14:41:22 RRSAgent has joined #rif 14:41:22 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/09/29-rif-irc 14:41:35 RRsagent, make log public 14:41:45 rrsagent, make minutes 14:41:45 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/29-rif-minutes.html csma 14:42:09 Chair: Christian de Sainte Marie 14:43:03 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Sep/0101.html 14:44:33 csma has changed the topic to: #rif 29 Sept RIF agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Sep/0101.html 14:45:09 Regrets: AxelPolleres, StellaMitchell, Harold Boley 14:45:16 rrsagent, make minutes 14:45:16 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/29-rif-minutes.html csma 14:54:19 ChrisW has joined #rif 14:54:54 all set? 14:58:49 zakim, list agenda 14:58:49 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda: 14:58:50 9. AOB [from ChrisW] 14:58:50 10. UCR [from ChrisW] 14:59:17 SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started 14:59:24 +[IBM] 15:01:14 josb has joined #rif 15:01:29 Problems joining... 15:01:30 LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif 15:01:40 same here... 15:01:46 will try UK bridge 15:01:48 cke has joined #RIF 15:01:56 adrianpaschke has joined #rif 15:01:58 +??P26 15:02:09 +Leora_Morgenstern 15:02:10 zakim, ??P26 is me 15:02:11 +csma; got it 15:02:19 zakim, ibm is temporarily me 15:02:19 +ChrisW; got it 15:02:24 DaveReynolds has joined #rif 15:02:27 +??P53 15:02:31 + +039047101aaaa 15:02:44 +??P54 15:02:54 Zakim, ??P54 is me 15:02:54 +adrianpaschke; got it 15:03:07 +??P55 15:03:13 IBM is temporary, ChrisW is forever... 15:03:26 zakim, who is here? 15:03:26 On the phone I see ChrisW, csma, Leora_Morgenstern, ??P53, josb, adrianpaschke, DaveReynolds 15:03:29 On IRC I see adrianpaschke, cke, LeoraMorgenstern, josb, ChrisW, RRSAgent, csma, AxelPolleres, sandro_, Zakim, trackbot, sandro 15:03:36 DaveReynolds has joined #rif 15:04:31 zakim, who is talking? 15:04:41 ChrisW, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P53 (20%) 15:05:15 zakim, ??p53 is cke 15:05:15 +cke; got it 15:05:27 zakim, mute cke 15:05:27 cke should now be muted 15:05:35 I'm mute now. Is the echo comes from me? 15:06:04 Scribe: Dave Reynolds 15:06:13 scribenick: DaveReynolds 15:06:13 Scribenick: DaveReynolds 15:06:40 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Sep/att-0045/15-Sept-2009-rif-mins.html 15:07:01 PROPOSED: to accept the minutes from Sept &( TELECON 15:07:15 PROPOSED: to accept the minutes from Sept 15 telecon 15:07:44 +Sandro 15:07:51 (sorry I'm late) 15:07:56 MichaelKifer has joined #rif 15:09:05 Michael_Kifer has joined #rif 15:09:25 + +1.631.833.aabb 15:09:35 zakim, aabb is me 15:09:35 +Michael_Kifer; got it 15:09:36 RESOLVED: to accept the minutes from Sept 15 telecon 15:10:07 Topic: Liason 15:11:00 Owl is at PR 15:11:05 Topic: Actions 15:11:33 Sandro confirmed that OWL 2 went to PR with auto-inc ref to old version of XML Schema datatypes 15:12:21 close action-925 15:12:21 ACTION-925 Review RIF Guide closed 15:12:48 close action-924 15:12:48 ACTION-924 Review test cases closed 15:13:00 close action-923 15:13:00 ACTION-923 Review RIF Guide closed 15:13:04 Gary_Hallmark has joined #rif 15:13:15 close action-921 15:13:15 ACTION-921 Review the OWL2RL by 1 week closed 15:13:33 +ghallmar 15:14:10 close action-917 15:14:10 ACTION-917 Review changes to xml document by 2 weeks closed 15:14:19 close action-916 15:14:20 ACTION-916 Review changes to xml document by 2 weeks closed 15:14:25 close action-915 15:14:25 ACTION-915 Update xml data document by 1 week closed 15:15:28 close action-910 15:15:28 ACTION-910 Update Sept 1 minutes closed 15:15:44 close action-908 15:15:44 ACTION-908 Fix/update AssertRetract test