IRC log of rif on 2009-01-16

Timestamps are in UTC.

00:04:21 [sandro]
PROPOSED: We'll use xs:dateTimeStamp (or owl:datetime if xs:dateTimeStamp isn't mature in time -- xs:dateTime with required timeZone and timeline semantics), and not xs:dateTime. We recognize the mapping this to/from what rule engines do may be challenging, but we see no easy solution.
00:05:00 [DaveReynolds]
We may need additional builtins to enable that mapping in an inteoperable way.
00:05:01 [sandro]
PROPOSED: We'll use xs:dateTimeStamp (or owl:datetime if xs:dateTimeStamp isn't mature in time -- xs:dateTime with required timeZone and timeline semantics), and not xs:dateTime. We recognize the mapping of this to/from what rule engines do may be challenging, but we see no approach that makes this mapping easier.
00:05:48 [chke]
-1
00:06:00 [josb]
+1
00:06:04 [Michael_Kifer]
0
00:06:10 [AdrianP]
0
00:06:15 [DaveReynolds]
+1 (with note that additional builtins may be needed to enable the mapping)
00:06:15 [GaryHallmark]
0
00:06:16 [sandro]
(chke needs more time -- will have concrete answer in two weeks)
00:06:19 [sandro]
+1
00:06:34 [AdrianP]
we probably need a much richer time onology
00:06:38 [Harold]
+1
00:06:41 [sandro]
NOT RESOLVED.
00:06:42 [pvincent]
+0
00:07:34 [csma]
action: to christian to add the issue on the agenda for RIF telecon Jan 29
00:07:34 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - to
00:07:42 [sandro]
ACTION: changhai to agree with xs:dateTimeStamp proposal or send us arguments against it.
00:07:43 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-695 - Agree with xs:dateTimeStamp proposal or send us arguments against it. [on Changhai Ke - due 2009-01-23].
00:08:29 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Add owl:real and owl:realPlus to RIF Core, BLD, PRD.
00:08:32 [sandro]
+1
00:08:53 [sandro]
csma: reminder -- these are union types of the numeric types.
00:08:54 [josb]
+1
00:08:56 [DaveReynolds]
+1
00:09:00 [AdrianP]
0
00:09:02 [sandro]
RESOLVED: Add owl:real and owl:realPlus to RIF Core, BLD, PRD.
00:09:06 [Harold]
0
00:09:07 [GaryHallmark]
+1 (for use as isNumeric() only)
00:09:42 [sandro]
table owl:rational
00:09:55 [DaveReynolds]
Ah. If OWL doesn't change the disjointness we will need to revisit this because we'll have to write our own defns of them
00:11:06 [sandro]
sandro: yeah, this assumes that OWL will change the disjointness part.
00:11:38 [Zakim]
-DaveReynolds
00:11:42 [sandro]
thanks for all your help, DaveReynolds
00:11:45 [sandro]
BREAK
00:11:51 [Zakim]
-LeoraMorgenstern
00:12:11 [cke]
cke has joined #rif
00:27:33 [josb]
PROPOSED: have dinner at Typhoon at 20:00
00:27:54 [josb]
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=typhoon,+portland&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.352165,58.886719&ie=UTF8&ll=45.523307,-122.678103&spn=0.014402,0.028753&z=15&iwloc=A
00:28:03 [josb]
Who will join?
00:28:51 [josb]
(it's Thai food)
00:29:14 [Harold]
+1
00:34:31 [AdrianP]
+1
00:41:44 [sandro]
-1 (conflicts with flight)
00:45:51 [josb]
RESOLVED: have dinner at Typhoon at 20:00 without Sandro ;)
00:46:51 [GaryHallmark]
whitepaper on Oracle Business Rules is at http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/ias/business_rules/files/smart_business_processes_using_oracle_business.pdf
00:47:23 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Close RIF. Burn all the evidence.
