12:33:12 RRSAgent has joined #rif 12:33:12 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc 12:33:30 Meeting: RIF F2F13 12:36:44 AdrianP has joined #rif 12:39:55 Chair: Chris Welty and Christian de Sainte-Marie 12:40:47 Meeting: RIF F2f13 15-Apr-09 12:44:13 johnhall has joined #rif 12:51:03 Harold has joined #rif 12:54:47 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F13 12:55:00 rrsagent, make minutes 12:55:00 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-minutes.html ChrisW 12:55:33 csma has joined #rif 12:55:55 rrsagent, make logs public 12:56:29 josb has joined #rif 12:57:46 ChrisW has changed the topic to: RIF 13th F2F Meeting, Cambridge MA, Agenda http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F13 13:00:54 cke has joined #rif 13:02:26 sandro has joined #rif 13:04:15 RRSAgent, pointer? 13:04:15 See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc#T13-04-15 13:04:22 MichaelKifer has joined #rif 13:04:23 scribe: harold 13:05:27 zakim, list conferences 13:05:27 I see T&S_EGOV()9:00AM, Team_W3M()8:00AM, SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM active 13:05:30 also scheduled at this time are WAI_ERTWG()8:30AM, DIG_WSRI()8:00AM 13:05:34 zakim, this is rif 13:05:35 ok, ChrisW; that matches SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM 13:05:41 zakim, who is on the phone? 13:05:41 On the phone I see ??P12, W3C 13:05:53 zakim, W3C is temporarily Meeting_Room 13:05:53 +Meeting_Room; got it 13:08:52 zakim, Meeting_Room contains csma, josb, MichaelKifer, AxelPolleres, cke, johnHall, AdrianP, Harold, Gary, sandro, ChrisW 13:08:52 +csma, josb, MichaelKifer, AxelPolleres, cke, johnHall, AdrianP, Harold, Gary, sandro, ChrisW; got it 13:10:01 Swap April 15/16 Agenda items: Tonight XML Schemas, Tomorrow Issue-93 13:10:30 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 13:11:25 On April 17 we have to finish at 4PM. 13:12:24 RRSAgent, pointer? 13:12:24 See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc#T13-12-24 13:13:51 http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-rif-minutes.html 13:13:51 AxelPolleres has joined #rif 13:14:54 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-86 and ISSUE-87, addressed by the current text of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec 13:15:43 +1 13:15:46 +1 13:17:34 The text: Despite the semantic equivalence between typed rdf:text literals and plain literals, the presence of typed rdf:text literals in an RDF graph might cause interoperability problems between RDF tools, as not all RDF tools will support rdf:text. Therefore, before exchanging an RDF graph with other RDF tools, an RDF tool that suports rdf:text MUST replace in the graph each typed... 13:17:36 ...rdf:text literal with the corresponding plain literal. The notion of graph exchange includes, but is not limited to, the process of serializing an RDF graph using any (normative or nonnormative) RDF syntax. 13:17:43 +1 13:17:46 http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec#Relationship_with_Plain_Literals_and_xs:string 13:17:47 +1 13:18:01 +1 13:18:03 +1 13:18:22 +1 13:18:24 RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-86 and ISSUE-87, addressed by the current text of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec 13:18:39 action: chris to close issue-86 issue-87 13:18:39 Created ACTION-732 - Close issue-86 issue-87 [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-04-22]. 13:19:12 Before or after SPARQL group review? 13:19:18 PROPOSED: publish rdf:text as a LC 13:19:21 +! 13:19:23 +1 13:19:26 +1 13:19:29 +1 13:19:31 +1 13:19:36 +1 13:19:45 +1 13:19:46 +1 13:19:56 0 13:20:06 +1 13:20:56 DaveR: Abstain - Would have preferred to get feedback from SparQL first 13:21:06 RESOLVED: publish rdf:text as a LC 13:21:30 rrsagent, pointer? 13:21:30 See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc#T13-21-30 13:22:16 I understand that I can ask SPARQL WG to review next week already? 13:22:57 AxelPolleres, you should probably wait until it's actually published, but... sure, whatever. 13:23:00 Jos: Could we put a possible change from XML Schema 1.0 to XML Schema 1.1 on the agenda? 13:23:54 Sandro: The only reason not to go to XML Schema 1.1 would be that they are in LC (since January). 