IRC log of rif on 2009-09-29

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:41:22 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
14:41:22 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:41:35 [csma]
RRsagent, make log public
14:41:45 [csma]
rrsagent, make minutes
14:41:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate csma
14:42:09 [csma]
Chair: Christian de Sainte Marie
14:43:03 [csma]
14:44:33 [csma]
csma has changed the topic to: #rif 29 Sept RIF agenda:
14:45:09 [csma]
Regrets: AxelPolleres, StellaMitchell, Harold Boley
14:45:16 [csma]
rrsagent, make minutes
14:45:16 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate csma
14:54:19 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #rif
14:54:54 [ChrisW]
all set?
14:58:49 [ChrisW]
zakim, list agenda
14:58:49 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda:
14:58:50 [Zakim]
9. AOB [from ChrisW]
14:58:50 [Zakim]
10. UCR [from ChrisW]
14:59:17 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
14:59:24 [Zakim]
15:01:14 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
15:01:29 [csma]
Problems joining...
15:01:30 [LeoraMorgenstern]
LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
15:01:40 [josb]
same here...
15:01:46 [josb]
will try UK bridge
15:01:48 [cke]
cke has joined #RIF
15:01:56 [adrianpaschke]
adrianpaschke has joined #rif
15:01:58 [Zakim]
15:02:09 [Zakim]
15:02:10 [csma]
zakim, ??P26 is me
15:02:11 [Zakim]
+csma; got it
15:02:19 [ChrisW]
zakim, ibm is temporarily me
15:02:19 [Zakim]
+ChrisW; got it
15:02:24 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
15:02:27 [Zakim]
15:02:31 [Zakim]
+ +039047101aaaa
15:02:44 [Zakim]
15:02:54 [adrianpaschke]
Zakim, ??P54 is me
15:02:54 [Zakim]
+adrianpaschke; got it
15:03:07 [Zakim]
15:03:13 [josb]
IBM is temporary, ChrisW is forever...
15:03:26 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is here?
15:03:26 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ChrisW, csma, Leora_Morgenstern, ??P53, josb, adrianpaschke, DaveReynolds
15:03:29 [Zakim]
On IRC I see adrianpaschke, cke, LeoraMorgenstern, josb, ChrisW, RRSAgent, csma, AxelPolleres, sandro_, Zakim, trackbot, sandro
15:03:36 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
15:04:31 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is talking?
15:04:41 [Zakim]
ChrisW, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P53 (20%)
15:05:15 [ChrisW]
zakim, ??p53 is cke
15:05:15 [Zakim]
+cke; got it
15:05:27 [csma]
zakim, mute cke
15:05:27 [Zakim]
cke should now be muted
15:05:35 [cke]
I'm mute now. Is the echo comes from me?
15:06:04 [csma]
Scribe: Dave Reynolds
15:06:13 [csma]
scribenick: DaveReynolds
15:06:13 [DaveReynolds]
Scribenick: DaveReynolds
15:06:40 [csma]
15:07:01 [csma]
PROPOSED: to accept the minutes from Sept &( TELECON
15:07:15 [csma]
PROPOSED: to accept the minutes from Sept 15 telecon
15:07:44 [Zakim]
15:07:51 [sandro_]
(sorry I'm late)
15:07:56 [MichaelKifer]
MichaelKifer has joined #rif
15:09:05 [Michael_Kifer]
Michael_Kifer has joined #rif
15:09:25 [Zakim]
+ +1.631.833.aabb
15:09:35 [Michael_Kifer]
zakim, aabb is me
15:09:35 [Zakim]
+Michael_Kifer; got it
15:09:36 [csma]
RESOLVED: to accept the minutes from Sept 15 telecon
15:10:07 [ChrisW]
Topic: Liason
15:11:00 [ChrisW]
Owl is at PR
15:11:05 [ChrisW]
Topic: Actions
15:11:33 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro confirmed that OWL 2 went to PR with auto-inc ref to old version of XML Schema datatypes
15:12:21 [ChrisW]
close action-925
15:12:21 [trackbot]
ACTION-925 Review RIF Guide closed
15:12:48 [ChrisW]
close action-924
15:12:48 [trackbot]
ACTION-924 Review test cases closed
15:13:00 [ChrisW]
close action-923
15:13:00 [trackbot]
ACTION-923 Review RIF Guide closed
15:13:04 [Gary_Hallmark]
Gary_Hallmark has joined #rif
15:13:15 [ChrisW]
close action-921
15:13:15 [trackbot]
ACTION-921 Review the OWL2RL by 1 week closed
15:13:33 [Zakim]
15:14:10 [ChrisW]
