15:52:22 RRSAgent has joined #rif 15:52:22 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-rif-irc 15:52:29 zakim, this will be rif 15:52:29 ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 8 minutes 15:52:29 no, no scribe 15:52:41 I pay you a beer if you find me a scribe 15:52:50 Meeting: RIF Telecon 2 Dec 2008 15:52:58 zakim, clear agenda 15:52:58 agenda cleared 15:53:00 Chair: Christian de Sainte-Marie 15:53:07 rrsagent, make minutes 15:53:07 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-rif-minutes.html ChrisW 15:53:14 agendum+ Admin 15:53:21 rrsagent, make logs public 15:53:21 agendum+ liaison 15:53:30 agendum+ public comments 15:53:37 agendum+ F2F12 15:53:40 ChrisW has changed the topic to: 2 Dec RIF Telecon agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Dec/0005.html 15:53:43 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Dec/0005.html 15:53:45 agendum+ Publications 15:53:58 agendum+ DTB 15:54:31 Oops! I forgot the agendum "action review" 15:55:23 There is a way to move agenda items up and down, but I do not remember how 15:55:30 agendum+ Test cases 15:55:43 Agendum+ AOB (pick scribe) 15:56:08 agendum+ actions review 15:56:19 zakim, move up agendum 9 15:56:19 I don't understand 'move up agendum 9', csma 15:56:57 zakim, you don't have to understand, just do it 15:56:57 I don't understand you, csma 15:56:59 mike dean would be next if he comes 15:57:04 ok 15:57:09 then stella 16:00:20 StellaMitchell has joined #rif 16:00:59 DaveReynolds has joined #rif 16:01:41 SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started 16:01:42 +[IBM] 16:02:05 +Sandro 16:02:06 -Sandro 16:02:06 +Sandro 16:02:08 zakim, ibm is temporarily me 16:02:08 +StellaMitchell; got it 16:02:10 +??P57 16:02:12 josb has joined #rif 16:02:27 +??P61 16:02:43 zakim, ??P61 is me 16:02:43 +csma; got it 16:02:52 LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif 16:02:57 :-) 16:03:16 zakim, who is on the phone? 16:03:16 On the phone I see StellaMitchell, Sandro, DaveReynolds, csma 16:03:29 AxelPolleres has joined #rif 16:03:34 +LeoraMorgenstern 16:03:51 scribe: Stella Mitchell 16:04:08 scribenick: StellaMitchell 16:04:15 AdrianP has joined #rif 16:04:40 +josb 16:04:58 +Hassan_Ait-Kaci 16:04:59 Hassan has joined #rif 16:05:23 next item 16:05:37 +??P66 16:05:45 having zakim problems 16:05:46 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Nov/att-0194/25-rif-minutes.html 16:05:50 csma: any objections to accepting minutes from last week's telecon? 16:05:51 Zakim, +??P66 is me 16:05:51 sorry, AdrianP, I do not recognize a party named '+??P66' 16:06:00 Zakim, ??P66 is me 16:06:00 +AdrianP; got it 16:06:03 ...none 16:06:06 Zakim, mute me 16:06:06 AdrianP should now be muted 16:06:23 csma: resolved: accept minutes from last week's telecon 16:06:42 RESOLVED: accept minutes from last week's telecon 16:06:50 +??P25 16:06:50 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Nov/0187.html 16:06:58 Zakim, unmute me 16:06:58 AdrianP should no longer be muted 16:06:58 zakim, ??P25 is me 16:06:59 +ChrisW; got it 16:07:10 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 next item 16:07:30 Zakim, mute mem 16:07:30 sorry, AdrianP, I do not know which phone connection belongs to mem 16:07:36 Zakim, mute me 16:07:36 AdrianP should now be muted 16:08:06 sandro: OWL hoping to have last call documents out today 16:08:23 q+ 16:08:25 Zakim, unmute me 16:08:25 AdrianP should no longer be muted 16:08:27 csma: other liaisons? 16:08:32 ack josb 16:09:01 jos: question for Sandro: how can we get things into the RDF errata document. I sent proposed changes to RIF list. 16:09:13 next item 16:09:15 sandro: haven't figured that out yet 16:09:52 cw: I will send the OK1 response 16:10:05 My proposed text: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Dec/0013.html 16:10:05 csma: I drafted some comments to RAK1 16:10:36 ...can someone review this? 16:10:53 Harold has joined #rif 16:11:23 ...Chris, can you look over my response to RAK1? 16:12:17 8^D 16:12:35 +??P18 16:12:38 cw: yes 16:12:47 action: chris to look over reply to RAK 16:12:47 Created ACTION-666 - Look over reply to RAK [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-12-09]. 16:13:22 Gary_Hallmark has joined #rif 16:13:24 Michael_Kifer has joined #rif 16:13:32 csma: comments by Uli S. are not yet on the wiki page, but will be added 16:13:34 +Harold 16:13:35 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Nov/0187.html 16:14:01 +Gary 16:14:07 jos: These comments on SWC were sent to RIF mailing list, but not public comments list 16:14:47 ...