IRC log of rif on 2009-03-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:39:42 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #rif

14:39:43 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/03/17-rif-irc

14:39:54 [csma]

rrsagent, make log public

14:40:27 [csma]

Regrets: JosDeBruijn, AxelPolleres

14:40:40 [csma]

Chair: Christian de Sainte Marie

14:40:48 [csma]

zakim, clear agenda

14:40:48 [Zakim]

agenda cleared

14:40:57 [csma]

agendum+ Admin

14:41:06 [csma]

agendum+ Liaisons

14:41:18 [csma]

agendum+ F2F13

14:41:30 [csma]

agendum+ Actions review

14:41:42 [csma]

agendum+ ISSUE-92

14:41:50 [csma]

agendum+ ISSUE-91

14:42:04 [csma]

agendum+ ISSUE-80

14:42:15 [csma]

agendum+ ISSUE-37

14:42:24 [csma]

agendum+ AOB

14:43:16 [csma]

rrsagent, make minutes

14:43:16 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/03/17-rif-minutes.html csma

14:43:24 [csma]

Meeting: RIF Telecon 17 March 2009

14:44:02 [csma]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0077.html

15:00:44 [Zakim]

SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started

15:00:53 [Zakim]

+Sandro

15:00:57 [DaveReynolds]

DaveReynolds has joined #rif

15:01:23 [Zakim]

+??P61

15:01:37 [csma]

zakim, ??P61 is me

15:01:37 [Zakim]

+csma; got it

15:01:47 [Zakim]

+??P72

15:02:27 [AdrianP]

AdrianP has joined #rif

15:03:29 [cke]

cke has joined #RIF

15:03:32 [Zakim]

+??P36

15:05:16 [Zakim]

+??P37

15:05:35 [AdrianP]

Zakim, +??P37 is me

15:05:47 [AdrianP]

Zakim, ??P37 is me

15:05:55 [csma]

Scribe: Adrian Paschke

15:05:57 [Zakim]

sorry, AdrianP, I do not recognize a party named '+??P37'

15:05:58 [cke]

zakim, +??p36 is me

15:06:03 [Zakim]

+AdrianP; got it

15:06:09 [csma]

scribenick: AdrianP

15:06:15 [Zakim]

sorry, cke, I do not recognize a party named '+??p36'

15:06:56 [AdrianP]

*PROPOSED:* accept minutes of telecon March 3 [1]

15:06:58 [csma]

PROPOSED: to approve the minutes of March 3 telecon

15:07:00 [csma]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0035.html

15:07:07 [cke]

Zakim, +??P36 is me

15:07:28 [Zakim]

sorry, cke, I do not recognize a party named '+??P36'

15:07:41 [csma]

zakim, ??P36 is cke

15:07:52 [Zakim]

+cke; got it

15:08:04 [csma]

RESOLVED: to approve the minutes of March 3

15:08:14 [csma]

PROPOSED: to approve the minutes of March 10

15:08:32 [csma]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/att-0051/2009-03-10-rif-minutes.html

15:08:51 [csma]

RESOLVED: to approve the minutes of March 10

15:09:02 [csma]

next item

15:09:16 [csma]

zakim, close item 1

15:09:16 [Zakim]

agendum 1, Admin, closed

15:09:17 [Zakim]

I see 7 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is

15:09:19 [Zakim]

2. Liaisons [from csma]

15:09:26 [csma]

next item

15:10:36 [AdrianP]

Sandro: datatypes in OWL RL

15:11:05 [AdrianP]

Sandro: we need to decide if we object on any of these datatypes

15:11:12 [AdrianP]

Sandro: go for joint value spaces

15:11:22 [AdrianP]

Sandro: list datatypes in OWL RL

15:11:25 [Zakim]

+Gary

15:11:56 [Gary_Hallmark]

Gary_Hallmark has joined #rif

15:12:16 [csma]

next item

15:12:30 [AdrianP]

Adrian: HCLS looks into query federation for the distributed HCLS KB in Deri and FU Berlin

