IRC log of rif on 2008-12-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:59:27 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
15:59:27 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:59:32 [ChrisW]
zakim, this will be rigf
15:59:34 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, ChrisW
15:59:35 [ChrisW]
zakim, this will be rif
15:59:35 [Zakim]
ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
15:59:41 [ChrisW]
Chair: Chris Welty
15:59:51 [ChrisW]
Meeting: RIF Telecon 23-Dec-2008
16:00:03 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:00:04 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
16:00:18 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
16:01:31 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
16:01:38 [Zakim]
16:02:33 [Zakim]
16:02:57 [Zakim]
+ +2aaaa
16:03:19 [Hassan]
Hassan has joined #rif
16:03:28 [Zakim]
16:03:36 [Zakim]
16:04:27 [Harold]
zakim, +2aaaa is temporarily me
16:04:27 [Zakim]
+Harold; got it
16:05:10 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is here?
16:05:10 [Zakim]
On the phone I see josb, ChrisW, Harold, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), AxelPolleres
16:05:12 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Hassan, josb, RRSAgent, Zakim, AxelPolleres, ChrisW, Harold, trackbot, sandro
16:07:37 [ChrisW]
zakim, pick a victim
16:07:37 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose ChrisW
16:07:51 [ChrisW]
zakim, pick another victim
16:07:51 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'pick another victim', ChrisW
16:07:56 [ChrisW]
zakim, pick a victim
16:07:56 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose AxelPolleres
16:08:14 [ChrisW]
zakim, pick a victim
16:08:14 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose ChrisW
16:08:19 [ChrisW]
zakim, pick a victim
16:08:19 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose josb
16:08:23 [ChrisW]
zakim, pick a victim
16:08:23 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose josb
16:08:26 [ChrisW]
zakim, pick a victim
16:08:26 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose josb
16:08:34 [ChrisW]
zakim, pick a victim
16:08:34 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted)
16:08:56 [ChrisW]
Scribe: Hassan
16:10:57 [ChrisW]
Topic: Negative Guards
16:11:03 [Hassan]
Jos update on the OWL document - things are going "smoothly" - work on on-going issues e.g. negative guards
16:11:48 [Hassan]
Chris: asking what specific restriction on NGs we need to have
16:12:32 [Hassan]
Jos: yes - some restrictions are in order for it to have it tractable guards
16:12:51 [Hassan]
Jos: leaning toward having such NG's
16:13:22 [Hassan]
s/it tract/tract/
16:13:50 [Hassan]
Axel: if NG's are restricted ot literal only, then they're ok.
16:14:55 [Hassan]
Axel: Both and Nega. guards need to have either T or F - nothing specified otherwise
16:15:35 [Hassan]
Axel: NG issue may become obsolete if we have LP and Neg. by failure
16:15:54 [Hassan]
Axel: would rather drop them than having this "crooked" version...
16:16:10 [Hassan]
ChrisW: this WG is not designing an LP dialect
16:17:00 [Hassan]
Jos: Dave wants to make the ontologies independent from the OWL/RL rule processing
16:17:34 [Hassan]
Axel: Dave said that we would be ok with the limited NGs
16:18:09 [Hassan]
Jos and Axel discuss the fine differences in re. data types
16:18:54 [Hassan]
ChrisW: whos feels strongly about dropiing NGs altogether?
16:19:01 [Hassan]
Jos: not me
16:19:18 [josb]
16:19:38 [Hassan]
16:20:03 [Michael_Kifer]
Michael_Kifer has joined #rif
16:20:18 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: Change all negative guards to work on the literal domain only, e.g. isNotIntegerLiteral
16:20:20 [Hassan]
s/ed ot li/ ed to li/
16:20:48 [ChrisW]
(for next telecon)
16:20:52 [AxelPolleres]
16:20:59 [Hassan]
s/ ed /ed /
16:22:16 [AxelPolleres]
16:22:38 [Hassan]
Axel: discussing the NG uses in his examples
16:24:00 [Hassan]
Axel: these examples need to know whether what ages are not integers in order for it to be able to compute the age differences
16:24:20 [Hassan]
16:25:08 [Hassan]
Chrisw and Hak: maybe this is a bit contrived?
