17:01:12 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rif-prd
17:01:12 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/04/28-rif-prd-irc
17:01:24 <csma> rrsagent, make log public
17:01:32 <csma> rrsagent, make minutes
17:01:32 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/28-rif-prd-minutes.html csma
17:01:44 <csma> Regrets: Paul Vincent
17:01:46 <apaschke> apaschke has joined #rif-prd
17:03:55 <csma> zakim, who is on the phone?
17:03:55 <Zakim> SW_RIF(PRD)1:00PM has not yet started, csma
17:03:56 <Zakim> On IRC I see apaschke, RRSAgent, cke, Zakim, csma
17:04:07 <apaschke> "not" was not accepted
17:06:46 <csma> Not-a-fact
17:07:24 <cke> why not just "neg"?
17:07:52 <csma> not, neg, naf
17:08:07 <csma> those ones are not for consideration
17:09:09 <csma> inflationary negation
17:10:23 <apaschke> not_class, not_inf, not_naf
17:10:44 <csma> Notnow
17:12:59 <apaschke> maybe we should offer several different proposals and them simply do a straw poll in the next general RIF telecon
17:13:07 <csma> Not(Exists ?x P(?x))
17:13:29 <cke> another example: (not (customer.age > 20))
17:14:00 <cke> if the customer's age is 18, then this is true
17:14:23 <csma> Nsf
17:14:49 <apaschke> prdNot, bldNot, coreNot, ...
17:16:14 <csma> Naf = Negation as failure
17:16:23 <csma> Nsf = Not supported by facts
17:16:31 <cke> and "boolean_not"?
17:21:11 <cke> I prefer it not to be an acronym. I like something explicit like "negation"
17:21:15 <csma> Notsf
17:21:44 <cke> Can we avoid saying "fact"?
17:22:07 <cke> There can be only test, like (not (customer.age > 20))
17:22:43 <apaschke> I prefer Nsf over Notsf since NsF is like Neg, Naf
17:23:47 <apaschke> a variant could be "No matching facts" = Nmf
17:26:07 <cke> how about "notf"?
17:27:06 <cke> Another example (customer (age not > 20))
17:32:02 <cke> how about "binary_not"?
17:32:19 <apaschke> classical (Boolean) negation 
17:32:44 <apaschke> is a two-valued true-false logic
17:33:09 <apaschke> three-valued logic with unknown truth value (Kleene negation)
17:33:18 <cke> And "pnot" for production rule not?
17:33:36 <cke> or maybe "prnot"?
17:36:24 <csma> INot
17:36:48 <csma> NotI
17:37:02 <csma> Not(I)
17:37:27 <csma> Inot
17:37:37 <csma> INeg
17:37:48 <cke> I find ineg better
17:38:05 <cke> how do we write it?
17:38:17 <cke> ineg, INeg or Ineg?
17:38:30 <csma> PROPOSED: INeg (for Inflationary, or immediate, negation)
17:38:42 <cke> +1
17:41:32 <apaschke> subsumption is already an advanced concept to optimize the execution flow
17:45:11 <cke> Subsumption is very advanced, we have to do extensive analysis for this
17:45:47 <csma> PROPOSED: drop subsumion from the conflict resolution strategy, and come back to the previous consensus (refraction+priority+recency), maybe with an implementation note.
18:20:25 <csma> RRSagent, make minutes
18:20:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/28-rif-prd-minutes.html csma
18:20:57 <csma> zakim, list attendees
18:20:57 <Zakim> sorry, csma, I don't know what conference this is
18:21:22 <csma> zakim, this is rifprd
18:21:22 <Zakim> sorry, csma, I do not see a conference named 'rifprd' in progress or scheduled at this time
18:24:27 <csma> csma has left #rif-prd