15:12:59 [csma]

next item

15:13:01 [AdrianP]

Adrian: + linked open data interfaces ontop of the KBs

15:13:12 [csma]

zakim, close item 3

15:13:12 [Zakim]

agendum 3, F2F13, closed

15:13:13 [Zakim]

I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is

15:13:14 [Zakim]

4. Actions review [from csma]

15:13:16 [csma]

next item

15:14:20 [AdrianP]

Action 711 closed

15:14:20 [trackbot]

Sorry, couldn't find user - 711

15:14:53 [AdrianP]

action 708 continued

15:14:53 [trackbot]

Sorry, couldn't find user - 708

15:14:56 [Harold]

Harold has joined #rif

15:15:09 [AdrianP]

action 701 continued

15:15:09 [trackbot]

Sorry, couldn't find user - 701

15:15:30 [AdrianP]

continued action 692

15:15:42 [AdrianP]

cke: waiting on feedback from Harold

15:15:43 [Zakim]

+[NRCC]

15:16:26 [AdrianP]

Harold: should have something for the next telecon

15:17:26 [AdrianP]

cmsa: think there is a test case on UCR 4.1 proposed by Stella

15:17:34 [Michael_Kifer]

Michael_Kifer has joined #rif

15:18:19 [csma]

next item

15:18:57 [Zakim]

+ +1.631.833.aaaa

15:19:12 [Michael_Kifer]

zakim, aaaa is me

15:19:12 [Zakim]

+Michael_Kifer; got it

15:19:22 [csma]

1. Make it clear this is only shorthand for the purposes of writing DTB, and

15:19:23 [csma]

that all rulesets must use a fixed arity function/predicate

15:19:23 [csma]

1a. specify one rather than n different functions. So, in the case of concat we

15:19:23 [csma]

would only have a binary string concatenation function. Clearly all the others

15:19:23 [csma]

can be built from this base case.

15:19:23 [csma]

3a. Remove all the well-formedness requirements. The same symbol can have

15:19:25 [csma]

several arities, can be a pred, func, and an individual in different contexts.

15:19:27 [csma]

3b. To keep the separation between preds, funcs, and individuals, but pred,

15:19:29 [csma]

func, external symbols can have multiple arities.

15:19:31 [csma]

3c. To keep things as before, but for external symbols to allow multiple arities

15:19:33 [csma]

(and maybe even allow them to be funcs and preds in different contexts).

15:20:40 [AdrianP]

csma: the different options we have

15:22:12 [sandro]

-0 option 1 (don't much like it, but it's okay)

15:22:14 [Harold]

0

15:22:16 [DaveReynolds]

0

15:22:19 [Gary]

-0

15:22:19 [AdrianP]

0

15:22:23 [Michael_Kifer]

-1 opt 1

15:22:23 [cke]

0

15:22:54 [AdrianP]

1

15:22:57 [DaveReynolds]

0 option 1a

15:22:58 [Gary]

+0.5

15:23:04 [sandro]

+0 option 1a (only have binary strcat), fixed arity.

15:23:08 [Harold]

-0

15:23:13 [Michael_Kifer]

-1, I dont understand 1a

15:23:49 [Michael_Kifer]

-0.5

15:24:04 [sandro]

(mk changes after verbal explanation)

15:24:24 [Michael_Kifer]

Michael_Kifer has joined #rif

15:24:38 [Gary]

+1 for 3a

15:24:54 [sandro]

-1 option 3a (I don't think we can get it to work right -- +1 if we could actually implement it)

15:25:11 [AdrianP]

-1 option 3a

15:25:19 [sandro]

jos: -1 option 3a (from e-mail)

15:25:23 [DaveReynolds]

+0.5 option 3a if it can be done

15:25:38 [Harold]

-0.1

15:25:49 [AdrianP]

csma: option 3b

15:25:57 [sandro]

+1 option 3b

15:26:00 [DaveReynolds]

+1 option 3b

15:26:13 [Michael_Kifer]