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 csma: the RDF compatibility document went to last call before OWL2 was sufficiently stable 16:15:46 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 +Michael_Kifer 16:16:05 Chris, Jos: don't agree with Sandro's assessment 16:16:37 Jos: I expect it wouldn't be that much work, but there would be changes in the document 16:17:10 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 ...so 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 ....and if the outcome that something needs to be changed in OWL, they should be open to doing that also 16:18:40 jos; so, this would mean re-doing last call of RIF, RDF, OWL compatibility 16:18:56 csma: did Ian respond? 16:19:02 cw: no 16:19:26 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 cw: Jos, do you have a sense of what changes would be needed? 16:19:48 s/far/early/ 16:20:05 jos: profiles.... 16:20:40 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 jos: depends somewhat on how backward compatible OWL2 is with OWL1 16:21:16 csma: when could you do it? 16:21:59 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 csma: and you may have feedback to OWL 16:22:47 csma: the joint task force should meet by the end of Dec or early Jan 16:23:20 action: chris to set up call with OWL WG for joint RDF&OWL TF 16:23:20 Created ACTION-667 - Set up call with OWL WG for joint RDF&OWL TF [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-12-09]. 16:23:47 jos: we should send an official response to Uli's comments? 16:24:04 action: jdebruij2 to look at what it would take to add OWL-2 compatibility to RDF&OWL 16:24:04 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 sandro: I think starting the task force is enough, so we don't need an official response 16:25:01 zakim, take item 9 16:25:01 I don't understand 'take item 9', csma 16:25:47 zakim, take up item 9 16:25:47 agendum 9. "actions review" taken up [from csma] 16:27:01 action 665 is continued 16:27:01 Sorry, couldn't find user - 665 16:27:15 664 continued 16:27:25 663 continued 16:27:35 661 completed 16:27:37 That wasn't 665, 665 was the problem with the frozen version which is fized. 16:27:45 s/fized/fixed/ 16:28:16 660 continued 16:28:20 Mostly done - will be done by the end of today ... 16:28:33 659 continued 16:29:45 658 continued, because will have to rereview changes before publication 16:29:49 657 completed 16:29:54 656 completed 16:30:11 653 continued 16:30:22 650 continued 16:30:53 646 closed, and Gary will review RAK1 16:31:09 644 completed 16:31:18 633 continued 16:31:25 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. 16:31:40 604 continued (as above) 16:31:55 592 continued 16:32:06 588 continued 16:32:18 579 continued 16:32:29 573 completed 16:32:39 continued - been off this issue for a while ... 16:32:49 564 as above 16:33:19 439, 152 continued 16:34:10 no, it is not accepted 16:34:52 action 632 closed 16:34:52 Sorry, couldn't find user - 632 16:34:52 it is still in proposed state 16:36:39 next item 16:36:55 zakim, close item 3 16:36:55 agendum 3, public comments, closed 16:36:56 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 16:36:57 4. F2F12 [from csma] 16:37:07 zakim, next item 16:37:07 agendum 4. "F2F12" taken up [from csma] 16:37:40 q? 16:37:41 csma: there may be difficulties with travel policies 16:37:48 I won't be able to make it, travel restrictions as you say. 16:37:55 adrian: Does Gary have recommendations for hotels? 16:38:31 I won't be able to attend, sorry. 16:38:34 sandro: I can't travel because of budget, but will attend remotely the whole time 16:39:34 csma: ilog was been mostly acquired by ibm, which means that ibm travel policy might apply to ilog in january 16:40:00 cw: I don't know yet what the travel policy for ibm will be early next year 16:40:59 ....by the policy of this quarter, a working group for standards committee would have been acceptable 16:41:07 dave: I won't be able to make it 16:41:57 axel: won't attend because of other reasons 16:42:06 I already booked my flight 16:42:12 so can not change travel plans 16:42:54 cw: there is a list of hotels on the meeting page 16:43:06 gary: I just googled for hotels in the area 16:43:30 next item 16:43:51 zakim, take up item 5 16:43:51 agendum 5. "Publications" taken up [from csma] 16:44:51 csma: we have plans to publish UCR, Core, PRD, Test, DTB 16:45:16 ...want to see if we can formally agree on some of these today 16:45:24 csma: Adrian, UCR? 16:45:50 Adrian: one of the new proposed requirements still has to be approved 16:46:23 zakim, who is on the phone? 