IRC log of rif on 2009-05-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:44:44 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
14:44:44 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:45:19 [ChrisW]
zakim, this will be rif
14:45:19 [Zakim]
ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 15 minutes
14:45:58 [ChrisW]
Chair: Chris Welty
14:46:12 [ChrisW]
Meeting: RIF Telecon 12-May-2009
14:46:31 [ChrisW]
14:46:45 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has changed the topic to: 12 May RIF Telecon, Agenda
14:46:54 [ChrisW]
zakim, clear agenda
14:46:54 [Zakim]
agenda cleared
14:47:06 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Admin
14:47:11 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Liason
14:47:25 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Action Review
14:47:30 [ChrisW]
agenda+ DTB
14:47:34 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Core
14:47:38 [ChrisW]
agenda+ BLD
14:47:43 [ChrisW]
agenda+ PRD
14:47:48 [ChrisW]
agenda+ SWC
14:47:51 [ChrisW]
agenda+ FLD
14:48:00 [ChrisW]
agenda+ AOB
14:49:17 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
14:49:17 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
14:49:24 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make logs public
14:49:30 [ChrisW]
zakim, take up next item
14:49:30 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Admin" taken up [from ChrisW]
14:53:33 [ChrisW]
zakim, drop item 10
14:53:33 [Zakim]
agendum 10, AOB, dropped
14:53:59 [ChrisW]
agenda+ AOB
14:54:08 [ChrisW]
zakim, you cannot do math
14:54:08 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'you cannot do math', ChrisW
14:54:14 [ChrisW]
zakim, math
14:54:14 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'math', ChrisW
14:54:18 [ChrisW]
no kidding
14:54:49 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
14:54:56 [Zakim]
14:57:57 [Zakim]
15:01:03 [Zakim]
15:01:57 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
15:02:06 [StellaMitchell]
StellaMitchell has joined #rif
15:02:58 [Zakim]
15:03:00 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
15:03:33 [Zakim]
15:03:51 [LeoraMorgenstern]
LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
15:03:51 [Zakim]
15:04:03 [csma]
csma has joined #rif
15:04:19 [Zakim]
15:04:49 [Zakim]
15:05:00 [Zakim]
15:05:08 [Zakim]
15:05:34 [Harold]
zakim, [NRCC] is me
15:05:34 [Zakim]
+Harold; got it
15:05:38 [Gary_Hallmark]
Gary_Hallmark has joined #rif
15:05:47 [Zakim]
+ +1.503.533.aaaa
15:06:19 [Gary]
zakim, aaaa is me
15:06:19 [Zakim]
+Gary; got it
15:06:29 [AdrianP]
AdrianP has joined #rif
15:07:33 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:07:33 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Sandro, [IBM], Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Stella_Mitchell, josb, csma, Harold, Leora_Morgenstern, Gary
15:07:35 [Zakim]
15:07:41 [AdrianP]
Zakim, ??P44 is me
15:07:41 [Zakim]
+AdrianP; got it
15:07:44 [ChrisW]
zakim, ibm is me
15:07:44 [Zakim]
+ChrisW; got it
15:07:52 [ChrisW]
Scribe: AdrianP
15:08:05 [csma]
zakim, mute me
15:08:05 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
15:08:10 [ChrisW]
15:08:14 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: minutes from last week
15:08:18 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: accept last weeks minutes
15:08:23 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: accept last weeks minutes
15:09:35 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:09:35 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Liason" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:09:49 [ChrisW]
zakim, close item 2
15:09:49 [Zakim]
agendum 2, Liason, closed
15:09:50 [Zakim]
I see 7 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:09:51 [Zakim]
3. Action Review [from ChrisW]
15:10:01 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:10:01 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Action Review" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:10:52 [csma]
zakim, unmute me
15:10:52 [Zakim]
csma should no longer be muted
15:11:35 [ChrisW]
action-808: closed
15:11:35 [trackbot]
ACTION-808 make "1:1" for rdf:lists be at-risk notes added
15:11:35 [trackbot]
If you meant to close ACTION-808, please use 'close ACTION-808'
15:11:44 [ChrisW]
close action-808
15:11:44 [trackbot]
