17:30:20 [Zakim]
17:30:21 [Zakim]
17:30:23 [Zakim]
17:30:28 [csma]
zakim, list attendees
17:30:28 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Sandro, StellaMitchell, DaveReynolds, csma, LeoraMorgenstern, josb, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, AdrianP, ChrisW, AxelPolleres, Harold, Gary,
17:30:30 [Zakim]
... Michael_Kifer
17:30:53 [ChrisW]
Regrets: PaulVincent
17:31:04 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:31:04 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
17:32:07 [Zakim]
17:32:20 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
17:32:20 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Sandro, csma, ChrisW
17:33:02 [Zakim]
17:33:06 [Zakim]
17:33:07 [Zakim]
17:33:07 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
17:33:08 [Zakim]
Attendees were Sandro, StellaMitchell, DaveReynolds, csma, LeoraMorgenstern, josb, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, AdrianP, ChrisW, AxelPolleres, Harold, Gary, Michael_Kifer
18:02:16 [csma]
csma has left #rif
18:13:40 [Gary_Hallmark]
Gary_Hallmark has joined #rif
20:12:30 [Gary_Hallmark]
Gary_Hallmark has joined #rif
20:34:13 [Gary_Hallmark]
Gary_Hallmark has joined #rif