<csma> no, no scribe

<csma> I pay you a beer if you find me a scribe

<csma> agendum+ Admin

<csma> agendum+ liaison

<csma> agendum+ public comments

<csma> agendum+ F2F12

<csma> agendum+ Publications

<csma> agendum+ DTB

<csma> Oops! I forgot the agendum "action review"

<csma> There is a way to move agenda items up and down, but I do not remember how

<csma> agendum+ Test cases

<csma> Agendum+ AOB (pick scribe)

<csma> agendum+ actions review

<ChrisW> mike dean would be next if he comes

<csma> ok

<ChrisW> then stella

<DaveReynolds> :-)

<csma> scribe: Stella Mitchell

<csma> scribenick: StellaMitchell

<csma> next item

<ChrisW> having zakim problems

<csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Nov/att-0194/25-rif-minutes.html

csma: any objections to accepting minutes from last week's telecon?
... none
... resolved: accept minutes from last week's telecon

<csma> RESOLVED: accept minutes from last week's telecon

<josb> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Nov/0187.html

jos: I would like to discuss the comments on the SWC document by Uli, but that will be covered in the public comments section

<csma> next item

sandro: OWL hoping to have last call documents out today

csma: other liaisons?

jos: question for Sandro: how can we get things into the RDF errata document. I sent proposed changes to RIF list.

<csma> next item

sandro: haven't figured that out yet

cw: I will send the OK1 response

<josb> My proposed text: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Dec/0013.html

csma: I drafted some comments to RAK1
... can someone review this?
... Chris, can you look over my response to RAK1?

<Hassan> 8^D

cw: yes

<ChrisW> ACTION: chris to look over reply to RAK [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-rif-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-666 - Look over reply to RAK [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-12-09].

csma: comments by Uli S. are not yet on the wiki page, but will be added

<josb> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Nov/0187.html

jos: These comments on SWC were sent to RIF mailing list, but not public comments list
... 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

csma: the RDF compatibility document went to last call before OWL2 was sufficiently stable

sandro: we had asked Uli to say what changes would be needed for OWL2, and I didn't think she identified any

Chris, Jos: don't agree with Sandro's assessment

Jos: I expect it wouldn't be that much work, but there would be changes in the document

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.
... so I think the updates should be made if Jos has time, and we could consider re-opening the joint RIF-OWL task force
... and if the outcome that something needs to be changed in OWL, they should be open to doing that also

jos; so, this would mean re-doing last call of RIF, RDF, OWL compatibility

csma: did Ian respond?

cw: no

csma: if we are going to re-open the joint RIF OWL task force, we should do it as early as possible

cw: Jos, do you have a sense of what changes would be needed?

jos: profiles....

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

jos: depends somewhat on how backward compatible OWL2 is with OWL1

csma: when could you do it?

jos: I think I could have a reasonable draft by the end of December, and then would need reviews by OWL group

csma: and you may have feedback to OWL
... the joint task force should meet by the end of Dec or early Jan

<ChrisW> ACTION: chris to set up call with OWL WG for joint RDF&OWL TF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-rif-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-667 - Set up call with OWL WG for joint RDF&OWL TF [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-12-09].

jos: we should send an official response to Uli's comments?

<ChrisW> ACTION: jdebruij2 to look at what it would take to add OWL-2 compatibility to RDF&OWL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-rif-minutes.html#action03]

<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].

sandro: I think starting the task force is enough, so we don't need an official response

actions review

action 665 is continued

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 665

664 continued

663 continued

661 completed

<DaveReynolds> That wasn't 665, 665 was the problem with the frozen version which is fixed.

660 continued

<Hassan> Mostly done - will be done by the end of today ...

659 continued

658 continued, because will have to rereview changes before publication

657 completed

656 completed

653 continued

650 continued

646 closed, and Gary will review RAK1

644 completed

633 continued

<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.

604 continued (as above)

592 continued

588 continued

579 continued

573 completed

<Hassan> continued - been off this issue for a while ...

564 as above

439, 152 continued

no, it is not accepted

<ChrisW> action 632 closed

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

it is still in proposed state

<csma> next item

F2F12

csma: there may be difficulties with travel policies

<DaveReynolds> I won't be able to make it, travel restrictions as you say.

adrian: Does Gary have recommendations for hotels?

<AxelPolleres> I won't be able to attend, sorry.

sandro: I can't travel because of budget, but will attend remotely the whole time

csma: ilog was been mostly acquired by ibm, which means that ibm travel policy might apply to ilog in january

cw: I don't know yet what the travel policy for ibm will be early next year
... by the policy of this quarter, a working group for standards committee would have been acceptable

dave: I won't be able to make it

axel: won't attend because of other reasons

<AdrianP> I already booked my flight

<AdrianP> so can not change travel plans

cw: there is a list of hotels on the meeting page

gary: I just googled for hotels in the area

<csma> next item

Publications

csma: we have plans to publish UCR, Core, PRD, Test, DTB
... want to see if we can formally agree on some of these today
... Adrian, UCR?