ACTION-808 make "1:1" for rdf:lists be at-risk closed
15:12:53 [csma]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:12:53 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Sandro, ChrisW, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Stella_Mitchell, josb, csma, Harold, Leora_Morgenstern, Gary, AdrianP
15:14:22 [AdrianP]
close action-779
15:14:22 [trackbot]
ACTION-779 Review SWC closed
15:14:30 [AdrianP]
close action-778
15:14:30 [trackbot]
ACTION-778 Review FLD closed
15:14:56 [AdrianP]
close action-776
15:14:56 [trackbot]
ACTION-776 Review bld closed
15:15:10 [AdrianP]
close action-775
15:15:10 [trackbot]
ACTION-775 Review dtb closed
15:16:17 [AdrianP]
close action-767
15:16:17 [trackbot]
ACTION-767 Review PRD closed
15:16:39 [AdrianP]
close action-762
15:16:39 [trackbot]
ACTION-762 Amends the XML schema for Core. closed
15:18:00 [AdrianP]
close action-759
15:18:00 [trackbot]
ACTION-759 Add the syntax and semantics of lists to BLD closed
15:18:26 [AdrianP]
close action-760
15:18:26 [trackbot]
ACTION-760 Add the list builtins in DTB closed
15:19:17 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:19:17 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "DTB" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:19:24 [ChrisW]
zakim, list agenda
15:19:24 [Zakim]
I see 6 items remaining on the agenda:
15:19:25 [Zakim]
4. DTB [from ChrisW]
15:19:25 [Zakim]
6. BLD [from ChrisW]
15:19:26 [Zakim]
7. PRD [from ChrisW]
15:19:26 [Zakim]
8. SWC [from ChrisW]
15:19:27 [Zakim]
9. FLD [from ChrisW]
15:19:27 [Zakim]
11. AOB [from ChrisW]
15:19:39 [ChrisW]
zakim, take up item 7
15:19:39 [Zakim]
agendum 7. "PRD" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:20:30 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: Axel's review? not done, yet
15:21:18 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: no review from Changai
15:21:28 [AdrianP]
Harold: editorial comments in my review
15:21:46 [AdrianP]
Harold: specifity for conflict resolution not mentioned
15:22:09 [AdrianP]
Harold: document should mention why it is not listed
15:22:29 [AdrianP]
Harold: my old review comments are still open
15:22:35 [AdrianP]
csma: working on them
15:23:46 [AdrianP]
csma: conflict resolution strategy we agreed to have the three principle ones - common to most PR engines
15:24:27 [AdrianP]
cmsa: some also use specifity - but it is used differently in the different engines
15:25:16 [AdrianP]
Harold: could be explained in one abstract and why specifity is excluded
15:25:36 [AdrianP]
csma: then we would need to explain why we omitted others
15:25:42 [AdrianP]
Harold: could refer to a paper
15:26:07 [AdrianP]
Harold: many share specificity
15:26:23 [AdrianP]
csma: will add a sentence about specificity not well defined
15:27:20 [ChrisW]
csma: we chose the conflict resolution strategy shared by the most PR engines, NOT the one that "works best"
15:27:43 [ChrisW]
...not sure it makes sense to talk about which ones we didn't include, rather justify the reason for the one we retained
15:28:17 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #rif
15:29:04 [ChrisW]
action: csma to respond to harolds comments
15:29:04 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-809 - Respond to harolds comments [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-05-19].
15:29:15 [Zakim]
15:29:33 [AdrianP]
Harold: fine with going to LC for PRD
15:29:53 [Zakim]
15:30:39 [AdrianP]
Axel: DTB last call actions I'm done except for refine all informal builtin definitions
15:30:42 [Zakim]
15:31:26 [AxelPolleres]
my reviews can be done until end of the week.
15:31:31 [AdrianP]
Jos: should be able to do the PRD reviews by end of this week
15:33:23 [sandro]
sandro has joined #rif
15:35:56 [ChrisW]
zakim, take up item 8
15:35:56 [Zakim]
agendum 8. "SWC" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:36:31 [josb]
Michael did post regrets:
15:36:36 [ChrisW]
thanks, jos
15:37:35 [ChrisW]
zakim, take up item 6
15:37:35 [Zakim]
agendum 6. "BLD" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:37:51 [AxelPolleres]
I promise to have my SWC+BLD reviews by the end of the week.
15:38:09 [ChrisW]
^I promise^I hereby promise^
15:39:14 [josb]
15:39:32 [AdrianP]
csma: abstract syntax (mathematical syntax) should be normative
15:41:28 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is talking?
