14:39:20 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rif
14:39:20 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/04/28-rif-irc
14:39:31 <csma> rrsagent, make log public
14:39:38 <csma> rrsagent, make minutes
14:39:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/28-rif-minutes.html csma
14:41:24 <csma> csma has changed the topic to: #rif RIF telecon 28 April 2009; Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Apr/0145.html
14:41:49 <csma> Meeting: RIF telecon 28 April 2009
14:42:00 <csma> Chair: Christian de Sainte Marie
14:42:20 <csma> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Apr/0145.html
14:44:15 <csma> Regrets: DaveReynolds, Gary Hallmark, PaulVincent, ChanghaiKe, LeoraMorgenstern
14:54:41 <AxelPolleres> AxelPolleres has joined #rif
14:54:58 <Zakim> SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
14:55:04 <Zakim> +Sandro
14:58:20 <mdean> mdean has joined #rif
14:58:56 <Harold> Harold has joined #rif
14:59:36 <ChrisW> ChrisW has joined #rif
15:00:41 <Zakim> +Hassan_Ait-Kaci
15:00:45 <Zakim> +[IBM]
15:00:53 <ChrisW> zakim, ibm is temporarily 
15:00:53 <Zakim> +temporarily; got it
15:00:56 <Zakim> +Mike_Dean
15:00:57 <josb> josb has joined #rif
15:01:03 <ChrisW> zakim, temporarily is me
15:01:03 <Zakim> +ChrisW; got it
15:01:32 <Michael_Kifer> Michael_Kifer has joined #rif
15:01:32 <Zakim> +??P58
15:02:05 <csma> zakim, ??P58 is me
15:02:05 <Zakim> +csma; got it
15:02:11 <Zakim> + +1.631.833.aaaa
15:02:19 <Michael_Kifer> zakim, aaaa is me
15:02:19 <Zakim> +Michael_Kifer; got it
15:02:26 <StellaMitchell> StellaMitchell has joined #rif
15:02:37 <csma> Scribe: Michael Kifer
15:02:45 <Zakim> +[NRCC]
15:02:51 <csma> scribenick: Michael_Kifer
15:02:54 <AdrianP> AdrianP has joined #rif
15:03:12 <Zakim> +josb
15:03:13 <csma> zakim, clear agenda
15:03:13 <Zakim> agenda cleared
15:03:21 <csma> agendum+ admin
15:03:27 <csma> agendum+ liaisons
15:03:36 <Zakim> +Stella_Mitchell
15:03:41 <DaveReynolds> DaveReynolds has joined #rif
15:03:49 <csma> *PROPOSED:* accept minutes of telecon April 21
15:04:03 <ChrisW> agenda+ Actions
15:04:12 <ChrisW> agenda+ RIF and RDF Lists
15:04:15 <Zakim> +??P78
15:04:22 <ChrisW> agenda+ Review progress
15:04:25 <csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Apr/att-0117/rif-meeting-minutes-21-April-2009.html
15:04:30 <ChrisW> agenda+ AOB
15:04:42 <ChrisW> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:04:42 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, ChrisW, Mike_Dean, csma, Michael_Kifer, [NRCC], josb, Stella_Mitchell, DaveReynolds
15:04:43 <csma> RESOLVED: accept minutes of telecon April 21
15:04:54 <ChrisW> zakim, nrcc is Harold
15:04:54 <Zakim> +Harold; got it
15:04:58 <csma> *PROPOSED:* accept minutes of F2F13
15:05:21 <csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/meeting/2009-04-15 
15:05:23 <csma>       http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/meeting/2009-04-16 
15:05:25 <csma>       http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/meeting/2009-04-17
15:05:40 <ChrisW> +1
15:05:46 <csma> RESOLVED: accept minutes of F2F13
15:06:43 <csma> next item
15:08:34 <csma> next item
15:08:36 <josb> I suppose Axel is currently in the SPARQL telecon
15:08:49 <csma> zakim, close item 2
15:08:49 <Zakim> agendum 2, liaisons, closed
15:08:51 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:08:53 <Zakim> 3. Actions [from ChrisW]
15:09:00 <csma> next item
15:09:30 <Zakim> +??P36
15:09:37 <AdrianP> Zakin, ??P36 is me