13:24:15 Jos: Still better than referring to 'broken' one in XML Schema 1.0. 13:24:38 ... Talking about XML Schema DATATYPES. 13:25:29 PROPOSED: We'll use XML Schema Datatypes 1.1 (not XML Schema Datatyoes 1.0) in our specs. 13:25:43 +1 13:25:49 Jos: It makes lots of things well defined that are not currently well defined. 13:25:54 +1 13:26:09 +1 13:28:16 Harold: What about the W3C XML Schema validator XSV? When will it be upgraded? 13:29:40 Sandro: Has been maintained by Henry Thompson. 13:30:39 Harold: XSV is also 'responsible' for validating Datatypes at the 'leaf' level of XML instance trees. 13:31:03 ISSUE: Update all specs to reference XML Schema datatypes 1.1 13:31:03 Created ISSUE-98 - Update all specs to reference XML Schema datatypes 1.1 ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/98/edit . 13:31:27 topic: ISSUE-95 (List Datatype) 13:37:06 q+ to ask about connection to rdf:List and accessor built-ins 13:38:58 q+ to ask about Core 13:40:04 Axel: How are 'Seq lists' related to RDF lists? 13:40:30 ... awkward to have 3 different kinds of lists. 13:40:42 Jos: Lists in RDF have no semantics. 13:41:12 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Lists#Semantics 13:44:31 Christian: Content of an XML list cannot be complex. 13:45:18 If we doe the semantics purely in terms of pairs, then it would be closer to RDF lists. 13:45:22 ... Non-ground lists would not be allowed in PRD. 13:45:36 ... Harold, you confirmed this (?) 13:46:40 I think, yes. 13:46:53 eeeeeh RDF lists dont have semantics, so how can our semantics be close to that? 13:47:34 johnhall has joined #rif 13:48:01 Christian: What about Forall ?x IF p(Seq(a ?x c)) THEN ... 13:48:43 jos, it would be nice to be able to - at least - convert between well-formed RDF lsits and RIF lists, that might be possible with a bunch of RIF rules... like constructing lists in Prolog. 13:49:55 PRD should have no problem with vars in lists provided the rule is safe 13:50:50 Harold: Only difference is if the above ?x is universal (as above) or existential. 13:50:56 PRD will not actually handle unbound variables stored in a list. 13:51:13 cke: List contain concrete values 13:51:23 ... begging the question, what are the safe binding patterns for List 13:51:45 Harold: Existential in queries. 13:52:38 q+ 13:53:09 Christian: What about Forall ?x IF Seq(a ?x c) = Seq(?y c b) THEN ... 13:54:23 Harold: ?y is existential here. 13:54:58 ack axel 13:54:58 AxelPolleres, you wanted to ask about connection to rdf:List and accessor built-ins 13:55:00 ack dave 13:55:00 DaveReynolds, you wanted to ask about Core and to 13:55:06 johnhall has joined #rif 13:55:42 Dave: What does this mean for safeness? 13:55:59 Michael: We have to extend the safeness condition for lists. 13:56:25 Dave: Disguised function symbols in Core. 13:56:26 Dave, we would not allow variables in lists in the head 13:56:32 and perhaps also not in the body 13:57:01 (in Core) 13:58:24 Harold: Dave is saying you can encode functions using lists, eg the first element of a list could be the function symbol, the remaining ones its arguments. 13:59:25 Michael: Need to think more about it. Still, we could extend the safeness condition to lists. 13:59:52 Christian: How implemented in JRules etc.? 14:00:08 It seems to me if you can't construct new lists they are pointless, if you can that you can have non-terminating generation of recursive datastructures. That would preclude datalog engines and the notion of strong safety. OK by me but seems like a bit change. 14:00:24 s/bit/big/ 14:01:04 Changhai: Yes, can be implemented. 14:02:40 Michael: If we don't allow open lists in the head, and are always smaller than in the body, then it could be in Core. 14:03:29 Jos: Better: no lists in Core. 14:04:13 Axel/Sandro/Gary: Emulate lists with built-ins. 14:04:15 sandro: This is just another builtin. 14:04:27 sandro: (as far as Datalog/Core is concerned.) 14:04:36 s/can be implemented/can be implemented, but would be rather advanced/ 14:05:08 Axel: Do we really need (these 'amputated') lists in Core? 14:05:46 ... Cause we could have the distinguished function Pair symbol. 14:06:04 Changhai: What about disjunctions? 14:06:17 ... Lists that mostly would be constant. 