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