14:50:24 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rif
14:50:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/03/10-rif-irc
14:50:35 <ChrisW> zakim, this will be rif
14:50:36 <Zakim> ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 10 minutes
14:50:55 <ChrisW> Meeting: RIF Telecon 10-Mar-09
14:51:12 <ChrisW> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0034.html
14:51:24 <ChrisW> ChrisW has changed the topic to: 10 March RIF telecon; agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0034.html
14:52:21 <csma> csma has joined #rif
14:52:52 <ChrisW> agenda+ Admin
14:53:08 <ChrisW> agenda+ Liason
14:53:11 <ChrisW> F2F13
14:53:21 <ChrisW> agenda+ F2F13
14:53:32 <ChrisW> rrsagent, make minutes
14:53:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/03/10-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
14:53:40 <ChrisW> agenda+ Actions
14:53:52 <ChrisW> agenda+ Safeness and termination
14:54:01 <ChrisW> agenda+ ISSUE-80
14:54:04 <ChrisW> agenda+ ISSUE-92
14:54:14 <ChrisW> agenda+ Presentation Syntax
14:54:28 <ChrisW> agenda+ ISSUE-93
14:54:36 <ChrisW> agenda+ ACTION-689
14:54:41 <ChrisW> agenda+ AOB
14:54:48 <ChrisW> rrsagent, make logs public
14:55:16 <ChrisW> Chair: Christian de Sainte-Marie
14:56:17 <Harold> Harold has joined #rif
14:56:31 <ChrisW> hi Harold, you ready to scribe?
15:00:01 <ChrisW> zakim, next item
15:00:04 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Admin" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:01:08 <Zakim> SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
15:01:14 <Zakim> + +1.914.784.aaaa
15:01:14 <AdrianP> AdrianP has joined #rif
15:01:18 <Zakim> +??P16
15:01:31 <ChrisW> zakim, aaaa is me
15:01:40 <Zakim> +ChrisW; got it
15:01:56 <Zakim> +[NRCC]
15:01:57 <Harold> Yes.
15:01:59 <ChrisW> zakim, ??P16 is ChangKai
15:02:04 <ChrisW> Scribe: Harold
15:02:10 <Zakim> +ChangKai; got it
15:02:11 <ChrisW> scribenick: Harold
15:02:12 <Harold> zakim, [NRCC] is me
15:02:24 <Zakim> +Harold; got it
15:02:35 <Zakim> +??P32
15:02:45 <csma> zakim, ??P32 is me
15:02:48 <Zakim> +csma; got it
15:02:50 <Zakim> +Sandro
15:02:54 <csma> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:02:58 <Zakim> On the phone I see ChangKai, ChrisW, Harold, csma, Sandro
15:03:25 <Zakim> +??P33
15:03:30 <AdrianP> Zakim, ??P33 is me
15:03:34 <cke> cke has joined #rif
15:03:37 <Zakim> +AdrianP; got it
15:03:51 <ChrisW> zakim, ChangKai is cke
15:04:06 <Zakim> +cke; got it
15:04:48 <AxelPolleres> AxelPolleres has joined #rif
15:05:25 <Zakim> +??P30
15:05:31 <josb> josb has joined #rif
15:05:38 <Zakim> +Leora_Morgenstern
15:05:40 <Zakim> + +43.158.801.1aabb
15:05:58 <DaveReynolds> DaveReynolds has joined #rif
15:06:25 <Zakim> +??P39
15:07:08 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2001/01/cgi-irc does that one work for her?
15:08:20 <ChrisW> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:08:20 <Zakim> On the phone I see cke, ChrisW, Harold, csma, Sandro, AdrianP, AxelPolleres, Leora_Morgenstern, josb, DaveReynolds
15:08:30 <csma> next item
15:09:19 <csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0031.html
15:09:48 <Harold> Liaison:
15:10:12 <Harold> Chris: Please read the above email until next week.
15:10:27 <josb> yippie!
15:10:40 <Gary_Hallmark> Gary_Hallmark has joined #rif
15:10:56 <Zakim> + +1.503.533.aacc
15:10:56 <Harold> Sandro: OWL leaning toward disjointness.
