IRC log of rif on 2009-08-25

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:30:16 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
14:30:16 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:30:23 [ChrisW]
zakim, clear agenda
14:30:23 [Zakim]
agenda cleared
14:30:27 [ChrisW]
zakim, this will be rif
14:30:27 [Zakim]
ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 30 minutes
14:30:45 [ChrisW]
Chair: Chris Welty
14:30:55 [ChrisW]
Meeting: RIF Telecon 25-Aug-09
14:35:20 [ChrisW]
14:35:35 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has changed the topic to: Aug 25 RIF Telecon agenda
14:36:26 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Admin
14:36:46 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Liason
14:36:52 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Action Review
14:37:03 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Public Comments
14:37:08 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Exit Criteria
14:37:18 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Publication
14:37:23 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Test Cases
14:37:26 [ChrisW]
agenda+ AOB
14:37:44 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
14:37:44 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
14:38:03 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make logs public
14:46:11 [sandro]
sandro has joined #rif
14:57:29 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
15:01:37 [johnhall]
johnhall has joined #rif
15:02:33 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
15:02:41 [Zakim]
15:02:46 [StellaMitchell]
StellaMitchell has joined #rif
15:03:04 [Zakim]
15:03:14 [mdean]
mdean has joined #rif
15:03:17 [johnhall]
zakim, ipcaller is me
15:03:17 [Zakim]
+johnhall; got it
15:03:24 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #rif
15:03:37 [ChrisW]
sorry about that, telecom problems
15:03:38 [ChrisW]
15:03:47 [Zakim]
15:04:01 [Zakim]
15:04:03 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the call?
15:04:03 [Zakim]
On the phone I see johnhall, Mike_Dean, AxelPolleres, [IBM]
15:04:09 [ChrisW]
zakim, ibm is temporarily me
15:04:09 [Zakim]
+ChrisW; got it
15:04:18 [Zakim]
15:04:19 [Zakim]
15:04:59 [AdrianP]
AdrianP has joined #rif
15:05:28 [ChrisW]
Scribe: AxelPolleres
15:05:29 [AxelPolleres]
scribe: Axel Polleres
15:05:47 [sandro]
scribenick: AxelPolleres
15:05:51 [ChrisW]
July 21 minutes:
15:05:54 [Zakim]
15:06:01 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: accept minutes of July 21 telecon
15:06:02 [sandro]
RRSAgent, make record public
15:06:09 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: accept minutes of July 21 telecon
15:06:10 [Zakim]
15:06:20 [AdrianP]
Zakim, ??P14 is me
15:06:20 [Zakim]
+AdrianP; got it
15:06:28 [ChrisW]
July 28 minuntes:
15:06:29 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
15:06:34 [Harold]
zakim, [NRCC] is me
15:06:34 [Zakim]
+Harold; got it
15:06:35 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: accept minutes of July 28 telecon
15:06:45 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: accept minutes of July 28 telecon
15:06:54 [Zakim]
15:07:13 [ChrisW]
zakim, list agenda
15:07:13 [Zakim]
I see 8 items remaining on the agenda:
15:07:14 [Zakim]
1. Admin [from ChrisW]
15:07:14 [Zakim]
2. Liason [from ChrisW]
15:07:15 [Zakim]
3. Action Review [from ChrisW]
15:07:15 [Zakim]
4. Public Comments [from ChrisW]
15:07:16 [Zakim]
5. Exit Criteria [from ChrisW]
15:07:16 [Zakim]
6. Publication [from ChrisW]
15:07:18 [Zakim]
7. Test Cases [from ChrisW]
15:07:20 [Zakim]
8. AOB [from ChrisW]
15:07:27 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: agenda amendmends?
15:07:38 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:07:38 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Admin" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:07:58 [AxelPolleres]
Topic: Liaison
15:08:05 [AxelPolleres]
15:08:39 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:08:39 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Liason" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:08:58 [AxelPolleres]
... Liaison with SPARQL?
15:09:25 [johnhall]
zakim, mute me
15:09:25 [Zakim]
johnhall should now be muted
15:09:27 [AxelPolleres]
Axel: FPWD features and rationale, we'd be still happy for feedback
15:09:50 [AxelPolleres]
... technical FPWDs first versions not to be expected before end of Sep.
15:10:19 [AxelPolleres]
Sandro: OWL doesn't need rdf:PlainLiteral functions.