16:25:25 [Hassan]
Axel: we need to specify what to do otherwise ...
16:25:44 [Zakim]
16:25:56 [josb]
take any of the disjunction cases
16:26:09 [Hassan]
ChrisW: still doubtful - we need a really uncontroversial example where isNotInteger is needed without question
16:26:41 [Hassan]
Axel: such are common examples in Data Models fron the Net
16:26:49 [josb]
16:27:20 [Hassan]
Jos: what about the UCs involving disjunction in negative guards?
16:29:41 [AxelPolleres]
As opposed to ChrisW's argument that the youngparent use case was about bas data modeling... I oppose that cleaning up messy data is a perfect UC for RIF, IMO.
16:30:05 [josb]
16:30:33 [AxelPolleres]
One example is the use of dc:creator in RDF data which some people use with strings, others to refer to an RDF resource which is a foaf:Person with a name.
16:32:53 [Hassan]
ChrisW and Jos discussing the meaning of negated types in his examples
16:33:19 [Hassan]
Axel: finds it more confusing
16:33:47 [Hassan]
Axel: must specified when it is true/false or undetermined
16:33:49 [josb]
isNonIntegerLiteral is false for everything that is an integer or a non-literal
16:34:02 [josb]
isNotInteger is false for everything that is an integer
16:34:11 [Hassan]
Jos: objects to Axel's proposal
16:34:50 [AxelPolleres]
I didn't make a proposal ?!?
16:35:18 [Hassan]
ChrisW: I understand what Jos is saying
16:36:15 [Hassan]
Axel: I wanted to clarify things between Jos's point and alternative meanings
16:36:40 [Hassan]
Jos: argues for his proposal as being sound and useful
16:37:23 [Hassan]
ChrisW: I now understand the Use Case and I now think it is non contrived and a nice one
16:37:33 [Hassan]
Jos: I am so happy :-)
16:38:11 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: Change all negative guards to return true only for literals that are not of the type, false for non-literals
16:38:58 [AxelPolleres]
I still think that the use case is contrived for the normal user.
16:39:35 [josb]
it's a test case, not a use case :)
16:40:09 [Hassan]
s/Use Case/Test Case/
16:41:46 [Hassan]
Axel: discusses Jos's proposed Test Case use of Negative Disjunction in guards
16:42:24 [Hassan]
ChrisW: wonders what the consequences of allowing/forbidding such guards would be
16:42:43 [Hassan]
Jos: cannot force an object to be an integer
16:44:53 [Hassan]
MK: why do we need NGs in BLD?
16:45:11 [Hassan]
ChrisW: needed to OWL
16:45:18 [Hassan]
16:46:22 [Hassan]
MK: I seem to remember we discussed this earlier this year though not exactly what we discussed
16:46:35 [josb]
DaveR is the biggest proponent
16:47:12 [Hassan]
ChrisW: Next: DTB/Builtins for OWL/RL
16:47:44 [Hassan]
ChrisW: less-than or compare?
16:47:52 [Michael_Kifer]
may be Dave could send an email explaining the issue? Certainly OWL-RL could not have been the reason back in February
16:48:39 [Hassan]
ChrisW: it was already sent by email
16:49:01 [Hassan]
ChrisW: what about string less-than or compare?
16:49:17 [Hassan]
ChrisW: make things uniform across datatypes
16:49:27 [Hassan]
Jos: who wants what?
16:49:52 [Hassan]
Jos: Objection to making the language more complex
16:50:04 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is talking?