case closed 15:16:04 action-907 pending-review 15:16:55 close action-833 15:16:55 ACTION-833 Send email about the XML schemas TF closed 15:17:49 ack cke 15:18:00 close action-791 15:18:00 ACTION-791 Write test cases for PRD closed 15:18:03 action 791 is done 15:18:03 Sorry, couldn't find user - 791 15:19:57 Topic: Public comments 15:20:12 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-comments/2009Sep/0008.html 15:20:56 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_JM 15:23:22 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 s/Sandro:/Christian:/ 15:24:09 Chris: didn't want to force people to remember which is in RIF and which in XF&O 15:24:43 Sandro: that is a weak reason, because it only really applies to hand authoring 15:25:56 Sandro: RIF is supposed to be automatically generated (so only translator implementor needs to sort the namespaces) 15:27:32 Sandro: in the cases where the names are the same are our semantics really intended to be identical? 15:27:43 Gary: there is a difference with error handling. 15:28:51 Sandro: should we make this difference clearer? See Jim's comment on 'adapted' v. 'adopted' 15:28:54 we're modifying; this is another motivation for using a different namespace 15:29:54 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 Jos: and for errors we leave the behaviour undefined, but in XF&O there is a defined error behaviour 15:30:39 Chris: and that difference is explained in DTB 15:31:50 Chris: the error behaviour is given in bullet 5 at start of section 4 in DTB 15:32:49 Jos: should put 'adapted' in overview and explain it there 15:33:11 change from 'adopted' to 'adapted' to overview and abstract 15:33:17 s/to/in/ 15:34:22 [Chris makes change in real time] 15:35:39 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 Move on to comment #3 on xs:duration 15:40:38 Chris: there is no mapping to an entity in the domain, no defined value space 15:40:53 http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#duration 15:41:03 Dave: actually it is defined 15:43:13 +1 15:43:18 +q 15:43:57 ack jos 15:44:12 Dave: it seems to be defined in terms of a pair of months and seconds, with a partial ordering of pairs 15:44:42 Jos: the problem is that with other partial ordering we can't define equality in the way we need 15:44:58 Sandro: there is an equality defined (as in identity) 15:45:19 Sandro: this is mostly editorial, can't we just say it is partially ordered? 15:45:31 chris: but being partially ordered is okay. 15:45:37 Chris: partial order is OK, but the problem is identity. 15:46:02 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 q? 15:46:35 Sandro: we have to use 1.0 for now anyway and if 1.1 advances then we can switch 15:48:39 Chris: can just remove comment, "not included for historical reasons" 15:48:55 Sandro: and there was the goal of alignment with OWL 15:49:44 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DTB#Symbol_Spaces 15:50:27 DaveReynolds has joined #rif 15:51:50 DaveReynolds has joined #rif 15:53:04 Chris: edited DTB to remove comment in 2.2.1 15:54:11 Looking at comment #4 15:54:42 Sandro: just a question of which spec to reference - XDM or XSD 15:55:57 sandro: maybe lets not do this, since it increases our dependency on XSD 1.1 15:57:05 point 4: leave it for now -- we'll fix if XSD 1.1 is mature enough. 15:57:56 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 s/pointed them/point/ 15:58:35 Move on to point #5 16:00:21 Sandro: just an error, fix in section 2.3 of DTB, the four unsigned should be shifted over to under nonNegativeInteger 16:00:30 see: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#built-in-datatypes 16:02:45 Point #6 - negative guards 16:03:20 Sandro - believes our spec is correct but comment suggests we need better explanation 16:05:28 but oddly we didn't name it isLiteralAndNotInteger 16:06:48 ACTION: sandro to draft text for DTB on negative guards -- due today 16:06:49 Created ACTION-927 - Draft text for DTB on negative guards -- due today [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-10-06]. 