RIF telecon 6 January 2009 -- 06 Jan 2009

<csma> agendum administration

<csma> agendum+ Admin

<csma> agendum+ Liaison

<csma> agendum+ Public Comments

<csma> agendum+ Action review

<csma> agendum+ F2F12

<csma> agendum+ DTB

<csma> agendum+ ACTION-546

<csma> agendum+ Test Cases

<csma> Agendum+ AOB

<csma> Hi Harold!

<csma> ack ??P50

<csma> Harold, Can you scribe today?

<Harold> sorry, no, im still in another meeting.

<ChrisW> scribe: Michael_Kifer

Admin

<csma> PROPOSED: to approve the minutes of telecon December 9

<csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Dec/att-0092/RIF_Telecon_9-Dec-08.htm

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: Accept Dec 16 minutes

<csma> RESOLVED: to approve the minutes of telecon December 9

<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Dec/att-0096/RIF_Telecon_16-Dec-08.html

<csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Dec/att-0096/RIF_Telecon_16-Dec-08.html

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: Accept Dec 16 minutes

<csma> PROPOSED: to accept the minutes of December 23

<csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Dec/att-0125/2008-12-23-rif-minutes.html

<csma> RESOLVED: to accept the minutres of December 23

<csma> next item

<ChrisW> i've updated: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_TK2

<ChrisW> AXEL and Michael, please take a look

<ChrisW> ACTION: Chris to send response to TK2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-rif-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-678 - Send response to TK2 [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-01-13].

<csma> next item

<sandro> ACTION: sandro open registration poll for f2f12 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-rif-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-679 - Open registration poll for f2f12 [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-01-13].

<csma> next item

*PROPOSED:* add isLiteralOfType and isLiteralNotOfType (based on resolution of issue-79) and remove specific type-named guards (e.g. isInteger, isNotInteger).

<sandro> +1

Jos: not clear how this proposed resolution is related to issue 79.

The main idea in 79 was a change in the semantics.

<csma> PROPOSED: Change all negative guards to return true only for literals that are not of the type, false for non-literals (closing ISSUE-79).

<josb> yes

Jos: include the semantics explicitly in the resolution on isLiteralNotOfType etc.

<josb> *PROPOSED:* add isLiteralOfType and isLiteralNotOfType (Changing guards to return true only for literals that are not of the type, false for non-literals) and remove specific type-named guards (e.g. isInteger, isNotInteger).

<josb> +1

<DaveReynolds> *PROPOSED:* add isLiteralOfType and isLiteralNotOfType (Changing guards to return true only for literals that are/are not of the type, false for non-literals) and remove specific type-named guards (e.g. isInteger, isNotInteger).

<AxelPolleres> just let me confirm, we wanted "isLiteralNotOfType" really not "isNotLiteralOfType", yes?

<Hassan> +1

<josb> Axel: the phrasing in the proposal is what we want

<AxelPolleres> +1 (right, rethought it)

<sandro> (BTW, please drop the "*" around proposed. It wont be recognized by the scripts that way.)

<Harold> +1

<sandro> +1

<csma> PROPOSED: add isLiteralOfType and isLiteralNotOfType (Changing guards to return true only for literals that are/are not of the type, false for non-literals) and remove specific type-named guards (e.g. isInteger, isNotInteger).

ISSUE-79 closed + membership/non-membership part of ISSUE-80

<csma> RESOLVED: add isLiteralOfType and isLiteralNotOfType (Changing guards to return true only for literals that are/are not of the type, false for non-literals) and remove specific type-named guards (e.g. isInteger, isNotInteger). Closing ISSUE-79 and the membership/non-membership part of ISSUE-80.

<ChrisW> ACTION: Chris to close issue-79 and update issue-80 to reflect closing of membership part [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-rif-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-680 - Close issue-79 and update issue-80 to reflect closing of membership part [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-01-13].

<ChrisW> ACTION: axel to update DTB to reflect resolution on guards [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-rif-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-681 - Update DTB to reflect resolution on guards [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-01-13].

<josb> Dave, could you point to the place where you would need them?

<ChrisW> AXEL: can you scribe next week?