15:11:31 <Harold> Jos: Only OWL lreply to one datatype comment:
15:11:48 <Harold> ... Semantics of OWL 2 RL.
15:11:57 <ChrisW> s/datatype/OWL2-RL/
15:12:27 <ChrisW> action: csma to put OWL datatypes on upcoming telecon
15:12:27 <trackbot> Created ACTION-712 - Put OWL datatypes on upcoming telecon [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-03-17].
15:13:00 <josb> q+
15:13:05 <Harold> Sandro: OWL just need to define identity when introducing new datatype.
15:13:07 <csma> ack josb
15:13:09 <AxelPolleres> q+
15:13:25 <ChrisW> ack jos
15:13:49 <csma> ack axel
15:13:52 <Harold> Jos: Also RIF could introduce certain datatypes (eg rational) without introducing (all kinds of ) builtins on them.
15:14:36 <Harold> Axel: How about the OWL implementers? Will they actually implement all OWL datatypes?
15:14:46 <Harold> Sandro: Yes.
15:15:20 <Harold> Axel: When there is no lexical space?
15:15:50 <MichaelKifer> MichaelKifer has joined #rif
15:15:51 <AxelPolleres> I think you can write down some reals as literals in OWL but not all... or no?
15:15:59 <Harold> Jos: Thats why datatype real is the easiest to implement.
15:16:18 <josb> real does not have a lexical space
15:16:21 <DaveReynolds> Yes - its the difference between a new implementation which can easily add one more datatype like Rational v.s. our requirement of implementation-by-translation
15:16:55 <Zakim> +Michael_Kifer
15:18:04 <Harold> Christian: Even if easy to define datatype in RIF, it may be hard to define mappings.
15:18:06 <ChrisW> i imagine something like a predefined conformance level for the extended datatypes, like "RIF+SW"
15:19:46 <csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/81
15:20:01 <ChrisW> that's the issue
15:20:28 <ChrisW> q?
15:21:36 <Harold> Axel: SPARQL-RIF liaison person.
15:21:36 <csma> next item
15:22:05 <csma> q?
15:22:21 <josb> the 13th F2F? Will that be the unlucky F2F?
15:22:26 <ChrisW> can we stay at a frat house?
15:22:40 <ChrisW> sure
15:22:54 <csma> next item
15:26:40 <ChrisW> action: chrisw to ask JeffP if he will complete his action
15:26:40 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - chrisw
15:26:45 <ChrisW> action: chris to ask JeffP if he will complete his action
15:26:45 <trackbot> Created ACTION-713 - Ask JeffP if he will complete his action [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-03-17].
15:27:38 <josb> q+
15:27:44 <csma> ack jos
15:28:53 <Harold> Jos: Since discussing remaining bunch of test cases takes too much time in general telecons, we could have a special telecon for that.
15:29:23 <Harold> Leora: There's already a kind of Task Force with telecons.
15:29:36 <AdrianP> yes, similar the Core task force can approve Core test cases
15:29:36 <Harold> Sandro: Approving?
15:29:58 <ChrisW> i think jos is proposing rather an auxiliary telecon, not a task force
15:30:08 <ChrisW> focused just on approving
15:30:34 <ChrisW> how much smaller can we get?
15:30:43 <ChrisW> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:30:43 <Zakim> On the phone I see cke, ChrisW, Harold, csma, Sandro, AdrianP, AxelPolleres, Leora_Morgenstern, josb, DaveReynolds, +1.503.533.aacc, Michael_Kifer
15:30:47 <Harold> Sandro: Maybe even email approvals.
15:31:36 <ChrisW> zakim, aacc is Gary
15:31:36 <Zakim> +Gary; got it
15:31:54 <Harold> Jos: People seriously look at them only once on agenda.
15:32:19 <csma> next item
15:32:21 <Harold> Sandro: Implementers will need them.