00:47:52 [csma]
PROPOSED: PRD extends frames with some new syntax for attributes which are single-valued and have replacement semantics (matching OO object attributes). This doesn't make sense for Core or BLD.
00:49:14 [cke]
+1
00:50:26 [sandro]
gary: we said you don't need the equals in conditions.
00:53:36 [MoZ]
MoZ has joined #rif
00:53:39 [sandro]
sandro: if you're going to use java type information, then you don't need RIF to tell you which properties are multivalued vs single valued.
00:54:35 [sandro]
sandro: (you need multi/single info to know which kinds of java to write, but sure you can get it from Java.)
00:58:32 [sandro]
gary: sometimes you have to generate the java -- java wont tell you the type. But you can infer that it's replacement semantics because somewhere in the ruleset there's an UPDATE action on it.
00:59:01 [sandro]
cke: No, facts might provide multiple values.
00:59:14 [sandro]
gary: You just look to see if there's more than one fact.
00:59:41 [sandro]
cke: That's a very weak interpretation. You add another fact and then a single-valued attribute becomes multi-valued?! I don't like that.
01:01:11 [sandro]
csma: I had one use case, but I don't know if it matters. I send you a ruleset and you run it to get some more data. YOu figure out whether you need a list or not. Then then NEXT ruleset I send you catches you on that.
01:01:26 [sandro]
gary: That's multiple-rulesets-over-time is out of scope.
01:01:51 [sandro]
gary: I assume you get the all the ruleset & data at once, and can analyze it all at once.
01:04:44 [sandro]
gary: I'm afraid most PRD rulesets will be outside Core, because the single-valued-case is the common one.
01:05:52 [sandro]
csma: Even if PRD uses single-valued properites, it can ...... something
01:06:03 [Zakim]
+LeoraMorgenstern
01:06:56 [AdrianP]
example if ?c#eg:Customer and ?c[eg:name->?n1 eg:name->?n2] and not(?n1 = ?n2) then do (?x new(?x)) (?x#rif:ClassException ?x[rif:class->eg:Customer rif:cardinalityViolation->eg:name])
01:07:06 [sandro]
Harold: singleton (one multievalue) vs single-valued-property.
01:07:07 [AdrianP]
from http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/PRD_Ruleset_Example
01:08:30 [sandro]
Changhai: I reject anything requiring us to analyze the whole document to figure out maxCard
01:11:16 [josb]
+1 to proposal Sandro
01:12:36 [sandro]
sandro: let's say everything is multivalued, but there is an UPDATE action which wipes out all the values before setting one (or more) new ones. If you can implement without lsits, more power to you.
01:13:17 [Harold]
Yes, PRD could then still optionally use OWL 2 for expressing cardinality constraints such card=1, card>0, and 2 < card < 7.
01:13:27 [sandro]
right, Harold
01:14:08 [csma]
s/lsists/lists/
01:14:31 [Harold]
s/such/such as/
01:16:14 [sandro]
sandro: you don't need complete analysis -- or any at all really -- it's just a performance trick to notice when you'll only have singletons.
01:17:21 [sandro]
gary: during the translation, you look at the rulesets, look for asserts vs updates for a frame, if it's all updates (not asserts) then it's singletons.
01:18:07 [sandro]
gary: So you can't use assert to set a first value.
01:19:16 [sandro]
cke: why not just indicate when properties are single values?
01:19:29 [sandro]
sandro: because that syntax would be rejected by Core.
01:22:39 [sandro]
csma: if ?x # Car ?c [ color -> Red ] then MODIFY ?c [color -> Blue ]
01:24:06 [sandro]
csma: if ?x # Car ?c [ color -> Red ] then ?c[color -> Blue ] MEANS 'color' is multivalued.
01:29:49 [sandro]
PROPOSED: action Modify on frames removes previous values, then does assert. Implementations can use the fact that a ruleset has ONLY modifies on some property to implement it as as single-valued.