close action-917
15:14:10 [trackbot]
ACTION-917 Review changes to xml document by 2 weeks closed
15:14:19 [ChrisW]
close action-916
15:14:20 [trackbot]
ACTION-916 Review changes to xml document by 2 weeks closed
15:14:25 [ChrisW]
close action-915
15:14:25 [trackbot]
ACTION-915 Update xml data document by 1 week closed
15:15:28 [DaveReynolds]
close action-910
15:15:28 [trackbot]
ACTION-910 Update Sept 1 minutes closed
15:15:44 [DaveReynolds]
close action-908
15:15:44 [trackbot]
ACTION-908 Fix/update AssertRetract test case closed
15:16:04 [DaveReynolds]
action-907 pending-review
15:16:55 [DaveReynolds]
close action-833
15:16:55 [trackbot]
ACTION-833 Send email about the XML schemas TF closed
15:17:49 [ChrisW]
ack cke
15:18:00 [DaveReynolds]
close action-791
15:18:00 [trackbot]
ACTION-791 Write test cases for PRD closed
15:18:03 [cke]
action 791 is done
15:18:03 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - 791
15:19:57 [DaveReynolds]
Topic: Public comments
15:20:12 [csma]
15:20:56 [ChrisW]
15:23:22 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: re comment #2, rif namesapce, Christian and Dave both recalled agreement to create namesapce for predicates and for functions, and have single namespace for functions (which include XF&O operators)
15:23:38 [DaveReynolds]
15:24:09 [DaveReynolds]
Chris: didn't want to force people to remember which is in RIF and which in XF&O
15:24:43 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: that is a weak reason, because it only really applies to hand authoring
15:25:56 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: RIF is supposed to be automatically generated (so only translator implementor needs to sort the namespaces)
15:27:32 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: in the cases where the names are the same are our semantics really intended to be identical?
15:27:43 [DaveReynolds]
Gary: there is a difference with error handling.
15:28:51 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: should we make this difference clearer? See Jim's comment on 'adapted' v. 'adopted'
15:28:54 [josb]
we're modifying; this is another motivation for using a different namespace
15:29:54 [DaveReynolds]
Jos: we use them in a different way, we package some XF&O functions as predicates (which don't exist in F&O)
15:30:21 [DaveReynolds]
Jos: and for errors we leave the behaviour undefined, but in XF&O there is a defined error behaviour
15:30:39 [DaveReynolds]
Chris: and that difference is explained in DTB
15:31:50 [DaveReynolds]
Chris: the error behaviour is given in bullet 5 at start of section 4 in DTB
15:32:49 [DaveReynolds]
Jos: should put 'adapted' in overview and explain it there
15:33:11 [sandro]
change from 'adopted' to 'adapted' to overview and abstract
15:33:17 [sandro]
15:34:22 [DaveReynolds]
[Chris makes change in real time]
15:35:39 [sandro]
The adaptation is primarily to reframe boolean functions as% logical predicates and that instead of error results, we do not define results, as noted above.
15:39:06 [DaveReynolds]
Move on to comment #3 on xs:duration
15:40:38 [DaveReynolds]
Chris: there is no mapping to an entity in the domain, no defined value space
15:40:53 [DaveReynolds]
15:41:03 [DaveReynolds]
Dave: actually it is defined
15:43:13 [josb]
15:43:18 [josb]
15:43:57 [csma]
ack jos
15:44:12 [DaveReynolds]
Dave: it seems to be defined in terms of a pair of months and seconds, with a partial ordering of pairs
15:44:42 [DaveReynolds]
Jos: the problem is that with other partial ordering we can't define equality in the way we need
15:44:58 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: there is an equality defined (as in identity)
15:45:19 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: this is mostly editorial, can't we just say it is partially ordered?
15:45:31 [sandro]
chris: but being partially ordered is okay.
15:45:37 [DaveReynolds]
Chris: partial order is OK, but the problem is identity.