15:41:38 [Zakim]
ChrisW, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Sandro.a (19%), Harold (5%), csma (47%), Gary (5%)
15:42:05 [ChrisW]
sandro, looks like you are echoing
15:42:45 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:42:45 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ChrisW, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Stella_Mitchell, josb, csma, Harold, Leora_Morgenstern, Gary, AdrianP, AxelPolleres, Sandro.a
15:43:23 [sandro]
sandro has joined #rif
15:43:54 [Harold]
"Such generalized open lists, similar to Lisp's s-expressions, make it unnecessary to restrict variable values in the tail to lists."
15:44:07 [Harold]
15:45:40 [AdrianP]
csma: BLD does not qualify elements and attributes; in PRD we sometimes qualify attributes
15:46:03 [AdrianP]
Harold: should not be qualified; makes the syntax ugly and verbouse
15:46:44 [AdrianP]
Sandro: we resolved that at the first LC
15:46:56 [AdrianP]
csma: then I will allign PRD
15:47:47 [AdrianP]
Harold: do not qualify elements, either
15:48:14 [sandro]
sandro: In all RIF dialects, elements must be qualified -- although of course a default XMLNS can be used -- and attributes should not have a namespace. We agreed to this long time ago.
15:48:15 [AdrianP]
Harold: uses the default namespace
15:48:32 [sandro]
root element has xmlns="" right?
15:48:46 [Harold]
We use:
15:48:46 [Harold]
15:48:46 [Harold]
15:48:46 [Harold]
15:48:46 [Harold]
15:48:49 [Harold]
. . .
15:49:05 [sandro]
Yes, so that means the element are qualified, using the default namespace mechanism.
15:49:46 [ChrisW]
zakim, list agenda
15:49:46 [Zakim]
I see 6 items remaining on the agenda:
15:49:48 [Zakim]
4. DTB [from ChrisW]
15:49:48 [Zakim]
6. BLD [from ChrisW]
15:49:50 [Zakim]
7. PRD [from ChrisW]
15:49:51 [Zakim]
8. SWC [from ChrisW]
15:49:51 [Zakim]
9. FLD [from ChrisW]
15:49:53 [Zakim]
11. AOB [from ChrisW]
15:49:58 [ChrisW]
ack jos
15:50:17 [AdrianP]
Jos: question to csma; difference between abstract syntax and presentation syntax
15:51:19 [Harold]
Forall ?item ?deliverydate ?scheduledate ?diffduration ?diffdays (
15:51:20 [AdrianP]
csma: is the mathematical definition of the presentation syntax normative or not?
15:51:22 [Harold]
15:52:27 [AdrianP]
csma: it says the presentation is normative
15:52:51 [ChrisW]
"he presentation syntax is normative, but is not intended to be a concrete syntax for RIF-BLD. It is defined in "mathematical English," a special form of English for communicating mathematical definitions, examples, etc. The presentation syntax deliberately leaves out details such as the delimiters of the various syntactic components, escape symbols, parenthesizing, precedence of operators, and the like."
15:53:21 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: looks like some inconsistency in the description
15:53:34 [csma]
Forall ?item ?deliverydate ?scheduledate ?diffduration ?diffdays (
15:53:58 [AdrianP]
is writting it like this normative?
15:54:10 [AdrianP]
csma: is writting it like this normative?
15:54:37 [Harold]
Universal rule: If f is a rule implication and ?V1, ..., ?Vn, n>0, are distinct variables then Forall ?V1 ... ?Vn(f) is a formula, called a universal rule.
15:54:38 [AdrianP]
csma: object to this being normative
15:55:01 [Harold]
15:55:35 [Harold]
The use of "?" in ?V1, ..., ?Vn etc. is mathematical English: normative.
15:56:13 [AdrianP]
csma: abstract syntax for me is normative, not the presentation syntax which is used to write the rules for presentation
15:56:54 [AdrianP]
csma: not all PRD want PRD syntax normative
15:57:02 [sandro]
(I'm confused.... and worried about how we're doing on time for this meeting.)
15:57:17 [AdrianP]
Jos: it is not a concrete syntax
15:58:05 [Zakim]
15:58:11 [AdrianP]
Jos: you need some mathematical symbols to refer to them
15:58:27 [csma_]
csma_ has joined #rif
15:58:27 [sandro]
Chris: how about if we say folks can use their own symbol for 'forall', etc?