14:07:37 Christian: For all customers, if ?x is the bank account list and length of ?x is greater than 3 .... 14:07:59 ... You still need some kind of list type. 14:08:32 ... To check that there is this (finite) list of the customers' bank account. 14:09:29 ... Would it be advisable to have some list processing operators in Core, and then have list terms in BLD and (slightly different) in Core? 14:09:56 Jos: Will lead to discrepancy with BLD. 14:10:15 Sandro: Data could come from RDF. 14:10:28 ... List operators would be in Core. 14:11:50 Christian: You could write Forall ?x ?y IF ?x{Att->?y] AND func:length(?y) < 3 14:12:30 ... without needing to completely define what the list ?y actually is. 14:12:42 Michael: Semantics would still be provided. 14:13:13 Christian/Sandro: Would not need to defined in Core, only in BLD and PRD. 14:13:30 Gary: May make sense. 14:13:47 Christian: In DTB. 14:14:12 Gary: You have to say it's a list, just as it could be an integer etc. 14:14:31 ... (but not give details) 14:14:54 Sandro: Confused why you cannot construct lists in Core. 14:15:58 Jos: Christian proposes special lists in Core. 14:16:16 Michael: You can allow ground lists in Core. 14:16:39 Chris: Head and body? 14:16:46 Michael: Yes. 14:17:07 Gary: But it should be something useful. 14:17:38 Chris: No variables inside lists. 14:19:36 Christian: Forall ?x ?y IF Seq(a b c) = ?y would be allowed? 14:19:40 Michael: Yes. 14:21:13 Harold: OK, let's introduce Core ground lists plus their built-ins. 14:21:14 Gary - we don't non-termination, that's the whole E-S strong safety! 14:22:17 dave, is E-S harder to spec with lists than with e.g. numeric-add? 14:22:48 Gary - the point is that E-S eliminates all useful constructions of lists. 14:23:15 Christiann: Forall ?x ?y IF Seq(a ?x c) = ?y AND ?x =b 14:23:35 Gary - If you want useful list construction just have Jos' safety construction and drop the goal of allowing datalog engines. 14:23:53 ... Groundability could be handled like the safeness condition. 14:24:59 q? 14:25:45 Harold: 'Save groundability' notion could be introduced, even if 'conservative' (not catching all groundable cases): Better than only 'plain' ground lists. 14:27:16 Could the list of options go in the minutes? 14:27:28 Christian: Three options on whiteboard: One is a short version of the above. 14:27:53 12 mins break now. 14:28:21 RRSAgent, pointer? 14:28:21 See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc#T14-28-21 14:28:44 I sense one problem is that I would like to see Core grow to the intersection of PRD/BLD and others would like ot see it shrink to finite models only... 14:28:57 s/ot/to 14:28:59 Christian's three options: 14:29:18 1) Ground lists + builtins in Core 14:30:15 Gary - agreed. That was the whole debate over this E-S strong safety notion. I'd be happy to have a non-termination in Core and have usable lists. 14:33:26 FYI: The reference to XML Schema DT 1.1 in rdf:text has been fixed 14:33:36 2) Safe lists (no unbound var inside lists) + builtins in Core 14:34:16 3) Same as 2) but PRD (no lists in Core) 14:35:02 -DaveReynolds 14:36:47 +??P4 14:36:50 -Meeting_Room 14:36:51 +Meeting_Room 14:37:15 Harold: Christian's option 2) corresponds to above 'safe groundability'. 14:42:30 scribe: AdrianP 14:42:43 TOPIC: Issue-94 (Objects) 14:43:02 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:43:02 On the phone I see Meeting_Room, DaveReynolds 14:43:03 Meeting_Room has csma, josb, MichaelKifer, AxelPolleres, cke, johnHall, AdrianP, Harold, Gary, sandro, ChrisW 14:43:05 csma: sent slides 14:45:23 Harold: we discussed a year ago that OWL cardinality constraints can be used 14:46:32 Harold: not defined in RIF, delegate to OWL, for instance 14:47:13 csma: in PRD the is action modify which has semantics of assert with replacement semantics 14:47:14 csma: action MODIFY is like assert, but with replacement semantics. 