Dave: Wants LiteralsNotEqual

<DaveReynolds> Jos: See http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWLRL#Rules_for_supported_datatypes for the inequality rules in the absence of the proposed builtins and just one line in the simplified version.

and LiteralsEqual (just for symmetry, but not strictly necessary)

<AxelPolleres> Chris, I am not 100% sure for next week, I will be in vienna, need to check phone availability, but normally, it should work. will there be a teleconf? (people travelling to F2F12?)

<josb> error :- ?lt1[owl:differentFrom->?lt2] and

<josb> ?l1=?l2

<josb> nevermind, this does not work

<ChrisW> axel - never mind, no telecon next week!

<ChrisW> i am about to close action 666

<ChrisW> prepare yourselves

Jos: not a good idea to have equal/not equal for individual data types

<AxelPolleres> I think we just need the mapping of operators (lt, gt, eq, neq) for datatypes to built-ins, just as XPAth/XQuery seem to do it implicitly...

Jos: are u proposing LiteralNotEqual/LiteralEqual?

<josb> I am saying we don't need individual equal/not-equal for datatypes if we have generic (not-)equal predicates

yes, I agree. Individual type-based builtins are problematic

<josb> If we go for generic we should remove individual

<josb> I am still leaning towards keeping the individual ones, though

<csma> PROPOSED: add LiteralNotEqual/LiteralEqual predicates and remove the equality/inequality predicates for individual data types.

<DaveReynolds> I would prefer to keep the individual ones as well, what's the argument for removing them?

Axel: predicates DateEqual are not expressible through LiteralEqual

Jos: we just need to adjust LiteralEqual

<AxelPolleres> sounds nice!

<csma> PROPOSED: add LiteralNotEqual/LiteralEqual predicates and remove the equality/inequality predicates for individual data types.

<josb> F2F

Axel: we need to write the semantics of these predicates precisely

<josb> Axel: I think I know how we can make it extensible

<josb> Do we really need a straw proposal?

<josb> late afternoon should work? would be morning in Vienna

<josb> oops, is the other way around

<sandro> issue-81?

<trackbot> ISSUE-81 -- Support for additional OWL-RL datatype -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/81

<AxelPolleres> summary: what it boils down to is that the semantics of the following built-ins needs to be worded such that it is parametric with respect tot the supported datatypes: isLiteralOfType, isLiteralNotOfType, isLiteralEqual, isLiteralNotEqual

<josb> Axel: for isLiteralOfType, DT would be a parameter

<josb> for (not-)equal, we don't need the parameter; indeed, it would not be very generic in that case

<sandro> PROPOSED: Add to RIF Core all the XML Schema datatypes in OWL-RL (as listed in http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/81)

minus the last 3?

Jos: issue with integer/float data types in OWL

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWLRL#Datatypes_supported

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/#Feature_Overview_3

<csma> Jos would object to owl:real, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary unless technical issue resolved

<AxelPolleres> jos: all others are ok?

<sandro> Jos: I would prefer we change our datatypes to work the OWL way (non-disjoint value spaces)

<csma> ACTION: Jos to edit ISSUE-81 to explain the technical reason that make owl:real, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary incompatible with RIF current data types [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-rif-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Jos

<trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jdebruij2, jderoo)

<josb> Axel: xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary, owl:real are problematic

<csma> ACTION: Jdebruij2 to edit ISSUE-81 to explain the technical reason that make owl:real, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary incompatible with RIF current data types [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-rif-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-682 - Edit ISSUE-81 to explain the technical reason that make owl:real, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary incompatible with RIF current data types [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2009-01-13].

<sandro> Sandro: So the implementation burden of "the owl way" is like this: when you compare an int and real for equality, you can't just say "no", you have to convert to compatible numeric types and then compare.

<csma> ACTION: jdebruij2 to ask Dave to have a look at ISSUE-81 before F2F12 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/06-rif-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-683 - Ask Dave to have a look at implementation burden for non-overlapping numeric types, related to ISSUE-81 before F2F12 [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2009-01-13].

<csma> next item

<csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/546

<csma> next item

<csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Jan/0000.html

<Hassan> I prefer it!

<josb> yes, it is

<AxelPolleres> +1

<csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/581

No telecon on Jan 13

<AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chaining_strategy_numeric-add_1, ...

But there will be a telecon on Jan 20

<Hassan> +1 to adjourn