RIF Telecon 25-Aug-09

25 Aug 2009


See also: IRC log


Mike_Dean, johnhall, AxelPolleres, ChrisW, Sandro, Stella_Mitchell, AdrianP, Harold, DaveReynolds, Gary
MichaelKifer, LeoraMorgenstern
Chris Welty
AxelPolleres, Axel Polleres




<ChrisW> sorry about that, telecom problems

<ChrisW> joining

<ChrisW> Scribe: AxelPolleres

<scribe> scribe: Axel Polleres

<sandro> scribenick: AxelPolleres

<ChrisW> July 21 minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Jul/att-0045/21-rif-minutes.html

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: accept minutes of July 21 telecon

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept minutes of July 21 telecon

<ChrisW> July 28 minuntes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Jul/att-0047/28-July-2009-rif-minutes.html

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: accept minutes of July 28 telecon

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept minutes of July 28 telecon

ChrisW: agenda amendmends?





ChrisW: Liaison with SPARQL?

Axel: FPWD features and rationale, we'd be still happy for feedback
... technical FPWDs first versions not to be expected before end of Sep.

Sandro: OWL doesn't need rdf:PlainLiteral functions.
... at the moment.
... OWL hung up on some XSD issue at the moment, but may not want to wait for us.
... not sure how much time we have.

ChrisW: What prevents OWL to implement those functions?
... Axel: those functions back up the facets, IMO

Sandro: we made two functions at risk.
... length() and compare()

Axel: yes these are strictly speaking redundant wrt. the resp. string functions.

ChrisW: seems ridiculous to hold up just for these straightforward functions. they don't seem to be a challenge.
... back-and-forth to strings etc obviously needed, and rdf:Plainliteral is the right place.

sandro: strong opinions about "at risk" functions?

axel: no strong opinion

ChrisW: leave them in.

<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.


<sandro> +1

<ChrisW> +1

<mdean> +1

<johnhall> +1

<AdrianP> +1

<DaveReynolds> 0 (overloaded functions would be cleaner but not worth the work)

<sandro> (I agree, Dave)

<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.

ChrisW: anything else todo for rdf:plainLiteral/OWL?

Action Review

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Implementations

ACTION-899: done?

<trackbot> ACTION-899 Look for a template for implementation reports notes added

<ChrisW> action-899: complete

<trackbot> ACTION-899 Look for a template for implementation reports notes added

<ChrisW> action-899: done

<trackbot> ACTION-899 Look for a template for implementation reports notes added

<ChrisW> action-899: closed

<trackbot> ACTION-899 Look for a template for implementation reports notes added

<trackbot> If you meant to close ACTION-899, please use 'close ACTION-899'

<ChrisW> close action-899

<trackbot> ACTION-899 Look for a template for implementation reports closed

ACTION-882 done

<ChrisW> close action-882

<trackbot> ACTION-882 Contact University of Innsbruck. closed

<sandro> Here's my e-mail asking for OWL implementation reports: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2009JulSep/0055.html

actions 880, 879 continued

close ACTION-873

<trackbot> ACTION-873 Contact Leo Obrst. closed

close ACTION-878

<trackbot> ACTION-878 Contact Elisa Kendall. closed

close ACTION-877

<trackbot> ACTION-877 Contact William Andersen. closed

ChrisW: What about ACTION-896?

sandro: unsure, make it continued.

ChrisW: sandro you had also ACTION-892?

sandro: think I concluded it was obsolete. think they commented enoug in the past, suggest we close it

close ACTION-892

<trackbot> ACTION-892 Get an OWL-WG comment on RIF closed

close ACTION-854

<trackbot> ACTION-854 Check all docs for use of "rdf:text" closed


ACTION-850 continued.

ACTION-785 is pending review.

ACTION-733 is continued.

ChrisW: sandro why is ACTION-864 pending review?

sandro: I talked to doug and chime, I think we can close that

close ACTION-864

<trackbot> ACTION-864 Contact Doug Lenat (Cleveland Clinic) closed

Public Comments

ChrisW: Table on WG homepage.



ChrisW: just questions, no concerns raised.
... david hopes to do an implementation also.
... Comments?

sandro: do we need to track the response?

chrisW: wans't really raising concerns.

sandro: looks better if we get a response "yes, looks fine"

chrisW: I can add "please let us know if that's satisfactory.


chrisW: do we need to respond on "AT RISK" comment?

sandro: we shall respond "if there are implementations then we'll keep it"


chrisW: no comments on this one.


chrisw: small corrections in Core which I just made... comments?

sandro: just explaining words added... looks fine.


chrisw: mainly use cases for equality and claims he is working on an implementation.


chrisW: one of michael's students, suggestion for Reaction rule dialect.
... I responded to all dialect requests that we look for dialects as "FLD implementations".
... also asked for how to define terms as equal in Core.

sandro: looks like a good question for an FAQ.

chrisW: slightly updated response to make it clearer. if anyone wants to add an example, go ahead.


chrisW: mostly says "keep going"... mild critique on PRD being not fully "semantic"
... we may just understand it as "good first step".

sandro: we shall include a "are you satisfied?" question in the response.
... let me check the wording OWL uses.
... asking whether he is satisfied with the response is maybe good enough.

<sandro> OWL's text:

<sandro> Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (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.

johnhall: he has a point, that we give no way to implement PRD in a non-operational way.


<AdrianP> we had started with a model-theoretic semantics for PRD but then gave priority to the operational one

chrisW: response already sent.