+1, 3b

15:26:20 [sandro]

axel: +1 option 3b (from e-mail)

15:26:23 [Gary]

+1 for 3b

15:26:25 [AdrianP]

cmsa: Axel prefers 3b

15:26:34 [AdrianP]

+1, 3b

15:26:37 [Harold]

0

15:26:44 [AdrianP]

cmsa: Jos prefers 1 or 1a

15:26:50 [AdrianP]

option 3c

15:26:58 [sandro]

+0.5 option 3c

15:27:01 [DaveReynolds]

+0.5 option 3c

15:27:05 [Michael_Kifer]

+0.3, 3c

15:27:09 [AdrianP]

0, option 3c

15:27:13 [Harold]

+0.75

15:27:19 [Gary]

+0, 3c

15:28:22 [csma]

PROPOSED: To keep the separation between preds, funcs, and individuals, but pred, func, external symbols can have multiple arities. Closing ISSUE-92.

15:29:11 [Zakim]

-DaveReynolds

15:29:19 [sandro]

ciao DaveReynolds

15:29:46 [sandro]

csma: do this proposal next week

15:29:56 [csma]

next item

15:30:07 [AdrianP]

csma: proposed solutions will be resolved next week

15:30:30 [AdrianP]

csma: bounded quantifiers

15:30:47 [csma]

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/meeting/2009-01-14

15:32:29 [AdrianP]

csma: reason for bounded quantifiers in PRD

15:32:48 [AdrianP]

csma: most PRD engines have them for the reason of efficiency

15:32:54 [AdrianP]

csma: PRR has them

15:33:04 [Gary]

its trivial syntactic sugar, how can it affect performance?

15:33:05 [AdrianP]

cmsa: will be needed for an else part

15:33:39 [Gary]

its an annoying difference between PRD and Core -- should be in both or better, in neither

15:34:49 [csma]

forall ?x, if cond(?x) then action1(?x) else action2(?x)

15:35:10 [adrianpaschke]

adrianpaschke has joined #rif

15:35:29 [Gary]

just use 2 rules

15:35:38 [sandro2]

sandro2 has joined #rif

15:35:52 [sandro2]

testing.

15:36:03 [adrianpaschke]

just dropped out of irc

15:36:06 [Gary]

not need in Oracle Business Rules, maybe ILOG

15:36:36 [Gary]

not a great reason to add to PRD either, IMHO

15:36:49 [adrianpaschke]

csma: logic rules do not have an else part?

15:37:01 [adrianpaschke]

csma: what would be a reason to add else in Core?

15:37:12 [adrianpaschke]

Sandro: convient write rules as if-then-else rules

15:37:29 [cke]

cke has joined #RIF

15:37:46 [sandro]

not "else" -- just Bounded Quantifiers are nice.

15:37:52 [Gary]

you really want people trying to "performance tune" their rules by moving conditions to different parts of a rule?

15:38:10 [adrianpaschke]

Sandro: write rules with bounded quantifiers - readability issue

15:38:13 [Gary]

Christian mentioned performance

15:38:32 [adrianpaschke]

Sandro: for me the reason is just readability

15:38:35 [cke]

this is a semantic issue: bounded quantifier qualify the objects for if / else rules

15:38:41 [adrianpaschke]

csma: perfomance was the reason for PRD

15:39:40 [Michael_Kifer]

I don't think this is a common issue

15:40:15 [adrianpaschke]

csma: bounded quantifier - would they effect the safeness condition

15:40:42 [Harold]

Bounded quantifiers remind me of sorted variables, which came into BLD, then were taken out...