15:59:48 [AdrianP]
csma: I object to being the abstract syntax being called presentation syntax
16:00:01 [AdrianP]
csma: this will not be understood outside of this RIF group
16:00:29 [sandro]
(I agree it's extremely confusing and problematic)
16:01:12 [sandro]
csma: In PRD I use the term "abstract syntax" for a normative intermedia syntax, and then provide a non-normative presentaiton syntax.
16:01:30 [Zakim]
16:02:05 [AdrianP]
csma: confusing abstract syntax with presentation syntax - should be clearly rephrased
16:02:58 [AdrianP]
Harold: word abstract does not even occur in BLD
16:03:27 [AdrianP]
Harold: we did have an abstract syntax but we abandoned it 2 yrs ago
16:03:49 [AdrianP]
Harold: introduced mathematical syntax instead
16:04:09 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: would you be fine to call it abstract syntax
16:04:30 [AdrianP]
Harold: in OWL they use the term abstract syntax
16:04:56 [AdrianP]
cmsa: like in UML where they use it to define the abstract syntax
16:05:07 [AdrianP]
csma: mathematical English define abstract syntax for RIF
16:05:46 [AdrianP]
csma: confused then with the non-normative presentation syntax
16:06:13 [sandro]
What if we are clear about having MULTIPLE presentation syntaxes, some more formally specified than others.
16:06:26 [AdrianP]
Harold: we have mathematical English (normative) and EBNG presnetation syntax (not normative)
16:06:51 [AdrianP]
Harold: we need the normative English as normative to define the semantics
16:07:03 [Harold]
s/we have mathematical English (normative) and EBNG presnetation syntax (not normative)/we have mathematical English (normative) and EBNG syntax (not normative)/
16:07:13 [sandro]
16:07:40 [Harold]
The superconcept for both mathematical English and EBNF syntax is presentation syntax.
16:08:25 [AdrianP]
Hassan: agree with Christian - we do not define a normative abstract syntax
16:08:39 [Harold]
So the presentation syntax divides into a normative and a non-normative version.
16:09:21 [AdrianP]
Sandro: add a very clear sentence which explains that only the XML syntax is normative
16:09:37 [ChrisW]
ack sandro
16:09:54 [AdrianP]
csma: replace "presentation syntax" is normative with "presentation syntax" is not normative
16:10:12 [Harold]
The continuation of the para Chris showed is "Since RIF is an interchange format, it uses XML as its concrete syntax and RIF-BLD conformance is described in terms of semantics-preserving transformations."
16:10:35 [AdrianP]
Sandro: the reason was that we used the mathematical English
16:10:36 [josb]
plus, the XML syntax is defined through a mapping from the presentation syntax
16:10:43 [Harold]
16:11:24 [ChrisW]
action: chris to draft a paragraph describing the status of the presentation syntax
16:11:24 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-810 - Draft a paragraph describing the status of the presentation syntax [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-05-19].
16:11:47 [csma]
16:11:58 [ChrisW]
zakim, take up item 4
16:11:58 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "DTB" taken up [from ChrisW]
16:12:07 [AxelPolleres]
16:12:10 [sandro]
'We are NOT specifying any of the various presentation syntaxes used in these documents. Implementors are free to implement whatever RIF presentation syntaxes they like; users should NOT expect any interoperability using these presentation systaxes. For interoperability, either use XML or some other Rule syntax that *is* specified for interoperability.
16:12:26 [sandro]
(that's my suggested text, Chris. Maybe a useful starting point.)
16:12:35 [AdrianP]
Axel: I added all data types, casting functions for datatypes
16:12:42 [AxelPolleres]
16:13:17 [AxelPolleres]
16:14:28 [AdrianP]
Axel: 3.4.1. RIF does not require white space normalization
16:14:38 [AdrianP]
Axel: this is not defined in XPath
16:17:27 [AdrianP]
Axel: xs:anyURI is a cast from a subtype of string
16:17:33 [AdrianP]
Jos: not in Xpath 1.0
16:17:44 [AdrianP]
Axel: then it is fine
16:18:43 [AdrianP]
Axel: XPath leaves open extent to which an implementation validates the lexical form of xs:anyURI to the implementation.
16:19:27 [AdrianP]
Axel: but RIF requires all lexical forms of xs:anyURI appearing as constants in the xs:string symbol space to be castable to xs:anyURI
16:19:38 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: why?