15:10:30 [AxelPolleres]
... at the moment.
15:11:27 [AxelPolleres]
... OWL hung up on some XSD issue at the moment, but may not want to wait for us.
15:11:44 [AxelPolleres]
... not sure how much time we have.
15:11:49 [AxelPolleres]
15:12:06 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: What prevents OWL to implement those functions?
15:13:36 [AxelPolleres]
... Axel: those functions back up the facets, IMO
15:14:22 [AxelPolleres]
Sandro: we made two functions at risk.
15:16:18 [Gary_Hallmark]
Gary_Hallmark has joined #rif
15:16:19 [AxelPolleres]
... length() and compare()
15:16:36 [AxelPolleres]
Axel: yes these are strictly speaking redundant wrt. the resp. string functions.
15:16:56 [Zakim]
15:17:50 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: seems ridiculous to hold up just for these straightforward functions. they don't seem to be a challenge.
15:18:41 [AxelPolleres]
... back-and-forth to strings etc obviously needed, and rdf:Plainliteral is the right place.
15:19:20 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: strong opinions about "at risk" functions?
15:19:31 [AxelPolleres]
axel: no strong opinion
15:19:36 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: leave them in.
15:20:28 [sandro]
PROPOSED: RIF considers rdf-plain-literal to be ready for PR. The features-at-risk should be left in, and we do not believe implementation reports are necessary, given the simplicity of the spec.
15:20:44 [AxelPolleres]
15:20:48 [sandro]
15:20:50 [ChrisW]
15:20:55 [mdean]
15:20:56 [johnhall]
15:20:59 [AdrianP]
15:21:00 [DaveReynolds]
0 (overloaded functions would be cleaner but not worth the work)
15:21:11 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, pointer?
15:21:11 [RRSAgent]
15:21:13 [sandro]
(I agree, Dave)
15:21:30 [sandro]
RESOLVED: RIF considers rdf-plain-literal to be ready for PR. The features-at-risk should be left in, and we do not believe implementation reports are necessary, given the simplicity of the spec.
15:22:04 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: anything else todo for rdf:plainLiteral/OWL?
15:22:14 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:22:14 [Zakim]
I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, ChrisW
15:22:17 [ChrisW]
15:22:20 [ChrisW]
ack axel
15:22:24 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:22:24 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Action Review" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:22:24 [AxelPolleres]
ack me
15:23:22 [ChrisW]
15:23:48 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION-899: done?
15:23:48 [trackbot]
ACTION-899 Look for a template for implementation reports notes added
15:23:54 [ChrisW]
action-899: complete
15:23:54 [trackbot]
ACTION-899 Look for a template for implementation reports notes added
15:24:00 [ChrisW]
action-899: done
15:24:00 [trackbot]
ACTION-899 Look for a template for implementation reports notes added
15:24:08 [ChrisW]
action-899: closed
15:24:08 [trackbot]
ACTION-899 Look for a template for implementation reports notes added
15:24:08 [trackbot]
If you meant to close ACTION-899, please use 'close ACTION-899'
15:24:18 [ChrisW]
close action-899
15:24:18 [trackbot]
ACTION-899 Look for a template for implementation reports closed
15:25:08 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION-882 done
15:25:17 [ChrisW]
close action-882
15:25:17 [trackbot]
ACTION-882 Contact University of Innsbruck. closed
15:25:30 [sandro]
Here's my e-mail asking for OWL implementation reports:
15:25:56 [AxelPolleres]
actions 880, 879 continued
15:26:04 [AxelPolleres]
close ACTION-873
15:26:04 [trackbot]
ACTION-873 Contact Leo Obrst. closed
15:26:20 [AxelPolleres]
close ACTION-878
15:26:20 [trackbot]
ACTION-878 Contact Elisa Kendall. closed
15:26:50 [AxelPolleres]
close ACTION-877
15:26:50 [trackbot]
ACTION-877 Contact William Andersen. closed
15:27:34 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: What about ACTION-896?
15:27:48 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: unsure, make it continued.
15:28:26 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: sandro you had also ACTION-892?