15:41:37 [adrianpaschke]

csma: if bounded quantifier tells which are all the values you can bind -> you are safe

15:42:12 [Gary]

I think no impact on safeness

15:42:32 [adrianpaschke]

Harold: bounded quantifiers are not in BLD

15:43:00 [adrianpaschke]

Harold: similar to sorted variables, which were taken out

15:43:06 [adrianpaschke]

Harold: not in last call BLD

15:43:31 [adrianpaschke]

michael: I don't we can add them to Core without changing BLD

15:44:14 [adrianpaschke]

csma: just try to understand the impact - if there is a reason for a second last call

15:44:26 [adrianpaschke]

michael: impact is - redo BLD

15:44:45 [adrianpaschke]

Sandro: for BLD it is just syntactic sugar

15:44:54 [adrianpaschke]

michael: need to check consistency

15:45:19 [adrianpaschke]

Sandro: not a priority issue - just if we have time

15:45:41 [adrianpaschke]

michael: in general bounded quantifiers are useful

15:45:52 [adrianpaschke]

michael: will make it easier to express things

15:46:08 [adrianpaschke]

michael: optimization

15:46:43 [Gary]

remove from PRD: +1, add to Core: +0.5, leave in PRD but nowhere else: -0.5

15:46:44 [cke]

can we keep bounded quantifier in PRD, even it is not in Core?

15:46:45 [adrianpaschke]

michael: it is syntactic sugar that helps

15:47:53 [adrianpaschke]

csma: wondering if in other logical dialects bounded quantifiers are more than syntacty sugar

15:48:04 [adrianpaschke]

michael: onyl few languages have them

15:48:08 [adrianpaschke]

miachel: e.g. mecury

15:48:36 [adrianpaschke]

csma: not so many benefits to add them to Core

15:48:58 [adrianpaschke]

csma: not priority to add them in Core

15:49:17 [sandro]

csma: I'm hearing not much enthusiasm for them in Core.

15:50:24 [adrianpaschke]

michael: in the body of a rule such a quantifier is not very useful

15:50:36 [adrianpaschke]

michael: useful for universal quantifiers

15:50:43 [Harold]

Couldn't bounded quantifiers become another syntactic desugaring effort on top of RIF, rather than part of RIF?

15:50:52 [sandro]

PROPOSED: (Only if we're doing a second last call of BLD anyway) Add Bounded Quantifiers to Core and BLD.

15:51:03 [cke]

An example of rule with bounded quantifier: (forall customers such that age > 18 and city is Paris) (if the customer is rich then do something else do something). The first part is a bounded quantifier, it defines the objects for the rule.

15:51:23 [adrianpaschke]

michael: univerisal quantifiers in the rules body help simplify the expression

15:51:56 [sandro]

+1 (but not enough to slip the schedule more than about two weeks)

15:52:24 [sandro]

(THIS IS A STRAWPOLL REALLY)

15:53:10 [Gary]

+0.5 (but rather remove from PRD)

15:53:21 [Harold]

-0.5

15:53:26 [Michael_Kifer]

-0.1

15:53:26 [adrianpaschke]

+1

15:54:20 [adrianpaschke]

for translating from PRD into Core a translator would need to create two rules from one with bounded quantifiers

15:54:33 [Michael_Kifer]

sandro, I think thee sched will slip > 2 wks because of these quantifiers

15:54:52 [csma]

next item

15:56:02 [csma]

(2) Leave pred:literal-equal as is

15:56:02 [csma]

[on the grounds of symmetry with pred:literal-not-equal, accepting there

15:56:02 [csma]

is some redundancy.]

15:56:02 [csma]

(1) Drop pred:literal-equal (retaining pred:literal-not-equal)

15:56:02 [csma]

[This still leaves me able to shorten the OWL 2 RL and similar rules.]

15:56:03 [csma]

(3) Redefine pred:literal-equal to perform all the datatype specific

15:56:05 [csma]

equality tests (and redefine pred:literal-not-equal compatibly so that

15:56:07 [csma]

for any pair of literals exactly one of these predicates is true).

15:56:09 [csma]

[This means I can't use those predicates for the OWL 2 RL rules easily

15:56:11 [csma]

(assuming OWL opt for disjoint value spaces). However, there may still

15:56:13 [csma]

be value in such predicates for other users.]