14:49:04 csma: modify = replace all the values and assert new ones 14:49:12 new ONE 14:50:40 cke: object model can be changed in option 4 14:51:20 csma: interchange object model can be outside of RIF, e.g. in UML or XML Schema 14:52:21 Gary: frames are general; need to be mapped into a concrete data model; 14:52:48 Gary: do some analysis and figure out the implied data model 14:53:57 Gary: declare the data types and constraints - then you don't need the complex analysis 14:54:06 Sandro: why not option 5 14:54:38 Gary: option 5 does not ensure interoperability 14:55:10 csma: Option 5.5 -- have a standard metadata field for linking to an XML Schema 14:55:25 Gary: data model might not be XML schema 14:55:48 Chris: option 6 you would need to duplicate the data model in RIF 14:56:27 Michael: agree with Gary- if something is specified out of RIF but affects the semantics 14:56:56 Gary: like to have syntax where you know the semantics 14:57:30 Gary: like to explicitly know how to translate it into the specific execution data model 14:58:47 Harold: multi-valued treated like a set 14:58:56 Harold: replace the whole set with a new one 14:59:11 Harold: single-valued is a special case 14:59:34 Harold: like in F-Logic 14:59:55 Michael: in F-Logic you have types which indicate that 15:00:51 Sandro: seems to be reasonable that type information is additionally provided 15:01:02 Gary: I'm not saying type infpormation should be mandatory, just that it should be possible to supply. 15:01:29 csma: why not using existing syntax for describing the data model? 15:01:51 Gary: should be specified in the language we are using, i.e. RIF 15:01:58 Gary: I want to specified my RIF data model using RIF constructs. 15:02:17 csma: what about a mapping von XML Schema to RIF 15:02:49 Gary: cardinality constraints seem to be a very small extension of the RIF syntax 15:03:04 Gary: we should provide this expressiveness in RIF 15:03:05 PRD's Modify construct would just be a special case by replacing a singleton-set value; BLD could also be extended with a Modify construct, which would replace general set values. 15:03:25 cke: in XML schema we have all this kind of expersivness 15:04:59 Gary: but not solved in RIF 15:05:28 csma: impacts the semantics of rules or not? 15:05:54 csma: seems to me that it is external to RIF 15:05:58 (It doesn't affect the entailments. It may affect type-errors and performance.) 15:07:34 Surely it does affect entailments. If you say "slot s has cardinality 1" then a rule o[s->"a", s->"b"] would raise and error. 15:07:38 s/and/an/ 15:07:58 Gary: option 6 introduce singleton and set to distinguish 15:08:23 Sandro: may affect type checking, performance, ... 15:09:24 cke: option 6 example is this information part of the rule? 15:09:32 Gary: yes 15:10:12 Michael: how to define interoperability? 15:10:24 Gary: would be like type checking 15:10:56 Gary: basically like a constraint 15:11:17 Gary: this example is only for frames 15:11:37 PRD: Given single-valued obj[slot->oldval], the statement Modify(obj, slot, newval) leads to obj[slot->newval]. 15:11:50 BLD: Given multi-valued obj[slot->oldval1] AND ... AND obj[slot->oldvalN], i.e. obj[slot->{oldval1, ..., oldvalN}], the statement Modify(obj,slot,newval) also leads to obj[slot->newval]. 15:12:35 csma: will lead us to a new data model language 15:12:58 csma: all this already exists in othere languages 15:13:50 StellaMitchell has joined #rif 15:15:03 Chris: sounds like option 4 15:16:29 My proposal is compatible with option 4. 15:17:53 (Without need fro static analysis) 15:18:13 Just add a modify operator that ALWAYS replaces ALL values. 15:18:46 (ALWAYS: in PRD and all follow-up languages extending BLD) 15:19:26 csma: first two options mean add information explicitly 15:19:59 csma: three is use a new construct for different multiplicity 15:20:04 When I wrote "BLD: Given multi-valued ..." I meant a future BLD extension allowing a Modify. 15:20:15 csma: 4 and 5 ignore 15:20:30 csma: 6 include some external description 15:20:55 csma: 5 include some external description 15:21:08 csma: 6 add syntax to RIF 15:21:56 Michael: out-of-band does not make sense from the point of interoperability 15:22:29 Chris: option 5 relies on other external mechanism 15:25:43 Sandro: Gary, would a new error type work for you? 15:27:05 Gary: PRD you can directly indicate errors 15:29:03 example of constraint rules: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0135.html 15:29:14 Michael: thought the problem was, that Gary sees problems when you translate Core into PRD 15:30:12 Gary: for instance should be able to say that a person only have one birthday 15:30:34 Gary: should be able to explicity say this in terms of a cardinality constraint 15:31:07 isn't modify just delete all existing values and add the new value? 