15:28:54 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: think I concluded it was obsolete. think they commented enoug in the past, suggest we close it
15:29:01 [AxelPolleres]
close ACTION-892
15:29:01 [trackbot]
ACTION-892 Get an OWL-WG comment on RIF closed
15:29:52 [AxelPolleres]
close ACTION-854
15:29:52 [trackbot]
ACTION-854 Check all docs for use of "rdf:text" closed
15:29:53 [AxelPolleres]
15:30:19 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION-850 continued.
15:31:12 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION-785 is pending review.
15:31:28 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION-733 is continued.
15:32:00 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: sandro why is ACTION-864 pending review?
15:32:26 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: I talked to doug and chime, I think we can close that
15:32:36 [AxelPolleres]
close ACTION-864
15:32:36 [trackbot]
ACTION-864 Contact Doug Lenat (Cleveland Clinic) closed
15:32:39 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:32:39 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Public Comments" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:33:01 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: Table on WG homepage.
15:33:32 [AxelPolleres]
15:33:48 [AxelPolleres]
15:34:07 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: just questions, no concerns raised.
15:34:25 [AxelPolleres]
... david hopes to do an implementation also.
15:34:45 [AxelPolleres]
... Comments?
15:35:00 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: do we need to track the response?
15:35:20 [AxelPolleres]
chrisW: wans't really raising concerns.
15:35:42 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: looks better if we get a response "yes, looks fine"
15:36:06 [AxelPolleres]
chrisW: I can add "please let us know if that's satisfactory.
15:36:14 [AxelPolleres]
15:36:35 [AxelPolleres]
chrisW: do we need to respond on "AT RISK" comment?
15:36:54 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: we shall respond "if there are implementations then we'll keep it"
15:37:28 [AxelPolleres]
15:37:54 [AxelPolleres]
chrisW: no comments on this one.
15:38:01 [AxelPolleres]
15:38:17 [AxelPolleres]
chrisw: small corrections in Core which I just made... comments?
15:38:38 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: just explaining words added... looks fine.
15:38:48 [AxelPolleres]
15:39:12 [AxelPolleres]
chrisw: mainly use cases for equality and claims he is working on an implementation.
15:39:39 [AxelPolleres]
15:40:12 [AxelPolleres]
chrisW: one of michael's students, suggestion for Reaction rule dialect.
15:40:51 [AxelPolleres]
... I responded to all dialect requests that we look for dialects as "FLD implementations".
15:41:40 [AxelPolleres]
... also asked for how to define terms as equal in Core.
15:41:59 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: looks like a good question for an FAQ.
15:43:38 [AxelPolleres]
chrisW: slightly updated response to make it clearer. if anyone wants to add an example, go ahead.
15:43:56 [AxelPolleres]
15:44:40 [AxelPolleres]
chrisW: mostly says "keep going"... mild critique on PRD being not fully "semantic"
15:45:00 [AxelPolleres]
... we may just understand it as "good first step".
15:45:29 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: we shall include a "are you satisfied?" question in the response.
15:46:00 [AxelPolleres]
... let me check the wording OWL uses.
15:46:15 [johnhall]
zakim, unmute me
15:46:16 [Zakim]
johnhall should no longer be muted
15:46:34 [AxelPolleres]
... asking whether he is satisfied with the response is maybe good enough.
15:46:57 [sandro]
OWL's text:
15:46:57 [sandro]
Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.
15:46:57 [johnhall]
zakim, mute me
15:46:57 [Zakim]
johnhall should now be muted
15:47:10 [AxelPolleres]
johnhall: he has a point, that we give no way to implement PRD in a non-operational way.
15:48:15 [AxelPolleres]
15:48:17 [AdrianP]
we had started with a model-theoretic semantics for PRD but then gave priority to the operational one
15:48:23 [AxelPolleres]
chrisW: response already sent.
15:48:32 [johnhall]
That wasn't quite my point - rather that without procedural semantics, most of the industry could not implement PRD
15:48:47 [ChrisW]
action: Chris to contact WL for response
15:48:47 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-901 - Contact WL for response [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-09-01].
15:49:14 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: suggest one more ping with the suggested "please respond" text on the wiki.
15:49:29 [AxelPolleres]
(sandro can you paste where you put it on the wiki)
15:50:37 [AxelPolleres]
dave: response to WL links to wrong mail
15:50:52 [AxelPolleres]
chrisW: actually, hasn't been sent yet
15:51:14 [AxelPolleres]
ACTION-901 is void...