15:56:15 [csma]

(0) Drop both pred:literal-equal and pred:literal-not-equal

15:56:17 [csma]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0076.html

15:56:35 [adrianpaschke]

csma: four options

15:57:35 [adrianpaschke]

csma: pred_literal-equal(x,y)

15:57:45 [adrianpaschke]

csma x and y are literal and x=y

15:57:46 [sandro]

sandro: "as is" is: literal-equal(x,y) iff literal(x) and literal(y) and x=y

15:58:34 [LeoraMorgenstern]

LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif

15:59:14 [Zakim]

+Leora_Morgenstern

15:59:50 [sandro]

RRSAgent, pointer?

15:59:50 [RRSAgent]

See http://www.w3.org/2009/03/17-rif-irc#T15-59-50

16:00:00 [sandro]

LeoraMorgenstern, you can see the IRC log so far there.

16:01:29 [sandro]

strawpoll: option "(2)" pred:literal-equal "as is" --- literal-equal(x,y) iff literal(x) and literal(y) and x=y

16:01:47 [sandro]

+0.5

16:01:52 [adrianpaschke]

+0.5

16:02:05 [Michael_Kifer]

-0.1

16:02:27 [Gary]

-0.5

16:02:37 [adrianpaschke]

Dave: +1 (according to his email)

16:03:21 [adrianpaschke]

Jos: prefers not to have generic predicates and if we have them prefers XPath built-ins (by email)

16:03:37 [adrianpaschke]

Jos: -0.5 (according to email)

16:03:42 [sandro]

STRAWPOLL: option "(1)" Drop pred:literal-equal (retaining pred:literal-not-equal)

16:03:52 [sandro]

+1

16:04:00 [adrianpaschke]

-1

16:04:12 [Gary]

-0.99

16:04:22 [Michael_Kifer]

+0.8

16:04:57 [adrianpaschke]

yes, for usability reasons it is good to have them both

16:05:02 [sandro]

STRAWPOLL: option "(3)" Redefine pred:literal-equal to perform all the datatype specific ... ("xpath equality")

16:05:27 [Gary]

+0.99

16:05:29 [sandro]

+0 nice for users, maybe hard to implement

16:05:30 [adrianpaschke]

+1

16:06:11 [adrianpaschke]

Dave: -0.5. (according to email)

16:06:22 [adrianpaschke]

Jos: -0.5 (according to email)

16:06:27 [Michael_Kifer]

0

16:06:45 [adrianpaschke]

cke: 0

16:06:47 [sandro]

STRAWPOLL: option "(0)" Drop both pred:literal-equal and pred:literal-not-equal

16:06:55 [Gary]

+1

16:07:00 [sandro]

-0.25

16:07:12 [adrianpaschke]

+1

16:07:52 [adrianpaschke]

Jos: +1 (according to email)

16:08:00 [sandro]

-1

16:08:11 [sandro]

(it's about extensibility)

16:08:18 [sandro]

-0.9

16:09:04 [sandro]

(it's about being able to write an OWL-RL ruleset that doesn't know what datatypes are supported.)

16:09:29 [sandro]

Dave: -0.5 (according to e-mail)

16:09:42 [adrianpaschke]

csma: probably option 3

16:09:57 [Michael_Kifer]

0

16:10:01 [Gary]

theory guys: I guess adding != (i.e. Not(a=b)) breaks everything?

16:10:48 [Gary]

seems like we are hung up on owl:different

16:11:02 [adrianpaschke]

csma: we have discussed this issue from the OWL-RL point of view

16:11:43 [adrianpaschke]

csma: general literal-equal will provide extensibility

16:11:53 [adrianpaschke]

Sandro: except of a non-identity test

16:12:09 [adrianpaschke]

Sandro: can have all the XPath indentity tests

16:13:41 [sandro]

STRAWPOLL: Have xpath-style-equals, xpath-style-not-equals, AND non-identical-literals (eg for OWL RL).

16:14:29 [sandro]

"non-identical-literals" == current pred:literal-not-equals

16:14:43 [sandro]

+0.5 it'd be nice, but it sounds like too much work.

