18:01:21 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rif-prd
18:01:21 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-rif-prd-irc
18:02:07 <AdrianP> AdrianP has joined #rif-prd
18:02:42 <Gary> Gary has joined #rif-prd
18:02:45 <Zakim> SW_RIF(PRD)1:00PM has now started
18:02:52 <Zakim> +??P2
18:02:58 <csma> zakim, ??P2 is me
18:02:58 <Zakim> +csma; got it
18:03:18 <Zakim> +Gary
18:03:21 <Zakim> -csma
18:03:22 <Zakim> +csma
18:03:53 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:04:05 <AdrianP> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
18:04:05 <Zakim> +AdrianP; got it
18:05:36 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
18:06:43 <AdrianP> Zakim, unmute me
18:06:43 <Zakim> AdrianP was not muted, AdrianP
18:08:56 <PaulVincent> PaulVincent has joined #rif-prd
18:15:18 <csma> Gary; separate cardinality constraint on frame slots and path expressions
18:15:24 <Gary> _x[a=b]
18:15:46 <Gary> _x.a=b
18:16:10 <Gary> _x[a->b]
18:17:09 <AdrianP> in SWC we also have access to "object" (class) values (values of properties)
18:17:12 <AdrianP> such as ?x[rdf:type -> ex:named]
18:17:26 <csma> csma: separate the test on a slot value (whatever the cardinality) and the representation of the value of a single-valued field
18:17:47 <csma> obj[attr->val]
18:18:07 <csma> Pred(val)
18:18:48 <csma> ofq
18:18:51 <csma> ofa
18:19:06 <csma> Pred(ofa)
18:22:44 <csma> forall ?c such that ?c # Customer, if ?c.age > 10 and ?c.revenue < 1000 then 
18:23:55 <AdrianP> it could be also expressed as ?c[age ->?v] and ?v >10
18:24:56 <csma> ?c.age > 10
18:25:52 <PaulVincent> So... this is ?"c.age" or ?(c.age)
18:26:42 <PaulVincent> ... the trouble is that rulevariables map to just the objects, ?c is any Customer etc
18:27:33 <AdrianP> another question is if the path experssions can be nested
18:28:10 <AdrianP> such as (obj.attr1).attr2
18:28:58 <Gary> so, what Christian typed is not equivalent to what Adrian typed.  Christian's path expr is really ?c[age=?v] and ?v > 10
18:29:09 <csma> <pathExpr><object>TERM</object><member>Const</member></PathExpr>
18:30:29 <csma> <PathExpr><object><Var>?c</Var></object><member><Const>Customer:age</Const><member></PathExpr>
18:34:59 <AdrianP> yes, it is a short cut for using variables in frames with cardinality constraints
18:37:06 <AdrianP> we could introduce the path experssions as short cuts in the presentation syntax
18:37:16 <csma> ACTION: re-work strawman proposal to separate cardinality constraint and the possible introduction of path expression
18:37:18 <AdrianP> with semantics defined in terms of frames
18:46:20 <PaulVincent> +1 on different results allowed
18:46:52 <PaulVincent> ... I don't see the rationale for forcing this except maybe as an optional agreed "standard execution" mode / sematics
18:47:31 <Gary> the rationale is of course interoperability
18:47:59 <PaulVincent> ,,, of rules or rule execution?
18:49:36 <csma> ACTION: Gary to draft a strawman for a more discriminating conflict resolution strategy (keep the initial three steps)
18:50:18 <Gary> if x=1 then ...
18:50:28 <Gary> if x=1 and y=2 then ...
18:57:42 <AdrianP> in my view critical path issues are object representation, constraints, rule quantifications, PRD XML syntax
18:58:54 <AdrianP> rule quantifications -> rule qualifications
19:02:22 <AdrianP> Zakim, mute me
19:02:22 <Zakim> AdrianP should now be muted
19:03:24 <AdrianP> bye
19:03:29 <Zakim> -AdrianP
19:03:31 <Zakim> -Gary
19:03:32 <Zakim> -csma
19:03:39 <csma> zakim, list attendees
19:03:39 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been csma, Gary, AdrianP, [IPcaller]
19:03:52 <csma> rrsagent, make log public
19:04:04 <csma> rrsagent, make minutes
19:04:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/03/03-rif-prd-minutes.html csma
19:08:33 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, [IPcaller], in SW_RIF(PRD)1:00PM
19:08:36 <Zakim> SW_RIF(PRD)1:00PM has ended
19:08:38 <Zakim> Attendees were csma, Gary, AdrianP, [IPcaller]
21:33:05 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rif-prd