15:32:27 <ChrisW> zakim, take up item 5
15:32:27 <Zakim> agendum 5. "Safeness and termination" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:32:45 <csma> PROPOSED: The issue of finiteness will be At Risk through CR, as we get implementor feedback. We need to know who wants / doesn't want this limitation in Core. (Safeness as defined by Jos not being in question.)
15:33:18 <josb> q+
15:33:25 <csma> ack jos
15:34:16 <Harold> Jos: Axel's stronger safeness condition (prohibit recursion thru externals) could be added to document.
15:34:52 <Harold> Dave: finite grounding.
15:35:08 <josb> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Feb/0067.html
15:35:21 <josb> (email Axel about safeness)
15:35:49 <Harold> Axel: Two flavors of safeness are implemented.
15:36:26 <Harold> ... Guarding predicate
15:37:03 <Harold> ...Range-restrictedness
15:37:48 <Harold> Dave: Only having to prove conformance for finite rulesets.
15:38:40 <josb> what is a finite ruleset?
15:38:43 <Harold> Christian: If you only have to prove for finite rulesets, then you dont say what youll do with non-finite ones.
15:39:08 <Harold> Axel: Giving errors for non-finite ones would be an option.
15:39:52 <Harold> Dave: Forward engines can have a termination criterion, eg counting upward a variable recursively up to a limit.
15:40:04 <Harold> ... that should not be excluded.
15:41:02 <Harold> Christian: Try to satisfy both criteria.
15:41:20 <Harold> Dave: Was original split notion of conformance.
15:41:24 <josb> or is it meant that there exists a finite grounding that has the same entailments?
15:42:14 <Harold> Sandro: Doesnt cause this a bifurcation?
15:42:35 <Harold> ... you wont know if your document is consumed?
15:43:20 <Harold> Christian: Maybe indicate strong safeness could be made "at risk".
15:43:28 <AxelPolleres> jos, it is "Eiter-Schindlauer-safe" rather than "Axel-safe", I'd say... (although I simplified their notion already)
15:43:46 <josb> Axel-safe sounds better :)
15:44:32 <Harold> Sandro: Deeply opposed to handle under conformance.
15:44:55 <Harold> Axel: Right, better strict safeness.
15:45:25 <Harold> Christian: It's already under conformance.
15:45:56 <Harold> ... intrinsically conformance.
15:46:13 <Harold> Sandro: Making it optional, is a problem.
15:46:47 <josb> q+
15:47:02 <csma> PROPOSED: Axel-safeness will be At Risk through CR, as we get implementor feedback. We need to know who wants / doesn't want this limitation in Core. (Safeness as defined by Jos not being in question.)
15:47:54 <AxelPolleres> it looks like we are stuck with a discussion about BLD-Core-theRealCore on that issue. Meta-comment: do we simpy need something more in between core (which is maybe over-cautious) and BLD?
15:47:57 <Harold> Dave: How does this connect with what a process should do?
15:49:07 <Harold> Sandro: Dave's point is similar to being allowed to using some extra datatypes.
15:49:11 <Harold> Dave: Right.
15:49:31 <Harold> Sandro: "User switch" seems fine then.
15:49:48 <josb> q?
15:50:02 <sandro> "is outside Core"
15:50:04 <Harold> ... "outside Core" seems clearer phrasing.
15:50:12 <csma> ack jos
15:50:46 <Harold> Sandro: Dave's earlier proposal, with Axel happy: there exists a finite grounding of ruleset with same entailments.
15:51:01 <Harold> s/Sandro/Jos/
15:51:37 <Harold> Axel: But not decidable.
15:52:19 <Harold> Jos: Fwd engine could do it in practical cases.
15:53:18 <josb> Jos: Axel is apparently not happy with it, so nevermind
15:53:41 <Harold> Christian: If non-Axel-safe document is rejected, is that enough?
15:53:52 <Harold> Dave: Yes.
15:54:12 <csma> s/is/is not required to be/
15:54:38 <Harold> ... current "at risk" clause in Core is fine.
15:55:34 <AxelPolleres> the problem is if the answer to "I am not required to implement this" is undecidable, we get in trouble, that is why I wanted to restrict this to something syntactically checkable
15:55:35 <Harold> Sandro: User setting a flag "outside of core" fine with Dave?