16:07:30 Point #7 trivial, sandro will fix. 16:07:50 Point #8 - type promotion 16:08:39 q+ 16:08:43 +q 16:09:02 ack jos 16:09:32 jos: promotion only comes into play with disjoint value space 16:09:38 -Leora_Morgenstern 16:09:51 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 +LeoraMorgenstern 16:10:24 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 Jos: not well defined in XPath and so we are just inheriting that 16:11:10 Java does type promotion 16:12:09 http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#built-in-datatypes 16:12:16 For simplicity, each operator is defined to operate on operands of the same type and return the same type. 16:12:38 See http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath20/#promotion 16:13:45 Jos: agree that if you read it strictly then add(double, decimal) in RIF is undefined at present 16:15:01 in my implementation, decimal + double = decimal 16:15:22 What is decimal? Is this larger than double? 16:16:19 decimal is usually mapped to java.math.BigDecimal 16:16:43 OK, I see. 16:16:59 Christian: from an implementation point of view would expect promotion as in Gary's implementation 16:17:11 Jos: in xpath decimal + double -> double 16:17:43 http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath20/#promotion 16:17:53 Gary: maybe just following common sense, because decimal can be arbitrary precision 16:18:04 Decimal definition in the .net platform: http://www.yoda.arachsys.com/csharp/decimal.html 16:18:22 http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/#func-signatures 16:19:02 Jos: one argument is to avoid introducing spurious precision 16:19:16 q+ 16:19:37 Jos: the intention in DTB was to do promotion 16:19:43 ack me 16:21:42 q+ 16:22:01 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 ack jos 16:22:23 http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-xpath-functions-20070123/#op.numeric 16:22:33 For simplicity, each operator is defined to operate on operands of the same type and return the same type. 16:22:36 Jos: the mapping is only defined for the case where the values have have the same type, see link above 16:24:33 action: jos to update mappings section of DTB to resolve type promotion issue 16:24:33 Created ACTION-928 - Update mappings section of DTB to resolve type promotion issue [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2009-10-06]. 16:25:05 q+ 16:25:30 Sandro: other non-trivial comment is #11 on numbering list elements from 1 to match substring etc 16:26:09 +1 for +1 16:27:12 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 +1 "it is unfortunate" and leaving it as is. 16:27:24 q? 16:27:32 0 for 0 16:27:47 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DTB#Numeric_Functions 16:27:48 ack Jos 16:29:53 Jos: what are the a1 and a2 in the mapping definition? 16:30:16 Chris: they are the actual values passed in 16:32:42 PROPOSED: extend meeting by 15 mins 16:32:52 +1 16:32:54 +0 16:32:58 +1 16:33:01 RESOLVED: extend meeting by 15 mins 16:34:20 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 Topic: OWL 2 RL publication 16:35:04 Jos: it can be published as is 16:36:39 PROPOSED: Publish RIF-OWL2/RL [5] as first public working draft. 16:36:44 +1 16:36:46 +1 16:36:47 +1 16:36:48 +1 16:36:53 +1 16:36:54 +1 16:37:04 +1 (W3C0 16:37:06 +1 (W3C) 16:37:12 +1 (HP) 16:37:13 +1 (IBM) 16:37:15 +1 Oracle 16:37:26 +1 (self) 16:37:35 +1 16:37:53 RESOLVED: Publish RIF-OWL2/RL as first public working draft. 