16:46:23 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 csma: Are there any objections to publishing UCR as is? not a formal vote, just getitng an idea 16:46:38 ...no objections 16:46:46 csma: Core? 16:47:12 ...Leora, can you summarize your comments? 16:47:51 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 ...this is a working draft, so it's fine to publish, but could benefit from changes 16:49:07 harold: can we vote contingent on editorial changes? 16:49:11 cw: what would the changes be? 16:49:30 harold: leora would say which comments are editorial and others could be postponed to next WD 16:50:14 Zakim, mute me 16:50:14 AdrianP should now be muted 16:51:04 leora: section 1, first comment is editorial 16:51:12 section 2 postpone 16:51:34 section 3 editorial 16:51:42 section 5 ? 16:51:49 section 6 editorial 16:52:34 section 5 before section 5.1 is editorial 16:52:43 section 5.1 can be postponed 16:52:57 section 5.2 not sure, it could be simple or could need to rewrite 16:53:30 csma: for the postponed ones, do you think we need an editor's note? 16:53:49 leora: yes, that would be good 16:54:13 csma; harold, is this ok? 16:54:17 harold: yes 16:55:34 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 ...currently the sections for BLD and PRD are not of the same level 16:55:56 harold: ok 16:56:22 q+ 16:56:27 csma: other comments on Core? 16:56:56 q- 16:57:06 ...would anyone object to publish conditional on the above comments? 16:57:14 Q? 16:57:18 q? 16:57:25 Zakim, unmute me 16:57:25 AdrianP should no longer be muted 16:57:28 q? 16:57:34 csma, hello... 16:58:29 cw: how far are we from publishing PRD - what timeframe? 16:58:32 section 6.1. in Core needs to be updated with the "new" construct 16:59:23 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 ...but the Michael's review didn't go already to the end of the document 16:59:56 s/already/all the way/ 17:00:15 Adrian: didn't look at items 12, 13 yet 17:00:24 csma: we will discuss those 2 at the telcon today 17:00:35 mk: cannot attend the PRD telecon today 17:01:09 mk: I did read to the end, but just didn't write up comments on it...it was mostly XMLand execution strategy and I didn't comment on it 17:02:03 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 mk: also, for such an important document I don't think it's enough to have just one review 17:02:58 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 csma: Test cases, we had 2 reviews, Gary and Sandro, Gary can you comment? 17:04:00 Gary: my primary concern was the difficulty was building a test harness 17:04:47 ....also I think people who aren't familiar with RDF will be confused by the manifest, so we should have a plain XML one 17:05:19 q? 17:05:23 cw: can't we have both? 17:05:29 sandro: yes 17:05:41 csma: is not having XML a show-stopper? 17:05:49 sandro: not for this draft, but we should have an editor's note 17:06:23 gary: my other comments are not show-stoppers 17:07:04 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 ....we should give some implementation advice 17:07:53 ....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 ....combining conclusion and premise into one document could cause problems for some test cases (local document) 17:08:59 ...but import could be used to include conclusions 17:09:10 I think we could add some text about that 17:09:42 Zakim, unmute me 17:09:42 AdrianP was not muted, AdrianP 17:09:57 gary: I don't think it has to stop publication 17:10:05 adrian: point to repository? 