16:14:55 [cke]

+0.5

16:14:57 [Michael_Kifer]

0

16:14:59 [adrianpaschke]

+0.5

16:14:59 [Gary]

+9

16:15:05 [Gary]

oops, +.9

16:17:09 [csma]

PROPOSED: Have xpath-style-equals, xpath-style-not-equals, AND pred:literal-not-equal for non-identical-literals (eg for OWL RL). Closing ISSUE-80.

16:18:34 [adrianpaschke]

Sandro: worried about the work

16:18:44 [adrianpaschke]

* Axel is DTB author ;-)

16:19:07 [csma]

next item

16:19:20 [csma]

zakim, take up item 8

16:19:21 [Zakim]

agendum 8. "ISSUE-37" taken up [from csma]

16:20:04 [adrianpaschke]

csma: important issue for PRD

16:20:14 [adrianpaschke]

csma: almost finished by new strawman

16:20:23 [adrianpaschke]

csma: and we have Gary starwman

16:21:04 [Gary]

-1

16:21:17 [Michael_Kifer]

-9

16:21:30 [Michael_Kifer]

no, -9

16:23:09 [adrianpaschke]

csma: big benefit is simplicity and implementability of the proposal

16:23:43 [adrianpaschke]

csma: two cons; XML document without a schema, you need a schema

16:24:02 [adrianpaschke]

csma: cannot work with data without a schema

16:24:15 [adrianpaschke]

csma: second issue, if we import RDF document as XML

16:24:27 [adrianpaschke]

csma: will have a completey different RIF document

16:24:39 [adrianpaschke]

csma: than if we use SWC for RDF intergration

16:25:20 [adrianpaschke]

csma: my proposal can handel data with and without schema

16:26:07 [adrianpaschke]

csma: compatible with SWC in the sense that if you import RDf document as RDF/XML (given a view conventions) you will have the same document

16:26:14 [adrianpaschke]

csma: with the same interpretation

16:26:32 [adrianpaschke]

csma: contrast to Michael - I think it is quite elegant

16:26:42 [adrianpaschke]

csma: but strawman is not finished yet

16:27:01 [adrianpaschke]

csma: not sure how easily implementable it is

16:27:29 [adrianpaschke]

csma: easy if you know the schema and mapping to your platform-sepcific language

16:27:38 [adrianpaschke]

csma: if you need to do the mapping on the fly

16:28:05 [adrianpaschke]

csma: proposal orthorgonal to Gary's proposal

16:28:57 [sandro]

didn't read it yet, sorry :-(

16:29:30 [adrianpaschke]

michael: proposal is a good starting point - send an email about what I don't like

16:29:42 [adrianpaschke]

michael: can be probably improved

16:31:03 [adrianpaschke]

csma: would like that someone takes a look if it is compatible with SWC

16:31:31 [Zakim]

-[NRCC]

16:31:35 [Zakim]

-Michael_Kifer

16:31:36 [Zakim]

-Leora_Morgenstern

16:32:01 [Zakim]

-Gary

16:32:08 [Zakim]

-cke

16:32:22 [csma]

zakim, list attendees

16:32:22 [Zakim]

As of this point the attendees have been Sandro, csma, DaveReynolds, AdrianP, cke, Gary, [NRCC], +1.631.833.aaaa, Michael_Kifer, Leora_Morgenstern

16:32:29 [csma]

rrsagent, make minutes

16:32:29 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/03/17-rif-minutes.html csma

16:33:36 [Zakim]

-AdrianP

16:33:50 [csma]

zakim, who is on the phone?

16:33:50 [Zakim]

On the phone I see Sandro, csma

16:36:22 [Zakim]

-Sandro

16:36:23 [Zakim]

-csma

16:36:25 [Zakim]

SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended

16:36:26 [Zakim]

Attendees were Sandro, csma, DaveReynolds, AdrianP, cke, Gary, [NRCC], +1.631.833.aaaa, Michael_Kifer, Leora_Morgenstern

18:00:18 [AdrianP]

AdrianP has joined #rif

18:01:39 [csma]

csma has left #rif