16:20:10 [AdrianP]
Axel: cast function from String to AnyURI are implementation dependent in XPath/XQuery
16:21:04 [AdrianP]
Axel: Xpath does not require to parse/implement it
16:21:56 [AdrianP]
Axel: Editors note
16:22:01 [AdrianP]
Axel: What to do about: "In casting to a date or time value, if the value is too large or too small to be represented by the implementation, error [err:FODT0001] is raised."
16:22:05 [csma]
csma has left #rif
16:22:19 [Zakim]
16:25:07 [AdrianP]
Axel: Editor note "Casting from xs:float or xs:double to xs:decimal or its subtypes may raise implementation dependent errors [ERRFOCA0001] or [ERRFOCA0003]. Unclear how we avoid implementation dependance."
16:25:22 [AdrianP]
Axel: was not clear to me how to avoid implementation dependency
16:26:46 [AdrianP]
Axel: Editor note "Note that Section 17.1 of [XPath-Functions] says that for datatypes that do not have a canonical lexical representation defined an implementation dependent canonical representation may be used. We probably do not want that. This remark probably also applies to subtypes of xs:string."
16:26:54 [AdrianP]
Axel: not sure what to do here
16:26:59 [AdrianP]
Jos: any examples?
16:29:04 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: what about datetime and timezone? Do they map to the same timepoint in the value space
16:30:19 [ChrisW]
action: axel to check that all RIF datatypes have a canonical representation
16:30:19 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-811 - Check that all RIF datatypes have a canonical representation [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-05-19].
16:30:39 [AdrianP]
Axel: cast functions only affect XML Schema datatypes
16:30:46 [Zakim]
16:30:50 [AdrianP]
Axel: no longer cast rdf:literal
16:31:22 [AdrianP]
Axel: Editors note "Casting from rdf:text and rdf:XMLLiteral to xs:string are still under discussion. "?
16:31:22 [josb]
I think only NOTATION and QName don't have a canonical representation
16:31:42 [ChrisW]
proposed: extend meeting for 15 mins
16:31:56 [ChrisW]
resolved: extend meeting for 15 mins
16:32:24 [AdrianP]
Axel: would leave it as it without casting of rdf:...
16:32:25 [Zakim]
16:34:00 [AdrianP]
Sandro: why are we not casting from rdf:literal to string?
16:34:11 [AdrianP]
Axel: we would need to define it for RIF
16:34:53 [sandro]
Jos: Every XMLLiteral has a unique lexical representation, which could be seen as the string form
16:35:06 [sandro]
+1 yes, use that lexrep as the string form of XMLLiteral.
16:35:26 [AdrianP]
Axel: will see if I can define it in the general definition of cast functiosn
16:35:44 [sandro]
(Yes, just use the lexical space.)
16:35:57 [ChrisW]
action: axel to define cast from xmlliteral to streing
16:35:57 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-812 - Define cast from xmlliteral to streing [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-05-19].
16:36:05 [Zakim]
16:37:10 [AdrianP]
Axel: results where error can occur leave it undefined
16:37:27 [AdrianP]
Axel: redefined numeric functions accordingly
16:37:45 [AdrianP]
Axel: section 3.7. functions onf strings added
16:38:06 [AdrianP]
Axel: function & predicates on datetime
16:38:23 [AdrianP]
16:38:32 [AxelPolleres]
16:38:37 [AdrianP]
Axel: func:years-from-duration
16:39:59 [AxelPolleres]
16:41:01 [josb]
it's awkward that the former accepts xs:string as argument, but the latter does not
16:41:47 [josb]
16:42:16 [ChrisW]
ack jos
16:43:21 [AdrianP]
Jos: Let's ask the XPath working group if their definition is intended like it is
16:44:19 [ChrisW]
action: axel to find clarification on year-from-duration from XPATH wg
16:44:19 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-813 - Find clarification on year-from-duration from XPATH wg [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-05-19].
16:44:58 [AdrianP]
Axel: editors note "This and the following functions assume an implicit timezone provided by the dynamic context (See Section C.2 Dynamic Context Components.) to be present as part of the value, if not explicit timezone is given. How shall we proceed for RIF here? The current solution with not assuming any impliciet time zone seems unsatisfactory."