01:32:24 [sandro]
PROPOSED: PRD will have have "Modify" action which removes all previous values for the given properties, then sets one new value as given. Implementations can be use the fact that values for a given property are only provided via MODIFY (never ASSERT), then it can be implemented as single-valued.
01:32:29 [cke]
-1
01:32:39 [GaryHallmark]
+1
01:32:53 [Harold]
+1
01:33:19 [sandro]
cke: I'm against looking at the actions like this. I'm also opposed to pushing implementation to use lists so much.
01:34:05 [sandro]
Gary, the problem with this is that I think most PRD rulesets will be all MODIFYs, so they wont work in Core. Alas.
01:34:21 [sandro]
(but I doubt we can do better than that.)
01:35:16 [sandro]
cke: I receive a document containing rules and facts, with no schema....
01:35:30 [sandro]
gary: I don't know how you can do anything with that without analysis
01:36:04 [AdrianP]
the problem is that you might want to use modify to modify a complete list, e.g. an oder with several products which should be modified with a collection of several new products
01:37:13 [GaryHallmark]
Sandro, I imagine a translator switch that will "gently force" into C
01:37:38 [GaryHallmark]
... into Core, including using assert instead of modify and hoping it all works out
01:38:10 [GaryHallmark]
... basically, make the user swear that the asserts are "single assignment"
01:39:42 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
01:40:38 [Harold]
Next f2f and future of WG:
01:40:55 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
01:42:03 [Harold]
Sandro: We need to work hard to get specs to their next levels (within two months), then accommodate comments.
01:43:48 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
01:45:42 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
01:52:30 [sandro]
Plan is to meet approx in April, and at that meeting to resolve to publish all documents as Last Call. (maybe BLD as CR).
01:52:38 [sandro]
(maybe test, ucr not.)
01:54:59 [sandro]
csmsa: I like apr 14-24. range.
01:55:43 [sandro]
csma: maybe 3 days; 3rd day for editors.
01:56:05 [sandro]
csma: other offers that Boston.
01:56:52 [sandro]
paul: I could maybe do TIBCO in West London.
02:01:32 [sandro]
Week of April 13th, Boston. After Easter, Before www2009.
02:04:48 [sandro]
ACTION: sandro start survey, including question about objecting to having it in north america again.
02:04:48 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-696 - Start survey, including question about objecting to having it in north america again. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-01-23].
02:05:10 [sandro]
(survey of dates in that week, and maybe nearby weeks.)
02:06:22 [sandro]
ADJOURNED.
02:07:06 [sandro]
zakim, who is here?
02:07:06 [Zakim]
On the phone I see RIF_Meeting_Room, LeoraMorgenstern
02:07:07 [Zakim]
On IRC I see josb, MoZ, cke, LeoraMorgenstern, AdrianP, RRSAgent, Michael_Kifer, sandro, Harold, csma, GaryHallmark, Hassan, mdean, trackbot, Zakim
02:08:05 [csma]
csma has left #rif
02:08:12 [Zakim]
-LeoraMorgenstern
02:09:00 [josb]
ACTION: Josb to contact ivanh about RDF erratum
02:09:01 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-697 - Contact ivanh about RDF erratum [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2009-01-23].
02:10:58 [josb]
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=SW+Madison+St&daddr=410+SW+Broadway,+Portland,+OR+97205+(Typhoon)&hl=en&geocode=Fc6CtgIdog-w-A%3B&mra=cc&dirflg=w&sll=45.516843,-122.677503&sspn=0.014404,0.028753&ie=UTF8&ll=45.518316,-122.677567&spn=0.007202,0.014377&z=16
03:05:00 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, RIF_Meeting_Room, in SW_RIF(F2F12)11:00AM
03:05:04 [Zakim]
SW_RIF(F2F12)11:00AM has ended
03:05:05 [Zakim]
Attendees were Mike_Dean, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, RIF_Meeting_Room, DaveReynolds, [IPcaller], LeoraMorgenstern