15:32:49 chris: The issue is: Should we have Cardinality Constraints (and perhaps Type Constraints) in Core? 15:32:54 Gary: issue is with core; can I have an explicity cardinality constraint in core 15:33:14 kifer: f-logic has it. 15:34:30 Answer set programming has it as well. 15:35:00 Harold: f-logic and RuleML have special syntactic constructs to distinguish cardinality 15:35:24 Michael: SWRL has cardinality constraints 15:35:35 mk: SWRL and Flora-2 have cardinality constraints. 15:35:46 OWL implies equalities, doesn't have card constraints. 15:36:45 jos: at-most-2 cardinality gives you disjunction. at-most-1 cardinality adds equality. 15:38:03 Harold: integrity constraints could be introduced and used to define cardinality constraints 15:38:07 mk: Integrity Constraints require the Closed World Assumption. 15:38:53 mk: equating two months is a problem.... 15:38:58 s/months/mothers/ 15:39:23 Harold: integrity constrain semantics instead of open equality semantics could be introduced 15:40:54 Chris: needs a closed assumption 15:41:23 Harold: person who uses RIF makes a closed world assumption 15:42:02 Gary: my original proposal was to have the syntax but its just like a comment 15:42:15 Gary: in BLD and PRD the semantics is then defined 15:42:37 But different surely. 15:42:49 Chris: this is option 1 15:44:38 Michael: interoperability? 15:44:45 s/person who uses RIF makes/person who uses RIF's multiplicity="1" attribute makes/ 15:44:55 Michael: would need to define what interoperabiltiy then means? 15:46:04 Chris: option 1 uses meta data, so it is meaningless / might be ignored 15:46:41 Michael: this ok, if we define interoperability accordingly 15:47:00 Chris: PRD doesn't ignore meta data? 15:48:16 Chris: option 4 does not allow you to express cardinality constraints 15:48:21 Chris: Gary wants them 15:48:33 Sandro: Gary wants type checking 15:48:37 But Gary you are giving it different semantics in BLD and PRD so that isn't an argument for them in Core. 15:49:34 Michael: semantics of cardinality in Core is different from the semantics in PRD 15:50:21 -1 for logical constraints in core, 0 for closed world integrity constraints (potentially useful, huge work, don't see how to get it done in remaining time) 15:50:37 mk: It's a good idea, but I'm worried it will be musused. 15:51:34 -1 (it seems that with a decent semantics for modify, there can still be a PRD (sub?)dialect based on Core without) 15:52:18 (... i.e. modify meaning delete all existing values and assert new value) 15:52:50 Chris: This would not be the first feature we abandoned. 15:52:58 (first useful features) 15:53:48 chris: It seems we're leaning toward option 4. 15:56:50 -DaveReynolds 15:57:13 -Meeting_Room 15:57:15 SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM has ended 15:57:17 Attendees were DaveReynolds, csma, josb, MichaelKifer, AxelPolleres, cke, johnHall, AdrianP, Harold, Gary, sandro, ChrisW, Meeting_Room 16:44:51 johnhall has joined #rif 17:01:47 Zakim has left #rif 17:25:31 johnhall has joined #rif 17:34:35 DaveReynolds has joined #rif 17:37:51 josb has joined #rif 17:39:12 MichaelKifer has joined #rif 17:39:47 AxelPolleres has joined #rif 17:40:01 dave, are you on the phone? 17:40:05 ChrisW has joined #rif 17:40:12 zakim, who is here? 17:40:15 AdrianP has joined #rif 17:40:29 Yes but I can't hear anything 17:40:29 Zakim has joined #rif 17:40:33 zakim, this is rif 17:40:33 ok, ChrisW; that matches SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM 17:40:40 zakim, who is on the phone? 