15:55:40 <Harold> Dave: Yes.
15:55:50 <Harold> Sandro: In this case, fine.
15:56:10 <Harold> ... if everyone turned that on?
15:56:17 <csma> PROPOSED: Core will be Axel-safe, but consumer will be allowed to accepted non-Axel-safe but otherwise valid Core documents, provided they notify the user in some way.
15:56:55 <AxelPolleres> -1, objecting againt the notion of "Axel-safe" in a formal WG resolution.
15:57:23 <josb> josb has joined #rif
15:57:35 <Harold> Sandro: Decide at end of CR how it works out.
15:57:36 <csma> PROPOSED: Core will be Eiter-Schindlauer-safe, but consumer will be allowed to accepted non-Axel-safe but otherwise valid Core documents, provided they notify the user in some way.
15:58:19 <josb> but this will be at risk, right?
15:58:22 <ChrisW> accdept and produce?
15:58:35 <AxelPolleres> +1 that's fine for me (also with "at risk")
15:58:45 <csma> PROPOSED: Core will be Eiter-Schindlauer-safe, but consumer will be allowed to accepted non-PROPOSED: Core will be Eiter-Schindlauer-safe, but consumer will be allowed to accepted non-Eiter-Schindlauer-safe but otherwise valid Core documents, provided they notify the user in some way.
15:58:53 <AdrianP> Zakim, mute me
15:58:53 <Zakim> AdrianP should now be muted
15:59:15 <csma> PROPOSED: Core will be Eiter-Schindlauer-safe, but consumer will be allowed to accepted non-Eiter-Schindlauer-safe but otherwise valid Core documents, provided they notify the user in some way.
15:59:26 <Harold> Sandro: Core would be Eiter-Schindlauer-safe, but extended-Core docs could be flag-allowed.
15:59:46 <ChrisW> q+
15:59:55 <csma> ack chris
16:00:06 <cke> Hi all, I quit you to join another meeting. Regards.
16:00:09 <josb> consumers cannot produce :)
16:00:19 <Zakim> -cke
16:00:36 <Harold> Chris: This requires implementations to do the check.
16:00:43 <ChrisW> consumers and producers are not disjoint, jos :)
16:01:17 <AxelPolleres> q+
16:01:25 <csma> ack axel
16:01:49 <Harold> Axel: Very much stronger safeness notion would be easier to check.
16:02:14 <Harold> ... Datalog below that.
16:02:36 <Harold> ...  Eiter-Schindlauer-safe is harder to check and just extends the Datalog notion.
16:02:39 <josb> I thought we just had Core and BLD?
16:02:40 <sandro> PROPOSED: For now, "at risk", we'll say:   Core consumers must do the Eiter-Schindlauer-safeness check.   They must handle documents which pass the test; they must reject documents which fail the test as "outside core", unless the users specify it is okay to handle documents outside core.    Producers of Core documents must not produce documents which fail this test.
16:02:43 <GaryHallmark> GaryHallmark has joined #rif
16:02:48 <josb> did not know we had anything in between
16:03:23 <Harold> Harold: Range-restrictedness
16:04:26 <DaveReynolds> q+
16:04:34 <csma> ack dave
16:05:39 <AxelPolleres> I need the strong safety notion just for the sake of the "right to reject", so I am fine if the test is simple.
16:06:20 <josb> Axel, I think you are the only who is concerned about how easy it is to implement the test
16:06:47 <ChrisW> mini-core?
16:06:49 <Harold> Sandro: Sounds like two languages.
16:06:58 <AxelPolleres> +1 to Core and SafeCore
16:07:42 <Harold> Harold: But still it's only one core language, with different levels.
16:08:14 <josb> So Core has no safeness condition at all?
16:08:25 <DaveReynolds> I would prefer Sandro's proposal in IRC to having two dialects.
16:08:50 <Harold> Harold: Maybe call these levels "language-levels".