<johnhall> That wasn't quite my point - rather that without procedural semantics, most of the industry could not implement PRD

<ChrisW> ACTION: Chris to contact WL for response [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/25-rif-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-901 - Contact WL for response [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-09-01].

sandro: suggest one more ping with the suggested "please respond" text on the wiki.

(sandro can you paste where you put it on the wiki)

dave: response to WL links to wrong mail

chrisW: actually, hasn't been sent yet

ACTION-901 is void...


chrisW: this is a message of support.
... preferred more general extensibility mechanism for procedures and built-ins.
... "please acknowlege" sentence to be added.

sandro: not sure I agree, but I have no better response.
... we have a perfect way to attach procedures.

<AdrianP> he probably means user-defined procedures

sandro: we could say: URIs are perfectly extensible and provide that.

<sandro> I don't think so, Adrian. But who knows.

harold: in FLD/FLD we define that "Externals" could relate to other resources, such as procedures.

<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."

<Harold> (http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/FLD#Terms)

<Harold> "Thus, External("http://foo.bar.com"^^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."

<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

<Harold> )http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DTB#Appendix:_Schemas_for_Externally_Defined_Terms)

<Gary> programming langauge. The builtins are a core set that should foster interoperability"

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_TG1


ChrisW: nothing special needed there


ChrisW: implementation support. seems to have a lot of work done.
... shall I say more?

sandro: we shall reference the implementation report template.


ChrisW: mainly support plus dialect suggestions.
... none of the cited papers mentions RIF.
... mentions book where RIF was included.
... we shall maybe put it on the publications page? he was a member of RIF.


dave: section 6 is about RIF

mike: RIF about 18 pages.

(we have, BTW, a summer school article on RIF with Paula, Harold, Michael, though very outdated in between )


ChrisW: compliments & advertising
... other comments on that one?


ChrisW: similar as last one.


ChrisW: has specific comments on XML Schema.
... didn't draft response yet.
... we had postponed schema
... Harold, your action to address the schema and I will do the response.

<ChrisW> ACTION: harold to look at message from Nick B. and check FLD schema [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/25-rif-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-902 - Look at message from Nick B. and check FLD schema [on Harold Boley - due 2009-09-01].

sandro: question whether schema may evolve after spec.

harold: he only gives a warning

sandro: would be awkward to proceed without fixing this.

ChrisW: we need to fix it.

harold: cannot promise 2 weeks.

ChrisW: Gary, can you look into this?

<StellaMitchell> isn't his comment just saying to remove one line in the schema?

Gary: Can do, not really familiar with FLD schema.

chrisW: respond we need to look into this more carefully.

sandro: I think that making the schema normative is awkward

chrisW: where else would it be?

sandro: this looks critical path.

dave: can we just drop the include?

sandro: seems to be what he suggested.

dave: XML schema section 4.5 has the defs of redefine.

gary: schema processors seem to stumble over redefines

<AdrianP> yes, redefine is a known problem of Altova

gary: do not like including and refedining the same thing

(harold, can you type in your suggestion?)

<Harold> http://ruleml.org/rif/fld/LC/

harold: I can try to merge two redefines in one.
... need to look back in the XSD, not sure.

ChrisW: let's make it non-normative.

harold: I think it is essential to FLD.

ChrisW: if we can't make the decision today to go to CR, we have to put it off for some time.

harold: the telecon was short announced, let's give it another 2 weeks.

sandro: next week?

<AdrianP> agree XML schema is essential to a dialect

<DaveReynolds> I can't be there next week.

<AdrianP> will be travelling next week - i-Semantics conference

chrisW: can you have it next week harold?

<sandro> DaveReynolds, are you okay with doing the CR decision in your absence?

harold: there are some more comments.

<DaveReynolds> Sandro - does that include the exit criteria?

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: extend meeting by 10 minutes

<DaveReynolds> +1

<sandro> probably, DaveReynolds.

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: extend meeting by 10 minutes

<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.

Axel: two things on DTB

<sandro> Good point DaveReynolds, but I don't think we need to decide that going into CR.

<sandro> (we're not actually disallowing implementation or Core, of course.)

<DaveReynolds> Sandro, ok.

Axel: 1) string-join, we need to fix that, two alternatives: a minimalistic one and a meaningful one (use lists) cf. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Aug/0011.html

2) list functions are under-specified, we need to fix that for CR.


ChrisW: similar as previous ansers,referring to that we look forward to dialect implementations.

Harold: another comment on Nick's mail.

(Harold, can you type that in?)

ChrisW: If we can't fix the issue in time, we havbe to make it non-normative.

harold: we might need to talk to the XML schema people in XSD.

sandro: I'd be happy to leave only FLD open and get at least the other docs to CR.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Chris to contact WL for response [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/25-rif-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: harold to look at message from Nick B. and check FLD schema [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/25-rif-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009/08/25 16:38:01 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found Scribe: AxelPolleres
Inferring ScribeNick: AxelPolleres
Found Scribe: Axel Polleres
Found ScribeNick: AxelPolleres
Scribes: AxelPolleres, Axel Polleres
Default Present: Mike_Dean, johnhall, AxelPolleres, ChrisW, Sandro, Stella_Mitchell, AdrianP, Harold, DaveReynolds, Gary
Present: Mike_Dean johnhall AxelPolleres ChrisW Sandro Stella_Mitchell AdrianP Harold DaveReynolds Gary
Regrets: MichaelKifer LeoraMorgenstern
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Aug/0022.html
Got date from IRC log name: 25 Aug 2009
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/08/25-rif-minutes.html
People with action items: chris harold

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]