IRC log of rif-prd on 2009-03-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

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