15:09:40 <ChrisW> action-796: complete
15:09:40 <trackbot> ACTION-796 Put correspondence between RIF and RDF lists on next week's agenda notes added
15:09:45 <AdrianP> Zakim, ??P36 is me
15:09:45 <Zakim> +AdrianP; got it
15:09:55 <ChrisW> action-796: closed
15:09:55 <trackbot> ACTION-796 Put correspondence between RIF and RDF lists on next week's agenda notes added
15:09:55 <trackbot> If you meant to close ACTION-796, please use 'close ACTION-796'
15:10:04 <ChrisW> close action-796
15:10:04 <trackbot> ACTION-796 Put correspondence between RIF and RDF lists on next week's agenda closed
15:10:18 <ChrisW> close action-795
15:10:18 <trackbot> ACTION-795 Start RIF publications page on the wiki closed
15:10:25 <ChrisW> close action-794
15:10:25 <trackbot> ACTION-794 Start publications page with first entry closed
15:11:49 <ChrisW> close action-786
15:11:50 <trackbot> ACTION-786 Makr argnamesinuniterms as rejected closed
15:16:01 <AxelPolleres> summarizing my actions:
15:16:28 <ChrisW> close action-759
15:16:28 <trackbot> ACTION-759 Add the syntax and semantics of lists to BLD closed
15:16:35 <StellaMtchell> StellaMtchell has joined #rif
15:16:50 <ChrisW> action: harold to update xml syntax of lists 
15:16:50 <trackbot> Created ACTION-797 - Update xml syntax of lists  [on Harold Boley - due 2009-05-05].
15:17:23 <johnhall> johnhall has joined #rif
15:20:13 <ChrisW> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:20:13 <Zakim> On the phone I see Sandro, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, ChrisW, Mike_Dean, csma, Michael_Kifer, Harold, josb, Stella_Mitchell, DaveReynolds, AdrianP
15:22:59 <csma> next item
15:23:12 <josb> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RIF-RDF-Lists
15:23:55 <Michael_Kifer> Jos: we want RIF facility to deal with lists to also handle RDF lists. Can we link them?
15:24:43 <Michael_Kifer> Jos proposed a semantics for such linkage at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RIF-RDF-Lists
15:25:13 <sandro> sandro has joined #rif
15:26:33 <Michael_Kifer> The wiki page also includes test cases. Some show the difference between RDF lists and RIF lists.
15:27:13 <sandro> q+ to ask whether this stuff all only applies to rulesets that due certain kinds of imports?
15:27:45 <DaveReynolds> Sorry, I have to go to my conflicting meeting. My comments on lists were in email - esp. whether restricting to well-formed RDF lists to avoid the introduction of equality would be worth it.
15:28:01 <Zakim> -DaveReynolds
15:29:16 <Michael_Kifer> csma: conformance clauses require to support only well-formed lists.
15:30:35 <csma> q?
15:31:41 <josb> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RIF-RDF-Lists#Multiple_lists_with_one_identifier
15:32:16 <Zakim> +Sandro.a
15:32:24 <Michael_Kifer> Discussion of the first list test case.There is a difference betw RDF and RIF semantics. For instance, in RIF a=b in that test case, while in RDF it does not.
15:32:26 <Zakim> -Sandro
15:33:22 <sandro> List(a b c)       a=d    
15:35:22 <Zakim> +AxelPolleres
15:35:42 <sandro>    One list with two first means EITHER:   you have a malformed graph, OR you're equating the two firsts.
15:37:45 <ChrisW> axel, we are here: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RIF-RDF-Lists#Multiple_lists_with_one_identifier
15:39:46 <Michael_Kifer> Jos: not clear what to do with malformed RDF list graphs. Probably better to use conformance, since it is unclear how to tweak semantics.
