See also: IRC log
<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
<ChrisW> then stella
<csma> scribe: Stella Mitchell
<csma> scribenick: StellaMitchell
<csma> next item
<ChrisW> having zakim problems
csma: any objections to accepting
minutes from last week's telecon?
... resolved: accept minutes from last week's telecon
<csma> RESOLVED: accept minutes from last week's telecon
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
... can someone review this?
... Chris, can you look over my response to RAK1?
<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
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?
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?
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
... 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
action 665 is continued
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 665
<DaveReynolds> That wasn't 665, 665 was the problem with the frozen version which is fixed.
<Hassan> Mostly done - will be done by the end of today ...
658 continued, because will have to rereview changes before publication
646 closed, and Gary will review RAK1
<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)
<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
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
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
... no objections
... 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?
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
... currently the sections for BLD and PRD are not of the same level
csma: other comments on
... 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
... 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?
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
... 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
... 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?
jos: A week ago, I sent comments on DTB to the list, but I didn't see a response
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?
<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, 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
<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
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
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[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]