15:46:02 [DaveReynolds]
Jos: the original decision was made when we were thinking about XML Schema 1.0 and the 1.1 has improved on that
15:46:26 [csma]
15:46:35 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: we have to use 1.0 for now anyway and if 1.1 advances then we can switch
15:48:39 [DaveReynolds]
Chris: can just remove comment, "not included for historical reasons"
15:48:55 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: and there was the goal of alignment with OWL
15:49:44 [sandro]
15:50:27 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
15:51:50 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
15:53:04 [DaveReynolds]
Chris: edited DTB to remove comment in 2.2.1
15:54:11 [DaveReynolds]
Looking at comment #4
15:54:42 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: just a question of which spec to reference - XDM or XSD
15:55:57 [sandro]
sandro: maybe lets not do this, since it increases our dependency on XSD 1.1
15:57:05 [sandro]
point 4: leave it for now -- we'll fix if XSD 1.1 is mature enough.
15:57:56 [DaveReynolds]
Christian: in RIF-XML referred to XS 1.1 for all, didn't take those two types out and pointed them to XDM
15:58:09 [DaveReynolds]
s/pointed them/point/
15:58:35 [DaveReynolds]
Move on to point #5
16:00:21 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: just an error, fix in section 2.3 of DTB, the four unsigned should be shifted over to under nonNegativeInteger
16:00:30 [josb]
16:02:45 [DaveReynolds]
Point #6 - negative guards
16:03:20 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro - believes our spec is correct but comment suggests we need better explanation
16:05:28 [Gary]
but oddly we didn't name it isLiteralAndNotInteger
16:06:48 [sandro]
ACTION: sandro to draft text for DTB on negative guards -- due today
16:06:49 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-927 - Draft text for DTB on negative guards -- due today [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-10-06].
16:07:30 [DaveReynolds]
Point #7 trivial, sandro will fix.
16:07:50 [DaveReynolds]
Point #8 - type promotion
16:08:39 [josb]
16:08:43 [josb]
16:09:02 [csma]
ack jos
16:09:32 [sandro]
jos: promotion only comes into play with disjoint value space
16:09:38 [Zakim]
16:09:51 [DaveReynolds]
Dave: the issue is that XPath does the type promotion in the language, so the F&O only apply to uniform args
16:10:11 [Zakim]
16:10:24 [DaveReynolds]
Jos: but for say int->decimal is OK because those are subtypes, the problem is for things like int->double which are disjoint
16:11:06 [DaveReynolds]
Jos: not well defined in XPath and so we are just inheriting that
16:11:10 [cke]
Java does type promotion
16:12:09 [josb]
16:12:16 [josb]
For simplicity, each operator is defined to operate on operands of the same type and return the same type.
16:12:38 [DaveReynolds]
16:13:45 [DaveReynolds]
Jos: agree that if you read it strictly then add(double, decimal) in RIF is undefined at present
16:15:01 [Gary]
in my implementation, decimal + double = decimal
16:15:22 [cke]
What is decimal? Is this larger than double?
16:16:19 [Gary]
decimal is usually mapped to java.math.BigDecimal
16:16:43 [cke]
OK, I see.
16:16:59 [DaveReynolds]
Christian: from an implementation point of view would expect promotion as in Gary's implementation
16:17:11 [DaveReynolds]
Jos: in xpath decimal + double -> double
16:17:43 [josb]
16:17:53 [DaveReynolds]
Gary: maybe just following common sense, because decimal can be arbitrary precision
16:18:04 [cke]
Decimal definition in the .net platform:
16:18:22 [DaveReynolds]
16:19:02 [DaveReynolds]
Jos: one argument is to avoid introducing spurious precision
16:19:16 [DaveReynolds]
16:19:37 [DaveReynolds]
Jos: the intention in DTB was to do promotion
16:19:43 [DaveReynolds]
ack me
16:21:42 [josb]
16:22:01 [DaveReynolds]
Dave: there is a description of type promotion, specially for xs:decimal to xs:float/double, in F&O so maybe we just need to refer to this more explicitly
16:22:14 [csma]
ack jos
16:22:23 [josb]
16:22:33 [josb]
For simplicity, each operator is defined to operate on operands of the same type and return the same type.