15:41:20 <Michael_Kifer> Chris: can this be handled by adding additional import profiles?
15:42:10 <sandro> chris: How about: in core, this kind of list means what it means in RDF.
15:42:29 <Michael_Kifer> Maybe impose restrictions on the embeddings of RDF into RIF? That is, if you embed an RDF malformed list then it becomes just a bunch of triples.
15:43:10 <Michael_Kifer> JOs: this won;t satisfy the RDF types. Not clear what such coupling would mean then.
15:44:04 <sandro> +1 do it in Conformance
15:44:42 <sandro> that is --- say that folks don't need to implement head-equality just for rdf lists, in core.
15:44:53 <josb> +1
15:45:01 <Michael_Kifer> 0
15:45:02 <AdrianP> 0
15:45:04 <ChrisW> 0
15:45:28 <sandro> STRAWPOLL:  SWC will say, as a Conformance matter, that for combination with Core and RDF lists, you don't have to implement head-equality, just for lists.
15:45:30 <mdean> 0
15:45:34 <AxelPolleres> +0 slightly positive but not sure yet
15:45:35 <sandro> +1
15:45:57 <sandro> dave: +1 (via e-mail)
15:46:24 <sandro> but DONT CALL IT "malformed".   it's just too expressive for Core.
15:47:27 <ChrisW> action: josb to write conformance section for SWC
15:47:27 <trackbot> Created ACTION-798 - Write conformance section for SWC [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2009-05-05].
15:48:07 <csma> q?
15:48:07 <ChrisW> q+
15:48:21 <csma> ack chrisw
15:48:25 <sandro> ack q
15:48:27 <sandro> ack sandro
15:48:27 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask whether this stuff all only applies to rulesets that due certain kinds of imports?
15:49:56 <Zakim> -Michael_Kifer
15:50:17 <Zakim> +Michael_Kifer
15:50:41 <sandro> STRAWPOLL:  mapping of rdf:list to rif:lists, as per Jos' email:   -1 == extension , +1 == one-to-one 
15:51:37 <sandro> jos: 1-1 mapping gives more flexibility; you can access the data either way, and play around however you want; export your results, as queries of RDF graphs, etc.
15:52:22 <sandro> jos: but 1-1 is harder to implement.      in practice, you'll need to maintain two list structures in parallel.    Jena has this.    But a pure rule engine without function symbols, this this wont be implementable by itself.
15:52:50 <sandro> jos: you'll need function symbols.   the use of RIF lists implies a whole bunch of triples....
15:53:03 <sandro> jos: ie can't be embedded in rif core.
15:53:24 <sandro> csma: maybe use extension for rif core, 1-1 for BLD?
15:53:33 <sandro> jos: No, that's an invisibile extension.
15:53:38 <sandro> STRAWPOLL:  mapping of rdf:list to rif:lists, as per Jos' email:   -1 == extension , +1 == one-to-one 
15:53:40 <csma> q?
15:53:45 <ChrisW> +extension
15:54:05 <josb> -1
15:54:06 <csma> +1
15:54:08 <sandro> +0.75 users would want it, but it is kind of challeneing to imple,ment.
15:54:13 <Michael_Kifer> -1
15:54:13 <josb> Dave: -1 (email)
15:54:18 <ChrisW> hassan: 0
15:54:19 <mdean> 0
15:54:19 <AdrianP> 0 (don't knwo)
15:54:26 <csma> Hassan: 0
15:54:52 <AxelPolleres> 0 (not yet sure still)
15:55:02 <Harold> -1
15:55:03 <csma> I meant: -1 (extension)
15:56:25 <Michael_Kifer> sandro: any implementation will rely on native platform support for lists
15:57:17 <sandro> basically, you treat rdf:first and rdf:rest as builtins.    no problem.
15:57:30 <sandro> (not exactly, of course.)
15:58:51 <Michael_Kifer> sandro: I might object to extensions, since most people who voted probably didn't think how to implement extensions.
