IRC log of rif on 2009-04-28

Timestamps are in UTC.

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