16:09:00 <AxelPolleres> That doesn't need a separate document. Core  doc could stil ldefine both core and safe core.
16:09:05 <Harold> ... but dont introduce a new dialect.
16:09:27 <Harold> Dave: We want a minimal # of dialects.
16:09:59 <Harold> Sandro: One or the other 'dialects' would be at risk.
16:10:22 <josb> let's consider csma's proposed resultion again?
16:10:35 <josb> s/resultion/resolution/
16:10:38 <csma> PROPOSED: Care will defined two options: Core restricted to safe documents (as defined in the Core document [http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core#Safeness]) and Core restricted to Eiter-Schinlauer-safe. Both will be at risk to CR, and only one of them will be REC. 
16:11:23 <sandro> (PROPOSED: For now,  one'll specify two dialects Core-A and Core-B.   We'll pick one at the end of CR. )
16:11:41 <Harold> Harold: Normally, decisions about an aspect of a spec are not 'propagated upward', leading to a 'copy' of the entire spec, putting that up for votes.
16:11:42 <AxelPolleres> what about calling them Forward-safe backward-safe?
16:11:52 <Harold> Chris: Agreed to have only one Core.
16:11:53 <josb> Axel: no
16:12:02 <Harold> ... One paragraph "At Risk".
16:12:03 <AxelPolleres> josb: :-)
16:12:07 <josb> safeness is always concerned with forward-chaing
16:12:13 <josb> s/chaing/chaining/
16:12:19 <sandro> Chris: at risk will be one paragraph, stating the Eiter-Schinlauer safeness criterion.
16:12:23 <Harold> ... If you remove that paragraph, you have a different language.
16:12:29 <Harold> Sandro: Thats clear.
16:12:52 <AxelPolleres> then why not only one notion of dafety at all which does guarantee finite Herbrand models are enough (= safeness)?
16:12:55 <josb> :D
16:12:58 <Harold> ... Eiter-Schindlauer-safeness in Core, but mark it "at risk".
16:13:28 <Harold> s/... Eiter-Schindlauer-safeness in Core, but mark it "at risk"./Sandro: Eiter-Schindlauer-safeness in Core, but mark it "at risk"./
16:14:10 <josb> Axel, Axel-safeness guarantees finite minimal models
16:14:14 <Harold> Sandro: We dont need a special case where you could go outside of Core thru a conformance clause.
16:14:29 <csma> PROPOSED: Core will be Eiter-Schindlauer-safe, but that restriction will be at risk (not putting in question simple safeness as defined in http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core#Safeness)
16:14:44 <ChrisW> should we open an issue on this that we will resolve after implementor feedback?
16:14:46 <sandro> (PROPOSED: We'll handle outside-of-core like we handled outside-of-BLD --- let users set a flag if they want to allow it.)
16:15:01 <ChrisW> (sections of documents have a tendency to remain)
16:15:02 <josb> can we vote?
16:15:37 <AxelPolleres> josb: I would be fine with the stricter notion only allowing finite minimal *Herbrand* models... as a fallback, which I still believe to have been the core idea behind safeness a la ullman
16:16:02 <Harold> Chris: Even if we get not feedback externally, we need to come back to it, hence make it an issue.
16:16:10 <sandro> +1
16:16:19 <DaveReynolds> +0.1
16:16:22 <AxelPolleres> +1
16:16:24 <ChrisW> 0
16:16:24 <Harold> +1
16:16:25 <josb> +!
16:16:25 <AdrianP> 0
16:16:28 <josb> +1
16:16:28 <MichaelKifer> 0
16:16:42 <ChrisW> that's leet for +1
16:16:54 <josb> you mean, l33t?
16:17:02 <csma> RESOLVED: Core will be Eiter-Schindlauer-safe, but that restriction will be at risk (not putting in question simple safeness as defined in http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core#Safeness)
16:17:04 <ChrisW> y1
16:17:11 <ChrisW> 1337
16:17:22 <ChrisW> action: chris to open issue on safeness
16:17:22 <trackbot> Created ACTION-714 - Open issue on safeness [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-03-17].