16:22:36 [DaveReynolds]
Jos: the mapping is only defined for the case where the values have have the same type, see link above
16:24:33 [DaveReynolds]
action: jos to update mappings section of DTB to resolve type promotion issue
16:24:33 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-928 - Update mappings section of DTB to resolve type promotion issue [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2009-10-06].
16:25:05 [josb]
16:25:30 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: other non-trivial comment is #11 on numbering list elements from 1 to match substring etc
16:26:09 [Gary]
+1 for +1
16:27:12 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: switching the indexing of lists might affect definition of negative indexes, as well as require rework of test cases and formal semantics
16:27:18 [sandro]
+1 "it is unfortunate" and leaving it as is.
16:27:24 [josb]
16:27:32 [Gary]
0 for 0
16:27:47 [josb]
16:27:48 [csma]
ack Jos
16:29:53 [DaveReynolds]
Jos: what are the a1 and a2 in the mapping definition?
16:30:16 [DaveReynolds]
Chris: they are the actual values passed in
16:32:42 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: extend meeting by 15 mins
16:32:52 [ChrisW]
16:32:54 [DaveReynolds]
16:32:58 [sandro]
16:33:01 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: extend meeting by 15 mins
16:34:20 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: will do other editorial changes in response to Jim comments, aim to do that today, will need quick review of text by WG, so can send response tomorrow
16:34:37 [DaveReynolds]
Topic: OWL 2 RL publication
16:35:04 [DaveReynolds]
Jos: it can be published as is
16:36:39 [csma]
PROPOSED: Publish RIF-OWL2/RL [5] as first public working draft.
16:36:44 [sandro]
16:36:46 [DaveReynolds]
16:36:47 [adrianpaschke]
16:36:48 [ChrisW]
16:36:53 [cke]
16:36:54 [csma]
16:37:04 [sandro]
+1 (W3C0
16:37:06 [sandro]
+1 (W3C)
16:37:12 [DaveReynolds]
+1 (HP)
16:37:13 [ChrisW]
+1 (IBM)
16:37:15 [Gary]
+1 Oracle
16:37:26 [LeoraMorgenstern]
+1 (self)
16:37:35 [MichaelKifer]
16:37:53 [csma]
RESOLVED: Publish RIF-OWL2/RL as first public working draft.
16:38:28 [DaveReynolds]
Topic: XML Data
16:38:41 [DaveReynolds]
Christian: a number of substantial comments from Dave and Gary
16:39:34 [DaveReynolds]
Christian: can we publish with editorial notes?
16:40:40 [DaveReynolds]
Dave: Ok if editorial notes on the name mapping and semantics issues
16:41:23 [DaveReynolds]
Gary: this is a first working draft so OK with editorial comments, there are quite a few of those needed
16:42:38 [csma]
PROPOSED: Publish RIF-XMLdata as FPWD, subject to agreement on editorial notes
16:43:01 [ChrisW]
+1 IBM
16:43:06 [DaveReynolds]
16:43:08 [Gary]
+1 Oracle
16:43:09 [ChrisW]
sandro: +1 (W3C)
16:43:10 [adrianpaschke]
16:43:13 [LeoraMorgenstern]
16:43:13 [josb]
+1 FUB
16:43:15 [MichaelKifer]
16:43:21 [DaveReynolds]
+1 (HP)
16:44:11 [DaveReynolds]
RESOLVED: Publish RIF-XMLdata as FPWD, subject to agreement on editorial note
16:44:15 [DaveReynolds]
Topic: Guide
16:44:34 [DaveReynolds]
Chris: would like to change title before first publication
16:44:52 [DaveReynolds]
Sando: ok to publish as first working draft
16:45:06 [DaveReynolds]
Michael: how about "Overview of RIF"
16:45:25 [DaveReynolds]
Leora: "Overview of RIF Documents"?