16:45:15 [josb]
16:46:19 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:46:19 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ChrisW, Stella_Mitchell, josb, Leora_Morgenstern, AdrianP, AxelPolleres, Sandro.a
16:46:20 [StellaMitchell]
16:46:32 [ChrisW]
proposed: continue for 15 more mins to finish dtb
16:46:36 [ChrisW]
resolved: continue for 15 more mins to finish dtb
16:46:52 [Zakim]
16:46:52 [AxelPolleres]
16:47:19 [AdrianP]
Jos: Think you already implemented a good solution
16:47:19 [Zakim]
16:47:39 [AdrianP]
Axel: timezones need to be explicility given
16:48:16 [AdrianP]
Axel: Editor's Note: Is there any casting or promotion implicit here and in the following functions? That would affect the domain.
16:49:09 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: seems like a bug in XPath
16:50:23 [josb]
16:50:25 [AxelPolleres]
op:divide-yearMonthDuration(xs:yearMonthDuration("P2Y11M"), 1.5)
16:51:08 [josb]
16:51:09 [AdrianP]
Jos: did you like at the errata document
16:52:39 [AdrianP]
Axel: will ask the XPath working group about this, too
16:53:04 [AdrianP]
Axel: predicates are not finished yet
16:53:17 [AdrianP]
Axel: some old editors note left there
16:53:36 [AxelPolleres]
16:53:37 [AdrianP]
Axel: Editor's Note: The introduction of less-than-or-eaual and greater-than-or-equal predicates for dayTimeDuration and yearMonthDuration still needs a WG resolution.
16:54:16 [AdrianP]
I think we wanted them
16:54:37 [AdrianP]
Axel: Editor's Note: Predicates for rdf:XMLLiteral such as at least comparison predicates (equals, not-equals) are still under discussion in the working group.
16:54:54 [AdrianP]
Axel: leave 1 pred:XMLLiteral-equal
16:55:10 [AdrianP]
Axel: Editor's Note: Issues which are still open in the rdf:text specification might imply future changes on the functions and predicates defined here. For instance rtfn:compare and rtfn:length are curently marked AT RISK. We could subsume these functions under a single func:compare and func:compare function, instead of defining separate functions for xs:string and rdf:text, or drop them alltogether for redundancy. Moreover, references and links to the [RDF-TEX
16:55:21 [AdrianP]
Axel: still at risk
16:55:46 [AdrianP]
Sandro: will deal with that later
16:56:08 [AdrianP]
Sandro: onyl informal description right now
16:56:48 [AdrianP]
3.11.3 Predicates on RIF Lists
16:57:11 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: semantics are defined using formal mappings
16:57:32 [AdrianP]
Jos: right we need a formal mapping to complete the spec
16:58:17 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: these functions need to be aligned with the model-theoretic semantics of the other functions in DTB
17:01:18 [AdrianP]
Sandro: could we add a sentence about the general semantics of all list functions at the beginning of this list section
17:02:42 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: add a subbullet about formal mapping to each function
17:02:54 [AdrianP]
Sandro: think it is not needed, but do not object
17:03:06 [ChrisW]
action: josb to provide formal mapping for list preds & funs
17:03:06 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-814 - Provide formal mapping for list preds & funs [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2009-05-19].
17:03:09 [sandro]
</rant> :-)
17:03:56 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: only thing remaining for DTB are the two questiosn to the working group
17:04:09 [ChrisW]
ack jos
17:05:04 [Zakim]
17:05:05 [Zakim]
17:05:05 [Zakim]
17:05:08 [Zakim]
17:05:09 [Zakim]
17:05:11 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:05:11 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
17:05:16 [ChrisW]
zakim, list attendees
17:05:16 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Sandro, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, klanz2, Stella_Mitchell, josb, csma, Leora_Morgenstern, Harold, +1.503.533.aaaa, Gary, AdrianP, ChrisW,
17:05:20 [Zakim]
... AxelPolleres, Gary_Hallmark
17:05:37 [ChrisW]
Regrets: DaveReynolds PaulVincent MichaelKifer ChanghaiKe
17:05:41 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:05:41 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
17:06:13 [Zakim]
17:06:14 [Zakim]
17:06:14 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
17:06:16 [Zakim]
Attendees were Sandro, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, klanz2, Stella_Mitchell, josb, csma, Leora_Morgenstern, Harold, +1.503.533.aaaa, Gary, AdrianP, ChrisW, AxelPolleres, Gary_Hallmark
17:06:18 [AdrianP]
17:17:16 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has left #rif