15:59:27 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rif
15:59:27 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/12/23-rif-irc
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 http://www.w3.org/2008/12/23-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
16:00:18 <josb> josb has joined #rif
16:01:31 <Zakim> SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
16:01:38 <Zakim> +josb
16:02:33 <Zakim> +ChrisW
16:02:57 <Zakim> + +2aaaa
16:03:19 <Hassan> Hassan has joined #rif
16:03:28 <Zakim> +Hassan_Ait-Kaci
16:03:36 <Zakim> +??P7
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> isNonIntegerLiteral
16:19:38 <Hassan> s/dropii/droppi/
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> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/YoungParentDiscount_1
16:20:59 <Hassan> s/ ed /ed /
16:22:16 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/YoungParentDiscount_2
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> s/whether//
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> +Michael_Kifer
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> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Disjunctive_Information_from_Negative_Guards_1
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> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Dec/0086.html
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> s/to/for/
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> +q
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> q+
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> s/Jos:/Axel:/
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> q+
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> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/80
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> isNotLiteralOfType(?x,?type)
17:02:40 <Hassan> Axel: agrees that this would simplify and give it some parametricity
17:02:50 <ChrisW> isLiteralNotOfType(?x,?type)
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> yes!
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> +1
17:09:22 <AxelPolleres> isLiteralOfDatatype
17:09:23 <ChrisW> isLiteralOfType/isLiteralNotOfType
17:09:35 <ChrisW> isLiteralOfDatatype/isLiteralNotOfDatatype
17:09:50 <Hassan> I prefer ChrisW's
17:09:52 <ChrisW> isHardToTYpe
17:09:57 <ChrisW> isHardToType
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> 0
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> +1
17:12:41 <Hassan> +1
17:12:43 <josb> +1
17:12:49 <Harold> +1
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> ok!
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> s/teh/the/
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> s/datat/data/
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> MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!
17:29:00 <ChrisW> rrsagent, make logs public
17:29:00 <Hassan> Happy everything!
17:29:01 <Zakim> -Michael_Kifer
17:29:06 <Zakim> -josb
17:29:09 <Zakim> -Harold
17:29:11 <Zakim> -AxelPolleres
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 http://www.w3.org/2008/12/23-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
17:29:47 <Zakim> -Hassan_Ait-Kaci
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