15:59:47 <sandro> sandro: maybe we should do one-to-one "at risk", to see how hard it turns out to be implement.
16:01:17 <Michael_Kifer> jos to finalize the list embedding doc by next week with 1-1 marked at risk.
16:01:19 <csma> zakim, who is talking?
16:01:29 <Zakim> csma, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: josb (34%)
16:01:33 <sandro> please draft with "extension", with the "one-to-one" bit, at risk.      
16:03:00 <AdrianP> Zakim, mute me
16:03:00 <Zakim> AdrianP should now be muted
16:05:02 <Michael_Kifer> sandro to decide whether to object to list-as-extensions by next week.
16:05:22 <Harold> zakim, who is on the phne?
16:05:22 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, Harold.
16:05:31 <Harold>  zakim, who is on the pohne?
16:05:31 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, Harold.
16:05:36 <Harold>  zakim, who is on the phone?
16:05:36 <Zakim> On the phone I see Hassan_Ait-Kaci, ChrisW, Mike_Dean, csma, Harold, josb, Stella_Mitchell, AdrianP (muted), Sandro.a, AxelPolleres, Michael_Kifer
16:05:43 <Michael_Kifer> Next week will resolve in favor of 1-1 or extensions.
16:06:10 <johnhall> Sorry - still having phone problems - bye
16:06:32 <josb> ACTION: josb to extend SWC with lists, with 1-to-1 and extensions as alternatives
16:06:32 <trackbot> Created ACTION-799 - Extend SWC with lists, with 1-to-1 and extensions as alternatives [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2009-05-05].
16:06:37 <AdrianP> Zakim, unmute me
16:06:37 <Zakim> AdrianP should no longer be muted
16:06:53 <csma> next item
16:07:24 <csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/LastCallPlan
16:15:43 <ChrisW> close action-735
16:15:43 <trackbot> ACTION-735 Add xsd:nonNegativeInteger, xsd:anyURI, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary in DTB closed
16:16:15 <ChrisW> close action-737
16:16:15 <trackbot> ACTION-737 Include all the builtins for xs:boolean per F&O closed
16:16:27 <ChrisW> close action-739
16:16:27 <trackbot> ACTION-739 Add xs:float to numeric builtins closed
16:18:41 <ChrisW> action: csma to add PRD conformance clause
16:18:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-800 - Add PRD conformance clause [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-05-05].
16:19:20 <ChrisW> action: adrian to update PRD presentatoin syntax
16:19:20 <trackbot> Created ACTION-801 - Update PRD presentatoin syntax [on Adrian Paschke - due 2009-05-05].
16:22:32 <StellaMtchell> yes
16:22:38 <ChrisW> action: harold to update the xml syntax for generalized quanitifiers by may 7
16:22:38 <trackbot> Created ACTION-802 - Update the xml syntax for generalized quanitifiers by may 7 [on Harold Boley - due 2009-05-05].
16:23:28 <csma> PROPOSED: The negation operator, in PRD, will be called: Not, which will also be the tag of the corresponding XML element in the concrete syntax
16:23:39 <Michael_Kifer> csma: PRD task force about the name for inflationary negation.
16:23:44 <sandro> q+
16:23:56 <csma> ack sandro
16:23:56 <ChrisW> classical negation is usually called NOT
16:23:58 <Michael_Kifer> Adrian suggested to use Not
16:24:35 <josb> q+
16:25:14 <Michael_Kifer> sandro: Not is unclear and politically charged. This is why we decided to use naf and neg.
16:25:17 <sandro> sandro: it seems to me that each community uses "Not" internally, and the choice of "neg" and "naf" is a sort of settlement, to avoid fighting over who gets "not".   So for PRD to use it seems wrong.
16:25:27 <ChrisW> zakim, mute Michael_Kifer
16:25:27 <Zakim> Michael_Kifer should now be muted
16:25:30 <csma> ack josb
16:26:18 <sandro> jos: in some sense PRD's 'not' is the same as naf and neg.