16:17:43 <csma> mext
16:17:48 <csma> next item
16:18:27 <csma> zakim, close item 6
16:18:27 <Zakim> agendum 6, ISSUE-80, closed
16:18:28 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
16:18:29 <Zakim> 7. ISSUE-92 [from ChrisW]
16:18:34 <csma> next item
16:19:20 <csma> close item 7
16:19:23 <csma> next item
16:19:30 <AdrianP> Zakim, unmute me
16:19:30 <Zakim> AdrianP should no longer be muted
16:20:04 <Harold> Christian: Only see what are the remaining issues.
16:20:49 <Harold> Chris: Sent emails, so did Sandro after the task force meeting.
16:21:02 <csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Feb/0114.html
16:21:10 <csma> (notes from the PS TF)
16:21:15 <AdrianP> Zakim, who is on the phone?
16:21:15 <Zakim> On the phone I see ChrisW, Harold, csma, Sandro, AdrianP, AxelPolleres, Leora_Morgenstern, josb, DaveReynolds, Gary, Michael_Kifer
16:21:44 <Harold> ... Requiring whitespace around syntactic infixes.
16:22:11 <Harold> ... Fixed a bug Sandro found.
16:22:46 <Harold> ... Suggestion to use commas between arguments.
16:23:25 <Harold> Sandro: String literals as in Turtle/C: backslash.
16:24:17 <Harold> ... Comments: C++ style as shorthand for metadata comments.
16:24:23 <josb> q+
16:24:36 <Harold> ... suffix 'd' for decimal numbers.
16:24:41 <csma> ack jos
16:24:51 <AxelPolleres> +1 to without suffix decimal
16:24:58 <AxelPolleres> ... as default
16:25:00 <Harold> Jos: Why not always decimal (without need for suffix).
16:25:14 <Harold> ... as in Turtle and other languages.
16:25:32 <Harold> Sandro: Little more error-prone but also more convenient.
16:25:36 <sandro> sandro: Okay, no "d" required.    default to decimal.
16:26:00 <josb> http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle/#sec-tutorial
16:26:11 <Harold> Jos: For double you use "e" in Turtle.
16:27:31 <Harold> Christian: Decisions for potential future dialects?
16:28:48 <Harold> Sandro: Controversial discussion about named-argument infix.
16:28:59 <sandro> hasValue as keyword replacement for "->"
16:29:05 <Harold> ... proposed "::" but Michael later objected.
16:29:26 <josb> Jos: and let's drop floats from the shortcut syntax
16:29:35 <DaveReynolds> Seems rather verbose, but I wouldn't formally object.
16:29:53 <ChrisW> MK proposed using hasValue, member, and subclassOf instead of ->, #, and ##
16:29:54 <Harold> Harold: I also think: too verbose!
16:30:24 <Harold> Axel: Why not simply write triples like in N3?
16:30:28 <AxelPolleres> hmmm, if replacing a[b->c] a b c .
16:30:38 <AdrianP> writing triples is not a readable language
16:30:57 <ChrisW> harold, would you object to hasValue, etc?
16:31:01 <AxelPolleres> Adrian, I think I disagree.
16:31:07 <ChrisW> +1 extend
16:31:18 <AxelPolleres> N3, SPARQL, Turtle are pretty readable.
16:31:55 <AxelPolleres> parentheses?
16:32:02 <AxelPolleres> (a b c)
16:32:07 <Harold> I think "hasValue" is not acceptable, since we use symbols, not keywords, for other central PS constructs.
16:32:38 <AxelPolleres> curly brackets to get even closer? { a b c } ?
16:33:05 <Harold> Christian: Syntax for frames are a central remaining issue.
16:33:13 <AxelPolleres> Anything against curly brackets?
16:33:24 <Harold> Sandro: Frames are useful when they are fully available.
16:33:36 <josb> me
16:33:50 <Harold> Christian: Why not different syntaxes for frames?