15:51:30 [AxelPolleres]
15:52:18 [AxelPolleres]
chrisW: this is a message of support.
15:52:39 [AxelPolleres]
... preferred more general extensibility mechanism for procedures and built-ins.
15:53:20 [AxelPolleres]
... "please acknowlege" sentence to be added.
15:53:54 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: not sure I agree, but I have no better response.
15:54:10 [AxelPolleres]
... we have a perfect way to attach procedures.
15:54:25 [AdrianP]
he probably means user-defined procedures
15:54:34 [AxelPolleres]
... we could say: URIs are perfectly extensible and provide that.
15:55:06 [sandro]
I don't think so, Adrian. But who knows.
15:55:26 [AxelPolleres]
harold: in FLD/FLD we define that "Externals" could relate to other resources, such as procedures.
15:57:03 [Harold]
"This syntax enables very flexible representations for externally defined information sources: not only predicates and functions, but also frames, classification, and equality terms can be used. In this way, external sources can be modeled in an object-oriented way."
15:57:24 [Harold]
16:00:20 [Harold]
"Thus, External(""^^rif:iri["foo"^^xs:string->"123"^^xs:integer]) and External("pred:isTime"^^rif:iri("22:33:44"^^xs:time) are examples of invocations of external terms -- one querying an external source and another invoking a built-in."
16:00:39 [Gary]
so basically, "we believe that RIF's use of IRIs for external procedures and functions is a general and extensible method for attaching procedures that is agnostic w.r.t
16:00:39 [Harold]
16:00:40 [Gary]
programming langauge. The builtins are a core set that should foster interoperability"
16:01:04 [sandro]
16:04:20 [AxelPolleres]
16:04:30 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: nothing special needed there
16:04:41 [AxelPolleres]
16:05:09 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: implementation support. seems to have a lot of work done.
16:05:18 [AxelPolleres]
... shall I say more?
16:05:51 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: we shall reference the implementation report template.
16:06:09 [AxelPolleres]
16:06:51 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: mainly support plus dialect suggestions.
16:07:02 [AxelPolleres]
... none of the cited papers mentions RIF.
16:07:18 [AxelPolleres]
... mentions book where RIF was included.
16:07:41 [AxelPolleres]
... we shall maybe put it on the publications page? he was a member of RIF.
16:08:17 [AxelPolleres]
16:08:36 [AxelPolleres]
dave: section 6 is about RIF
16:08:42 [AxelPolleres]
mike: RIF about 18 pages.
16:09:36 [AxelPolleres]
(we have, BTW, a summer school article on RIF with Paula, Harold, Michael, though very outdated in between )
16:09:48 [AxelPolleres]
16:09:58 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: compliments & advertising
16:10:16 [AxelPolleres]
... other comments on that one?
16:10:24 [AxelPolleres]
16:10:42 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: similar as last one.
16:11:04 [AxelPolleres]
16:11:35 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: has specific comments on XML Schema.
16:11:45 [AxelPolleres]
... didn't draft response yet.
16:13:00 [AxelPolleres]
... we had postponed schema
16:13:29 [AxelPolleres]
... Harold, your action to address the schema and I will do the response.
16:13:32 [ChrisW]
action: harold to look at message from Nick B. and check FLD schema
16:13:32 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-902 - Look at message from Nick B. and check FLD schema [on Harold Boley - due 2009-09-01].
16:15:36 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: question whether schema may evolve after spec.
16:15:49 [AxelPolleres]
harold: he only gives a warning
16:16:11 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: would be awkward to proceed without fixing this.
16:16:19 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: we need to fix it.
16:16:30 [AxelPolleres]
harold: cannot promise 2 weeks.
16:16:41 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: Gary, can you look into this?
16:16:46 [StellaMitchell]
isn't his comment just saying to remove one line in the schema?
16:16:53 [AxelPolleres]
Gary: Can do, not really familiar with FLD schema.
16:18:28 [AxelPolleres]
chrisW: respond we need to look into this more carefully.
16:18:55 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: I think that making the schema normative is awkward
16:19:07 [AxelPolleres]
chrisW: where else would it be?
16:19:56 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: this looks critical path.
16:20:20 [AxelPolleres]
dave: can we just drop the include?
16:20:34 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: seems to be what he suggested.
16:21:25 [AxelPolleres]
dave: XML schema section 4.5 has the defs of redefine.