16:26:50 <Michael_Kifer> jos: it doesn't matter what to use, since PRD's negation is always tested in one model. 
16:27:09 <Michael_Kifer> q+
16:27:25 <Michael_Kifer> Hassan concurs w/jos
16:28:04 <AdrianP> the semantics of not (negation) is specified by the semantics of the dialect
16:28:24 <josb> actually, I think PRD should just pick Neg or Naf. It doesn't really matter which one
16:28:36 <Michael_Kifer> zakim, unmute me
16:28:36 <Zakim> Michael_Kifer should no longer be muted
16:28:37 <sandro> ack Michael_Kifer 
16:28:38 <csma> ack michael_k
16:30:14 <sandro> Michael_Kifer: it's not correct to say that PRD's "not" being in one model makes the kind of "not" not matter.       Because you *always* look at one model for negation. 
16:31:15 <sandro> +1 going for five more minutes
16:31:50 <csma> PROPOSED: The negation operator, in PRD, will be called: Not, which will also be the tag of the corresponding XML element in the concrete syntax
16:31:55 <ChrisW> -1
16:32:11 <josb> how about changing Not to Naf in the proposal? I think it could pass then
16:32:29 <Michael_Kifer> 0
16:32:31 <sandro> -1 at least until I'm convincing that this "not" is far more intuitive than the meaning of NAF or NEG.
16:32:35 <josb> -0.5
16:32:40 <Harold> 0
16:32:43 <mdean> 0
16:32:45 <AdrianP> +1
16:32:57 <csma> Hassan: +1
16:33:23 <Michael_Kifer> How about iNot (provided Apple won't sue us)?
16:33:28 <AxelPolleres> 0 (don't care)
16:33:35 <sandro> if_fail
16:33:36 <ChrisW> possibilities: p-not, s-not, k-not
16:34:21 <AdrianP> it is also common in production rules
16:34:44 <ChrisW> yes, yNot
16:34:58 <sandro> ynot ynot?
16:35:10 <josb> Not-#436
16:35:12 <ChrisW> gordian-not
16:35:13 <Michael_Kifer> whynot?
16:35:41 <AxelPolleres> better-not?
16:36:45 <ChrisW> op-not
16:36:52 <sandro>  yeap, opnot.
16:36:55 <Michael_Kifer> O-no!
16:37:01 <Michael_Kifer> Oh-no!
16:37:07 <sandro> if set_false(....)
16:37:18 <Zakim> -AdrianP
16:37:26 <Zakim> -Hassan_Ait-Kaci
16:37:30 <Zakim> -Harold
16:37:33 <Zakim> -josb
16:37:34 <ChrisW> zakim, list attendees
16:37:35 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Sandro, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Mike_Dean, ChrisW, csma, +1.631.833.aaaa, Michael_Kifer, josb, Stella_Mitchell, DaveReynolds, Harold, AdrianP,
16:37:37 <Zakim> ... AxelPolleres
16:37:37 <Zakim> -AxelPolleres
16:37:37 <Zakim> -Stella_Mitchell
16:37:43 <ChrisW> regrets:
16:37:46 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean
16:37:59 <csma> rrsagent, make minutes
16:37:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/28-rif-minutes.html csma
16:38:31 <ChrisW> Regrets: DaveReynolds Gary Hallmark PaulVincent ChanghaiKe LeoraMorgenstern
16:38:51 <csma> rrsagent, make minutes
16:38:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/28-rif-minutes.html csma
16:39:14 <Zakim> -Michael_Kifer
16:47:44 <csma> csma has left #rif
16:49:59 <Zakim> -Sandro.a
16:50:02 <Zakim> -ChrisW
16:50:04 <Zakim> -csma
16:50:04 <Zakim> SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
16:50:05 <Zakim> Attendees were Sandro, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Mike_Dean, ChrisW, csma, +1.631.833.aaaa, Michael_Kifer, josb, Stella_Mitchell, DaveReynolds, Harold, AdrianP, AxelPolleres