16:34:54 <AdrianP> curly brackets are ofente used to denot modules
16:34:56 <Zakim> -AxelPolleres
16:35:07 <AxelPolleres> sorry, seems I dropped out (telephone error)
16:35:08 <ChrisW> how are curly brackets different from []
16:35:15 <csma> a[b>c]
16:35:19 <Harold> Axel: Curley brackets would make it more similar to Turtle.
16:35:37 <AxelPolleres> { a b c } is valid Turtle, a[b c] not
16:35:40 <sandro> a[ b -> x + 2 ]
16:35:44 <Zakim> +??P4
16:36:31 <AxelPolleres> { a b x + 2 }
16:36:43 <AdrianP> looks like a list
16:37:02 <Harold> Christian: Matter of taste.
16:37:14 <Harold> Jos: Matter of implementability.
16:37:27 <AxelPolleres> Adrian... not anymore, if you have { a b c . a c d }  
16:38:03 <csma> q?
16:38:21 <sandro> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Feb/0114.html
16:38:28 <AxelPolleres> Where I want to get is... let's use/allow Turtle instead of the current slot syntax.
16:38:32 <csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Feb/0114.html
16:39:26 <AxelPolleres> q+
16:39:44 <josb> so, we can have {a, b, c} :)
16:40:09 <AxelPolleres> josB: baeh :-b
16:40:09 <Harold> Christian: PS is not normative, so suggest not having style discussions.
16:40:24 <Harold> Sandro: Two reasons for PS.
16:40:29 <AxelPolleres> q-
16:41:07 <AxelPolleres> I guess we have to solve the ambiguity of function calls issue in SPARQL as well.
16:41:28 <AxelPolleres> but we will quite sure stick with a Turtle style syntax.
16:41:29 <AdrianP> changing it now means a lot of extra effort
16:41:39 <AdrianP> all test cases and use case examples need to be updated
16:42:31 <sandro> No Adrian -- the test cases can use multiple syntaxes, as we agreed.
16:43:17 <Harold> Sandro: PS1 would be the PS we have in use cases.
16:43:17 <ChrisW> zakim, list attendees
16:43:17 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been +1.914.784.aaaa, ChrisW, Harold, csma, Sandro, AdrianP, cke, Leora_Morgenstern, +43.158.801.1aabb, AxelPolleres, josb, DaveReynolds,
16:43:20 <Zakim> ... +1.503.533.aacc, Michael_Kifer, Gary
16:43:30 <ChrisW> aob?
16:43:34 <Harold> ... there could be PS2 for different purposes. Etc.
16:44:09 <AxelPolleres> q+
16:44:19 <csma> ack axel
16:45:00 <Zakim> -Leora_Morgenstern
16:45:05 <ChrisW> we need to stop
16:45:05 <Harold> Axel: Like push toward Turtle to get compatibility RIF and SPARQL.
16:45:18 <Zakim> -Gary
16:45:49 <ChrisW> action: axel to write a paragraph on ES-safeness in Core
16:45:49 <trackbot> Created ACTION-715 - Write a paragraph on ES-safeness in Core [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-03-17].
16:46:01 <ChrisW> adjounred
16:46:09 <ChrisW> rrsagent, make minutes
16:46:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/03/10-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
16:46:13 <Zakim> -Michael_Kifer
16:46:19 <Zakim> -DaveReynolds
16:46:43 <ChrisW> thanks harold
16:46:44 <Zakim> -Harold
16:48:06 <Zakim> -csma
16:48:12 <Zakim> -ChrisW
16:52:41 <Zakim> -josb
16:54:45 <Zakim> -Sandro
16:54:46 <Zakim> -AxelPolleres
16:54:46 <Zakim> SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
16:54:47 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.914.784.aaaa, ChrisW, Harold, csma, Sandro, AdrianP, cke, Leora_Morgenstern, +43.158.801.1aabb, AxelPolleres, josb, DaveReynolds, +1.503.533.aacc, Michael_Kifer,
16:54:49 <Zakim> ... Gary
17:10:34 <csma> csma has left #rif
18:04:27 <GaryHallmark> GaryHallmark has joined #rif
18:05:25 <sandro> sandro has joined #rif
18:29:56 <sandro> sandro has joined #rif