16:50:16 [Zakim]
ChrisW, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: josb (48%), ChrisW (5%), Hassan_Ait-Kaci (30%), AxelPolleres (9%)
16:50:26 [Hassan]
Axel: less-than, greater-than (or equal) are now available for all types that have comparisons
16:51:39 [Hassan]
Jos: make such things more generic/abstract
16:51:50 [Hassan]
Axel: we need a task force
16:52:06 [AxelPolleres]
s/we need/there is/
16:52:07 [Hassan]
ChrisW: The Abridged Syntax TF is the one
16:53:17 [Hassan]
Axel, ChrisW, discussing the choices made for having some operators but not others, redundancy, etc...
16:53:40 [josb]
+1 against
16:53:48 [Hassan]
ChrisW: Who's for the string operators?
16:53:59 [AxelPolleres]
16:54:02 [Hassan]
ChrisW: Who's against the string operators?
16:54:20 [Hassan]
Jos: finds them unneeded and unclear
16:54:34 [josb]
16:54:47 [Hassan]
Jos: I don't care dropping them if we may define them with others
16:54:58 [Hassan]
Jos: I won
16:55:07 [ChrisW]
ack A j
16:55:09 [ChrisW]
ack a
16:55:11 [ChrisW]
ack j
16:55:18 [Hassan]
16:55:31 [Hassan]
s/Jos: I won//
16:56:48 [Hassan]
Axel: can agree to leave them for now ?
16:57:01 [Hassan]
Jos: I prefer dropping them now
16:57:38 [Hassan]
Axel: I introduced them in because Gary asked for them - but I don't object dropping them
16:57:59 [ChrisW]
action: Chris to update ISSUE-67 to indicate discussion is postponed until the presentation syntax is finished
16:57:59 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-677 - Update ISSUE-67 to indicate discussion is postponed until the presentation syntax is finished [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-12-30].
16:58:00 [Hassan]
Jos: I do not think Gary minds either way (but he's not here today)
16:58:17 [AxelPolleres]
good, let's just propose to drop them next time and ask Gary for an opinion explicitly.
16:58:38 [ChrisW]
TOPIC: More general builtins
16:59:20 [AxelPolleres]
"Editor's Note: It is still under discussion in the WG whether an additional predicate pred:hasNotDatatype should be added, cf. ISSUE-80."
16:59:25 [josb]
16:59:33 [ChrisW]
ack j
16:59:34 [Hassan]
ChrisW: Dave suggested that the OWL/RL would be considerably simpler if we had such predicates
16:59:36 [AxelPolleres]
17:00:53 [Hassan]
Jos: such may be useful, but we should choose between two kinds of guards, though I slightly prefer what we have now
17:01:43 [ChrisW]
isOfType(?x, ?type)
17:01:59 [ChrisW]
17:02:40 [Hassan]
Axel: agrees that this would simplify and give it some parametricity
17:02:50 [ChrisW]
17:03:20 [Hassan]
Axel: discusses elegance ... ?
17:04:27 [AxelPolleres]
slight preference for onlyu having more general and get rid of guyards and neg guards as a whole.
17:04:32 [Hassan]
ChrisW: I hear Jos for more generality. Axel for more specificity.
17:04:51 [Hassan]
Hak: I agree with Jos
17:05:24 [josb]
I prefer isInteger; Axel prefers isType(?x, xsd:integer)
17:05:27 [ChrisW]
Axel: guards that take type as an arge
17:05:37 [ChrisW]
Jos: guards that have type in the name
17:05:49 [AxelPolleres]
my argument is for maintainance nightmare...
17:06:12 [AxelPolleres]
... I am for more general.
17:06:15 [AxelPolleres]
17:06:20 [Hassan]
I was wrong - I agree with Axel.