17:40:40 On the phone I see +44.145.441.aaaa 17:40:48 rrsagent, make minutes 17:40:48 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-minutes.html ChrisW 17:40:53 cke has joined #rif 17:40:57 we are dialing in 17:41:27 AxelPolleres has changed the topic to: RIF 13th F2F Meeting, Cambridge MA, Agenda http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F13 17:42:22 Harold has joined #rif 17:42:32 scribe: Axel Polleres 17:42:40 scribenick: AxelPolleres 17:42:46 topic: Issue-81 17:42:58 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0140.html 17:43:12 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/81 17:43:30 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0140.html 17:43:33 csma has joined #rif 17:43:38 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0140.html 17:43:57 jos: let's talk about that email first (coreify OWL2RL combinations) 17:44:00 +W3C 17:44:39 we need equality for OWL RL, outside Core 17:44:47 1 == too bad, RL isn't in Core 17:44:56 2 == pick an equality-free embedding 17:44:56 first option, not possible in Core 17:45:12 3 == general embedding into BLD, then pick a subset in Core (== 1+2) 17:45:18 ... second option equality free subset 17:45:32 4 == Add embedding of equality. (Axiomatizing equality.) 17:45:32 ... third option, embedding in BLD 17:46:05 ...fourth, add equality axioms in core 17:46:20 ... i.e. axiomatize equality. 17:47:19 sandro: I like 4, if there is a way to use rif:"=" i.e. BLD's equality here. 17:47:21 StellaMitchell has joined #rif 17:48:00 csma: RIF can be expressed in BLD, but not in Core, what is the negative impact of that? 17:48:14 chrisW: Core won't do OWL RL. 17:48:32 Depends what you mean by "do OWL RL" - them embedding is different from the direct OWL 2 RL rule implementation which does fit in Core. 17:48:41 s/them/the/ 17:48:51 sandro: whatever we pcik we should be able to explain the different choices. 17:49:17 ... I am for 4) because it gives us OWL RL in Core. 17:50:07 jos: you can implement it more efficient. 17:50:13 sandro: This is a proof-of-concept, so performance is not an issue. 17:51:06 csma: does that open the possibility that a BLD doc uses rif equality that works together with the core axiomatization 17:51:32 ... ? We have to make an informed decision in that respect. 17:51:34 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 17:52:21 axel: maybe use owl:sameAs. 17:52:50 Axel: Can owl:sameAs be used for the axiomaization? 17:53:24 csma: What is the drawback of only providing an embedding in BLD? 17:53:55 My preference would be 1 and add a comment to point out options 2 & 4 but not exhibit them. 17:54:19 jos... explains the different options again. 17:54:39 DaveReynolds, do you think the axiomatizing equality is a problem? 17:55:19 Sandro -It seems like it would like to a large unwieldy rule set, it would be more an academic exercise that something people would really use. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. 17:55:33 sandro: I like option 4 more for political and marketing than for technical reasons. 17:55:51 q+ 17:56:00 ... because we can say we support OWL RL with RIF for free. 17:56:02 indeed, the ruleset is going to be very unwieldy 17:56:14 esp if we go for b, c, or d 17:56:27 csma: problem I have with 4 is that I don't see PRD here. 17:56:45 ack me 17:56:52 sandro: I want to be able to say "Anyone who has RIF, get OWL-RL for free". 17:57:28 dave: in response to sandro: We have shown that we can implement OWL RL, but we can't say that we have OWL RL per se. 17:59:41 jos: I'd prefer a) 18:00:00 ... there are now a bunch of unsafe rules in the ruleset. 18:00:19 ... I don't see the benefit of having OWL2RL in BLD. 18:00:49 ... we can make some explanation but shouldn't tweak the ruleset at this point. 18:00:59 csma: quick poll? 18:01:24 chris: OWL2RL is in core, but combinations with Rules is in BLD. 18:01:50 chris: OWL 2 RL is in Core (reasoning over OWL alone), but OWL 2 RL in combination with Core Rules puts you into BLD. 18:02:03 Sandro: ah. :-) 18:02:38 prefer a 18:02:59 csma: who prefers a)? 18:03:14 ... jos and chris 18:03:20 who prefers d)? 18:03:25 sandro, axel 18:04:15 Sandro: I'd prefer a) with an explanaiton how to get to d) and what the implications are. 18:04:37 sandro: So go with (A), but provide some text spelling out how to do (D) .... 18:04:55 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0140.html 18:05:55 PROPOSED: We go for solution a) in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0140.html plus additionally pointing out the path to d) and what the implications were in a non-normative subsection. 18:05:57 "embedding in support of combination" 18:06:08