16:45:32 [DaveReynolds]
Michael: it is more than the documents
16:45:52 [adrianpaschke]
what about "Introduction to RIF"
16:47:23 [csma]
PROPOSED: extend to 10 to
16:47:37 [csma]
RESOLVED: Extend to 10 to
16:47:48 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: publish "Guide" as "Overview"
16:47:52 [csma]
"Roadmap to RIF documents"
16:48:20 [josb]
action completed:
16:48:20 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - completed
16:48:35 [DaveReynolds]
Chris: key thing is to have the short name be overview rather than guide
16:48:54 [MichaelKifer]
16:48:56 [josb]
+1 RIF Overview
16:48:57 [DaveReynolds]
Chris: who prefers RIF Overview
16:49:00 [ChrisW]
Prefer RIF Overview:
16:49:01 [DaveReynolds]
16:49:03 [ChrisW]
16:49:04 [DaveReynolds]
+1 (Sandro)
16:49:17 [ChrisW]
prefers RIF Document overview
16:49:19 [LeoraMorgenstern]
16:49:21 [csma]
16:49:46 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: publish "Guide" as "RIF Overview"
16:49:49 [ChrisW]
+1 (IBM)
16:49:53 [adrianpaschke]
16:49:54 [Gary]
+1 Oracle
16:49:57 [DaveReynolds]
+1 (HP)
16:50:07 [DaveReynolds]
+1 Sandro (W3C)
16:50:22 [josb]
+1 (FUB)
16:50:33 [MichaelKifer]
16:50:36 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: publish "Guide" as "RIF Overview"
16:50:41 [LeoraMorgenstern]
16:50:47 [DaveReynolds]
Topic: Test cases
16:50:51 [Zakim]
16:50:55 [Zakim]
16:51:06 [DaveReynolds]
Chris: reviews were positive
16:51:11 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: OK to publish
16:51:11 [csma]
PROPOSED: Publish RIF Test cases as 2nd public working draft.
16:51:16 [LeoraMorgenstern]
When I reviewed what was then called The Guide, I reviewed it as a guide to documents, not as a RIF Overview.
16:51:51 [ChrisW]
16:51:58 [DaveReynolds]
16:52:01 [adrianpaschke]
16:52:03 [LeoraMorgenstern]
I made the point in my review about the slant of the guide, but since I felt it was basically just a guide to the documents, I didn't feel it was of great importance to change.
16:52:04 [MichaelKifer]
16:52:06 [LeoraMorgenstern]
16:52:16 [josb]
+1 (FUB)
16:52:24 [ChrisW]
Sandro: +1 (W3C)
16:52:31 [Gary]
+1 Oracle
16:52:50 [DaveReynolds]
RESOLVED: Publish RIF Test cases as 2nd public working draft
16:52:51 [LeoraMorgenstern]
However, if this document is really considered an overview to RIF, I would make more pointed suggestions about how the document should be modified.
16:52:54 [ChrisW]
leora: Overview is not finished, we can change it
16:52:55 [csma]
RESOLVED: Publish RIF Test cases as 2nd public working draft
16:53:07 [csma]
Next meeting 13 October
16:53:09 [MichaelKifer]
There was nothing in the document that suggested it is just a list of documents. The old title was "A Guide to RIF" not to RIF documents.
16:53:15 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris, I realize that. I just wanted to record what I said, since Dave didn't.
16:53:33 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Okay, Michael, I misunderstood.
16:53:43 [LeoraMorgenstern]
I am still in favor of publication of this as a first
16:53:43 [Zakim]
16:53:53 [ChrisW]
zakim, list attendees
16:53:53 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Leora_Morgenstern, csma, ChrisW, +039047101aaaa, josb, adrianpaschke, DaveReynolds, cke, Sandro, +1.631.833.aabb, Michael_Kifer, ghallmar,
16:53:54 [LeoraMorgenstern]
working draft; however, my comments would have been different.
16:53:56 [Zakim]
... LeoraMorgenstern
16:53:58 [Zakim]
16:53:59 [Zakim]
16:54:02 [csma]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:54:02 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate csma
16:54:05 [Zakim]
16:54:07 [Zakim]
16:54:59 [Zakim]
16:55:04 [Zakim]
16:55:55 [Zakim]
16:55:56 [Zakim]
16:55:57 [Zakim]
16:55:58 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
16:55:59 [Zakim]
Attendees were Leora_Morgenstern, csma, ChrisW, +039047101aaaa, josb, adrianpaschke, DaveReynolds, cke, Sandro, +1.631.833.aabb, Michael_Kifer, ghallmar, LeoraMorgenstern
16:56:24 [MichaelKifer]
MichaelKifer has left #rif
18:04:39 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #rif