17:06:22 [AxelPolleres]
+1 to MK
17:07:23 [Hassan]
ChrisW: I am hearing support for the "isType/isNotType" generic notation
17:07:26 [AxelPolleres]
LiteralHasDatatype and LiteralHasNotDatatype
17:07:42 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: add isOfType and isNotOfType (based on resolution of issue-79) and remove specific type-named guards (e.g. isInteger)
17:08:22 [Hassan]
17:09:22 [AxelPolleres]
17:09:23 [ChrisW]
17:09:35 [ChrisW]
17:09:50 [Hassan]
I prefer ChrisW's
17:09:52 [ChrisW]
17:09:57 [ChrisW]
17:11:08 [josb]
(i) isLiteralOfType/isLiteralNotOfType
17:11:14 [ChrisW]
+1 shorter
17:11:15 [josb]
(ii) isLiteralOfDatatype/isLiteralNotOfDatatype
17:11:26 [ChrisW]
+1 i
17:11:28 [Hassan]
+1 for (i)
17:11:39 [Harold]
+1 i
17:11:39 [josb]
17:11:42 [AxelPolleres]
+1 for (ii), no objection to (i)
17:12:30 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: add isLiteralOfType and isLiteralNotOfType (based on resolution of issue-79) and remove specific type-named guards (e.g. isInteger)
17:12:39 [AxelPolleres]
17:12:41 [Hassan]
17:12:43 [josb]
17:12:49 [Harold]
17:13:26 [Hassan]
Axel: what about a resolution with negative guards?
17:13:29 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: add isLiteralOfType and isLiteralNotOfType (based on resolution of issue-79) and remove specific type-named guards (e.g. isInteger, isNotInteger)
17:13:38 [AxelPolleres]
17:13:54 [ChrisW]
TOPIC: OWL-RL builtins
17:14:05 [AxelPolleres]
does that mean I can start implementing this? :-)
17:14:08 [Hassan]
Jos: What are the issues?
17:14:41 [Hassan]
Jos: Shouldn't this be datatypes?
17:15:03 [AxelPolleres]
(BTW: we still need a RESOLVED: for the minutes, or you only want to resolve it next time?)
17:15:10 [Hassan]
ChrisW: this issue then is about datatype
17:16:12 [Hassan]
ChrisW: what OWL datatypes do we have to support that we do not already?
17:16:37 [Hassan]
Jos: Dave had reservations about these issues (implementability)
17:17:44 [Hassan]
ChrisW: Boris Motik seemed to be willing to drop some of their stuff
17:17:57 [Hassan]
Jos: I did not get the same feeling
17:18:14 [ChrisW]
We are not passing resolutions today
17:18:20 [ChrisW]
just proposing them for next telecon
17:18:40 [Hassan]
Jos: teh XML schema explicitly states that applications are free to interpret some of these datatypes
17:18:46 [Hassan]
17:19:24 [Hassan]
Jos: also has a list of necessary things that implementations must support
17:20:03 [Hassan]
ChrisW: has anyone listed the discrepancies between OWL/RL and RIF datatypes?
17:20:14 [Hassan]
Jos: cites examples of such
17:21:09 [Hassan]
Jos and ChrisW review some weird OWL/RL datatypes ...
17:22:46 [Hassan]
ChrisW: anyone onthe call has an opinion of these?
17:22:52 [Hassan]
s/onthe/on the/
17:24:59 [AxelPolleres]
that anyURI is a not subtype of strings is IMO kinda weird... isn't it?
17:25:54 [Hassan]
Jos, ChrisW, Axel discussing data typing in OWL/RL
17:27:15 [Hassan]
Jos a priori has no objection in re. datat types except for the date/time data type
17:27:31 [Hassan]
17:28:29 [AxelPolleres]
ok, at least we have agreed on proposing some resolutions next time. :-)
17:28:33 [Hassan]
ChrisW: any other discussion?
17:28:37 [AxelPolleres]
17:29:00 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make logs public
17:29:00 [Hassan]
Happy everything!
17:29:01 [Zakim]
17:29:06 [Zakim]
17:29:09 [Zakim]
17:29:11 [Zakim]
17:29:13 [ChrisW]
zakim, list attendees
17:29:13 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been josb, ChrisW, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, AxelPolleres, Harold, Michael_Kifer
17:29:20 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:29:20 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
17:29:47 [Zakim]
17:29:48 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
17:29:49 [Zakim]
Attendees were josb, ChrisW, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, AxelPolleres, Harold, Michael_Kifer
21:05:21 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #rif