17:58:49 RRSAgent has joined #rif-prd 17:58:49 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-rif-prd-irc 17:59:04 rrsagent, make log public 17:59:14 rrsagent, make minutes 17:59:14 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-rif-prd-minutes.html csma 18:00:46 zakim, who is on the phone? 18:00:46 I notice SW_RIF(PRD)1:00PM has restarted 18:00:47 On the phone I see ??P0, ??P1 18:01:37 q? 18:02:21 zakim, ??P1 is me 18:02:23 +csma; got it 18:02:29 zakim, mute me 18:02:29 csma should now be muted 18:02:36 +Hassan_Ait-Kaci 18:02:46 zakim, unmute me 18:02:46 csma should no longer be muted 18:02:58 Gary has joined #rif-prd 18:03:05 zakim, ??P0 is cke 18:03:05 +cke; got it 18:03:36 +GaryHallmark 18:04:27 Hassan has joined #rif-prd 18:08:42 apaschke has joined #rif-prd 18:09:35 +[IPcaller] 18:09:50 Zakim, [IPcaller] is me 18:09:50 +apaschke; got it 18:10:51 Zakim, who is on the phone? 18:10:51 On the phone I see cke, csma, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), GaryHallmark, apaschke 18:11:23 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Arch/Extensibility 18:11:34 A RIF dialect is forward compatible if a conformant implementation will process instances of any future or unknown extension according to the specification of the said extension. 18:12:49 obj[att=val] 18:13:31 = to -> 18:14:04 to 18:14:40 fallback="reject" 18:15:03 fallback=IRI 18:17:58 obj[att less-than val] 18:18:42 exist ?x obj[att->?x] and (?x less-than val) 18:22:38 default would be single valued (so Core users don't need to care about) 18:28:05 e.g. a Prolog like relation of a Frame http://fragrantfish.com/biz-vocabulary#Item.deliveredTo(Item, Item.deliveredTo) 18:29:08 and the Frame representation would be Item(http://fragrantfish.com/biz-vocabulary#Item.deliveredTo -> ?Item.deliveredTo) 18:29:46 -apaschke 18:30:10 we solved a similar transformation in the demo we had at RuleML-2008 between ILog, Oracle BRMS and Prova 18:31:19 +??P4 18:31:29 Zakim, ??P4 is me 18:31:29 +apaschke; got it 18:33:45 the demo at RuleML-2008 http://ruleml-challenge.cs.nccu.edu.tw/?q=node/25 18:35:39 yes, to really support object models we would need to support type information such X 18:38:02 Adrian, my prefered approach to that is that a RIF document should have an accompanying data model doc if needed; e.g. an XML schema, giving all the info about cardinality, data types etc 18:39:50 married(A,B) married(A,C) is valid 18:41:30 excl_assert(P) :- ( P , !, retract(P) ; assert(P)). 18:42:12 logically it is correct, it is only wrong with respect to the application which forbids that someone is married to two different persons 18:42:39 therefore you would need to add constraints 18:45:33 if married(A,B) married(A,C) is valid, the uncle and aunt relations will be wrong. Maybe we just say this is fine. So far, I try to understand what to do with this. 18:48:33 we could use an optional attribute in XML; by default or when omitted (as in Core) it means singel valued 18:49:20 in terms of processing, it is just simpler to consider married(A,B) and married(A,C) as valid. The logic will be an additive logic. 18:53:36 semantics of BLD frames can not be changed 18:53:55 due to last call 18:56:02 but in Core we don't have sets 18:56:08 lists etc. 18:57:08 Right, Adrian. But adding a datatype for sets/list/whatever is something we will have to discuss... 19:03:18 -apaschke 19:03:19 -Hassan_Ait-Kaci 19:03:21 -GaryHallmark 19:03:22 -cke 19:03:24 -csma 19:03:26 SW_RIF(PRD)1:00PM has ended 19:03:27 Attendees were csma, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, cke, GaryHallmark, apaschke 19:03:29 rrsagent, make minutes 19:03:29 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-rif-prd-minutes.html csma