16:23:06 [AxelPolleres]
gary: schema processors seem to stumble over redefines
16:23:36 [AdrianP]
yes, redefine is a known problem of Altova
16:23:44 [AxelPolleres]
... do not like including and refedining the same thing
16:24:31 [AxelPolleres]
(harold, can you type in your suggestion?)
16:27:16 [Harold]
16:28:40 [AxelPolleres]
harold: I can try to merge two redefines in one.
16:28:56 [AxelPolleres]
... need to look back in the XSD, not sure.
16:29:08 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: let's make it non-normative.
16:29:21 [AxelPolleres]
harold: I think it is essential to FLD.
16:29:53 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: if we can't make the decision today to go to CR, we have to put it off for some time.
16:30:14 [AxelPolleres]
harold: the telecon was short announced, let's give it another 2 weeks.
16:30:20 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: next week?
16:30:21 [AdrianP]
agree XML schema is essential to a dialect
16:30:28 [DaveReynolds]
I can't be there next week.
16:30:32 [AdrianP]
will be travelling next week - i-Semantics conference
16:30:44 [AxelPolleres]
chrisW: can you have it next week harold?
16:30:49 [sandro]
DaveReynolds, are you okay with doing the CR decision in your absence?
16:31:02 [AxelPolleres]
harold: there are some more comments.
16:31:04 [AxelPolleres]
16:31:16 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro - does that include the exit criteria?
16:31:44 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: extend meeting by 10 minutes
16:31:48 [DaveReynolds]
16:31:48 [sandro]
probably, DaveReynolds.
16:31:54 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: extend meeting by 10 minutes
16:33:06 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro - I'm OK doing CR decision w/o me. For the exit criteria it might be good to explicitly allow implementations of Core so that Core could go to PR w/o BLD+PRD.
16:33:13 [AxelPolleres]
Axel: two things on DTB
16:33:33 [sandro]
Good point DaveReynolds, but I don't think we need to decide that going into CR.
16:33:49 [sandro]
(we're not actually disallowing implementation or Core, of course.)
16:33:54 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro, ok.
16:34:26 [AxelPolleres]
... 1) string-join, we need to fix that, two alternatives: a minimalistic one and a meaningful one (use lists) cf.
16:34:41 [AxelPolleres]
2) list functions are under-specified, we need to fix that for CR.
16:35:07 [AxelPolleres]
16:35:35 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: similar as previous ansers,referring to that we look forward to dialect implementations.
16:35:49 [AxelPolleres]
Harold: another comment on Nick's mail.
16:36:00 [AxelPolleres]
(Harold, can you type that in?)
16:36:29 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: If we can't fix the issue in time, we havbe to make it non-normative.
16:36:49 [AxelPolleres]
harold: we might need to talk to the XML schema people in XSD.
16:37:19 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: I'd be happy to leave only FLD open and get at least the other docs to CR.
16:37:27 [Zakim]
16:37:29 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:37:29 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
16:37:29 [Zakim]
16:37:30 [Zakim]
16:37:32 [Zakim]
16:37:34 [ChrisW]
zakim, list attendees
16:37:34 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Mike_Dean, johnhall, AxelPolleres, ChrisW, Sandro, Stella_Mitchell, AdrianP, Harold, DaveReynolds, Gary
16:37:49 [ChrisW]
Regrets: MichaelKifer LeoraMorgenstern
16:37:55 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:37:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
16:38:07 [johnhall]
Have to go - bye
16:38:09 [AxelPolleres]
rrsagent, make records public
16:38:11 [johnhall]
johnhall has left #rif
16:38:22 [Zakim]
16:38:32 [Zakim]
16:38:39 [Zakim]
16:38:49 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:38:49 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Mike_Dean, ChrisW, Sandro
16:39:04 [Zakim]
16:39:06 [AxelPolleres]
did you still need me?
16:39:10 [ChrisW]
no, thanks!
16:39:15 [sandro]
zakim, who is on the call?
16:39:15 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ChrisW, Sandro
16:43:10 [Zakim]
16:43:10 [Zakim]
16:43:11 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
16:43:12 [Zakim]
Attendees were Mike_Dean, johnhall, AxelPolleres, ChrisW, Sandro, Stella_Mitchell, AdrianP, Harold, DaveReynolds, Gary
16:47:56 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has left #rif