Adrian: one of the new proposed requirements still has to be approved

csma: Are there any objections to publishing UCR as is? not a formal vote, just getitng an idea
... no objections
... Core?
... Leora, can you summarize your comments?

leora: I felt it's a good draft but could use some more examples, clarifying text, restructuings... I gave some specific examples
... this is a working draft, so it's fine to publish, but could benefit from changes

harold: can we vote contingent on editorial changes?

cw: what would the changes be?

harold: leora would say which comments are editorial and others could be postponed to next WD

leora: section 1, first comment is editorial

section 2 postpone

section 3 editorial

section 5 ?

section 6 editorial

section 5 before section 5.1 is editorial

section 5.1 can be postponed

section 5.2 not sure, it could be simple or could need to rewrite

csma: for the postponed ones, do you think we need an editor's note?

leora: yes, that would be good

csma; harold, is this ok?

harold: yes

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
... currently the sections for BLD and PRD are not of the same level

harold: ok

csma: other comments on Core?
... would anyone object to publish conditional on the above comments?

<sandro> csma, hello...

cw: how far are we from publishing PRD - what timeframe?

<AdrianP> section 6.1. in Core needs to be updated with the "new" construct

csma: I looked over mk's comments, and I think that we can correct all of them easily, except for the definition of satisfaction
... but the Michael's review didn't go all the way to the end of the document

Adrian: didn't look at items 12, 13 yet

csma: we will discuss those 2 at the telcon today

mk: cannot attend the PRD telecon today
... 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

csma: I think we can take all the comments into account by the end of tomorrow, Michael can rereview on the weekend

mk: also, for such an important document I don't think it's enough to have just one review

cw: I don't think we need conditional resolutions on other docs then, editor's can update and we can resolve next week

csma: Test cases, we had 2 reviews, Gary and Sandro, Gary can you comment?

Gary: my primary concern was the difficulty was building a test harness
... also I think people who aren't familiar with RDF will be confused by the manifest, so we should have a plain XML one

cw: can't we have both?

sandro: yes

csma: is not having XML a show-stopper?

sandro: not for this draft, but we should have an editor's note

gary: my other comments are not show-stoppers
... conclusions are RIF condition formulas not RIF documents and I don't think it's obvious what should be done with those
... we should give some implementation advice
... 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
... combining conclusion and premise into one document could cause problems for some test cases (local document)
... but import could be used to include conclusions

I think we could add some text about that

gary: I don't think it has to stop publication

adrian: point to repository?

gary: it already does point to repository, but not clear what to make of premise and conclusion document
... the section saying you have to build a test harness should be expanded

Yes, this sounds like a good idea to add to section 6

<Hassan> user manual

<AdrianP> "RIF test cases for dummies" ;-)

csma: don't require for FPWD, but will be good to have, and maybe we can add it before publication anyway

sandro: I think my comments have been addressed, but I have not verified that yet

stella: if we are waiting until next week, do we want to address Core in Test document then?

csma: DTB?

jos: A week ago, I sent comments on DTB to the list, but I didn't see a response

<josb> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Nov/0190.html

axel: I need to do one more pass over the document, I still need to address some of Jos' comments

csma: can you do it before the end of the week?

axel: yes

<ChrisW> ACTION: axel to incorporate and address Jos' comments from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Nov/0190.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-rif-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> 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].

jos: and please respond to my email

cw: what was the decision for test?

csma: Sandro has to verify his comments, then it could be ready to go.

sandro: we don't have to wait until next week for that

cw: if we resolve now, we could avoid the discussion again next week

csma: does anyone have something to add or objections about the test cases document?

<csma> PROPOSED: to publish the test case document (conditionned on Sandro's approval of modifications)

<csma> PROPOSED: to publish the test case document as FPWD (conditionned on Sandro's approval of modifications)

cw: this is the only public fpwd, and it takes more process, which is why it's good to resolve today

<LeoraMorgenstern> +1

<LeoraMorgenstern> +1, IBM

<josb> +1 (FUB)

<sandro> +1 (W3C)

<DaveReynolds> +1 (HP)

<AxelPolleres> +1 (DERI)

<AdrianP> +1 (FUB)

<Harold> +1 (NRC)

<Michael_Kifer> +1, self

<Gary> +1 Oracle

<AxelPolleres> :-)

<josb> +1 (UNIBZ)

<AdrianP> +1, (Free University Berlin)

<csma> ILOG +1

<Hassan> ilog +1

<csma> RESOLVED: to publish the test case document as FPWD (conditionned on Sandro's approval of modifications)

csma: we will publish together with other documents that we decide on next week

<AdrianP> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Dec/0016.html

csma: time remaining is too short for DTB issues. Let's discuss the proposed new requirement for UCR

<csma> Rule language coverage

<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

csma: the way that this is written, it is more than just a requirement, it also talks about how we will fulfill the requirement
... can't we shorten it?

<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.

<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.

cw: we could move the design oriented text out of the requirement into the beginning of the section

<Zakim> josb, you wanted to comment on vote

<AdrianP> +1, self

<ChrisW> +1, self

<Hassan> +1 to adhourn

<AxelPolleres> +1 bye

csma: propose to adjourn

<AdrianP> bye

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133  of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/far/early/
Succeeded: s/fized/fixed/
Succeeded: s/already/all the way/
Found Scribe: Stella Mitchell
Found ScribeNick: StellaMitchell
Default Present: Sandro, StellaMitchell, DaveReynolds, csma, LeoraMorgenstern, josb, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, AdrianP, ChrisW, AxelPolleres, Harold, Gary, Michael_Kifer
Present: Sandro StellaMitchell DaveReynolds csma LeoraMorgenstern josb Hassan_Ait-Kaci AdrianP ChrisW AxelPolleres Harold Gary Michael_Kifer
Regrets: PaulVincent
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Dec/0005.html
Got date from IRC log name: 02 Dec 2008
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-rif-minutes.html
People with action items: axel chris jdebruij2