17:10:22 gary: it already does point to repository, but not clear what to make of premise and conclusion document 17:10:34 ...the section saying you have to build a test harness should be expanded 17:11:04 Yes, this sounds like a good idea to add to section 6 17:11:09 user manual 17:11:49 "RIF test cases for dummies" ;-) 17:12:49 csma: don't require for FPWD, but will be good to have, and maybe we can add it before publication anyway 17:13:02 sandro: I think my comments have been addressed, but I have not verified that yet 17:13:32 stella: if we are waiting until next week, do we want to address Core in Test document then? 17:13:36 q+ 17:13:45 ack jos 17:13:59 csma: DTB? 17:14:18 jos: A week ago, I sent comments on DTB to the list, but I didn't see a response 17:14:36 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Nov/0190.html 17:15:01 axel: I need to do one more pass over the document, I still need to address some of Jos' comments 17:15:08 csma: can you do it before the end of the week? 17:15:24 axel: yes 17:15:45 action: axel to incorporate and address Jos' comments from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Nov/0190.html 17:15:45 Created ACTION-669 - Incorporate and address Jos' comments from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Nov/0190.html [on Axel Polleres - due 2008-12-09]. 17:15:56 jos: and please respond to my email 17:16:31 Zakim, mute me 17:16:31 AdrianP should now be muted 17:16:33 cw: what was the decision for test? 17:16:48 csma: Sandro has to verify his comments, then it could be ready to go. 17:17:03 sandro: we don't have to wait until next week for that 17:17:31 Zakim, unmute me 17:17:31 AdrianP should no longer be muted 17:17:58 cw: if we resolve now, we could avoid the discussion again next week 17:18:18 csma: does anyone have something to add or objections about the test cases document? 17:18:43 PROPOSED: to publish the test case document (conditionned on Sandro's approval of modifications) 17:19:13 PROPOSED: to publish the test case document as FPWD (conditionned on Sandro's approval of modifications) 17:19:23 cw: this is the only public fpwd, and it takes more process, which is why it's good to resolve today 17:20:20 zakim, who is on the phone? 17:20:20 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 +1 17:20:50 +1, IBM 17:20:52 +1 (FUB) 17:20:53 +1 (W3C) 17:20:56 +1 (HP) 17:20:57 +1 (DERI) 17:21:02 +1 (FUB) 17:21:04 +1 (NRC) 17:21:04 +1, self 17:21:06 +1 Oracle 17:21:08 RRSAgent, pointer? 17:21:08 See http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-rif-irc#T17-21-08 17:21:23 :-) 17:21:26 +1 (UNIBZ) 17:21:27 +1, (Free University Berlin) 17:22:02 zakim, unmute me 17:22:02 Hassan_Ait-Kaci should no longer be muted 17:22:23 ILOG +1 17:22:25 ilog +1 17:23:05 RESOLVED: to publish the test case document as FPWD (conditionned on Sandro's approval of modifications) 17:23:07 rrsagent, pointer? 17:23:07 See http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-rif-irc#T17-23-07 17:23:13 csma: we will publish together with other documents that we decide on next week 17:24:00 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Dec/0016.html 17:24:13 csma: time remaining is too short for DTB issues. Let's discuss the proposed new requirement for UCR 17:24:22 Rule language coverage 17:24:22 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 q+ on vote 17:26:22 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 q? 17:26:32 ...can't we shorten it? 17:26:52 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 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 cw: we could move the design oriented text out of the requirement into the beginning of the section 17:28:36 ack jos 17:28:36 josb, you wanted to comment on vote 17:29:07 +1, self 17:29:59 +1, self 17:30:03 +1 to adhourn 17:30:07 +1 bye 17:30:08 csma: propose to adjourn 17:30:15 AxelPolleres has left #rif 17:30:15 bye 17:30:16 -Gary 17:30:17 -Michael_Kifer 17:30:17 -DaveReynolds 17:30:19 -Harold 17:30:19 -josb 17:30:20 -AdrianP 17:30:20 -Hassan_Ait-Kaci 17:30:21 -LeoraMorgenstern 17:30:23 -AxelPolleres 17:30:28 zakim, list attendees 17:30:28 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 ... Michael_Kifer 17:30:53 Regrets: PaulVincent 17:31:04 rrsagent, make minutes 17:31:04 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-rif-minutes.html ChrisW 17:32:07 -StellaMitchell 17:32:20 zakim, who is on the phone? 17:32:20 On the phone I see Sandro, csma, ChrisW 17:33:02 -Sandro 17:33:06 -csma 17:33:07 -ChrisW 17:33:07 SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended 17:33:08 Attendees were Sandro, StellaMitchell, DaveReynolds, csma, LeoraMorgenstern, josb, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, AdrianP, ChrisW, AxelPolleres, Harold, Gary, Michael_Kifer 18:02:16 csma has left #rif 18:13:40 Gary_Hallmark has joined #rif 20:12:30 Gary_Hallmark has joined #rif 20:34:13 Gary_Hallmark has joined #rif