16:38:28 Topic: XML Data 16:38:41 Christian: a number of substantial comments from Dave and Gary 16:39:34 Christian: can we publish with editorial notes? 16:40:40 Dave: Ok if editorial notes on the name mapping and semantics issues 16:41:23 Gary: this is a first working draft so OK with editorial comments, there are quite a few of those needed 16:42:38 PROPOSED: Publish RIF-XMLdata as FPWD, subject to agreement on editorial notes 16:43:01 +1 IBM 16:43:06 +1 16:43:08 +1 Oracle 16:43:09 sandro: +1 (W3C) 16:43:10 +1 16:43:13 +1 16:43:13 +1 FUB 16:43:15 +1(self) 16:43:21 +1 (HP) 16:44:11 RESOLVED: Publish RIF-XMLdata as FPWD, subject to agreement on editorial note 16:44:15 Topic: Guide 16:44:34 Chris: would like to change title before first publication 16:44:52 Sando: ok to publish as first working draft 16:45:06 Michael: how about "Overview of RIF" 16:45:25 Leora: "Overview of RIF Documents"? 16:45:32 Michael: it is more than the documents 16:45:52 what about "Introduction to RIF" 16:47:23 PROPOSED: extend to 10 to 16:47:37 RESOLVED: Extend to 10 to 16:47:48 PROPOSED: publish "Guide" as "Overview" 16:47:52 "Roadmap to RIF documents" 16:48:20 action completed: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DTB#Numeric_Functions 16:48:20 Sorry, couldn't find user - completed 16:48:35 Chris: key thing is to have the short name be overview rather than guide 16:48:54 +2 16:48:56 +1 RIF Overview 16:48:57 Chris: who prefers RIF Overview 16:49:00 Prefer RIF Overview: 16:49:01 +1 16:49:03 +1 16:49:04 +1 (Sandro) 16:49:17 prefers RIF Document overview 16:49:19 +1 16:49:21 +1 16:49:46 PROPOSED: publish "Guide" as "RIF Overview" 16:49:49 +1 (IBM) 16:49:53 +1 16:49:54 +1 Oracle 16:49:57 +1 (HP) 16:50:07 +1 Sandro (W3C) 16:50:22 +1 (FUB) 16:50:33 +1 16:50:36 RESOLVED: publish "Guide" as "RIF Overview" 16:50:41 +1 16:50:47 Topic: Test cases 16:50:51 +Sandro.a 16:50:55 -Sandro 16:51:06 Chris: reviews were positive 16:51:11 Sandro: OK to publish 16:51:11 PROPOSED: Publish RIF Test cases as 2nd public working draft. 16:51:16 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 +1 16:51:58 +1 16:52:01 +1 16:52:03 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 +1 16:52:06 +1 16:52:16 +1 (FUB) 16:52:24 Sandro: +1 (W3C) 16:52:31 +1 Oracle 16:52:50 RESOLVED: Publish RIF Test cases as 2nd public working draft 16:52:51 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 leora: Overview is not finished, we can change it 16:52:55 RESOLVED: Publish RIF Test cases as 2nd public working draft 16:53:07 Next meeting 13 October 16:53:09 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 Chris, I realize that. I just wanted to record what I said, since Dave didn't. 16:53:33 Okay, Michael, I misunderstood. 16:53:43 I am still in favor of publication of this as a first 16:53:43 -ghallmar 16:53:53 zakim, list attendees 16:53:53 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 working draft; however, my comments would have been different. 16:53:56 ... LeoraMorgenstern 16:53:58 -adrianpaschke 16:53:59 -josb 16:54:02 rrsagent, make minutes 16:54:02 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/09/29-rif-minutes.html csma 16:54:05 -cke 16:54:07 -LeoraMorgenstern 16:54:59 -DaveReynolds 16:55:04 -Michael_Kifer 16:55:55 -ChrisW 16:55:56 -Sandro.a 16:55:57 -csma 16:55:58 SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended 16:55:59 Attendees were Leora_Morgenstern, csma, ChrisW, +039047101aaaa, josb, adrianpaschke, DaveReynolds, cke, Sandro, +1.631.833.aabb, Michael_Kifer, ghallmar, LeoraMorgenstern 16:56:24 MichaelKifer has left #rif 18:04:39 AxelPolleres has joined #rif