<sandro> zaki, who is on the call?
<sandro> PROPOSED: approve http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Oct/att-0020/2009-10-13-rif-minutes.html
<sandro> scribenick: Harold
<csma> Scribe: Harold Boley
<csma> RESOLVED: approve http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Oct/att-0020/2009-10-13-rif-minutes.html
<hak> me thanks jos! ;-)
<sandro> http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/owl-direct
<sandro> http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/owl-rdf-based
<sandro> http://www.w3.org/ns/entailment/rdf-d
<sandro> etc.
<csma> chris, are you hear us?
<sandro> chris, you can't hear us?
Chris: Names "OWL Full and DL" are not used in OWL 2: Instead something like "Direct Semantics" and "RDF Semantics".
<josb> The language that is determined by RDF graphs being interpreted using the OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics is called "OWL 2 Full".
<josb> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-rdf-based-semantics/
Jos: They reverted to again talk about "OWL Full and DL".
Sandro: OK, but not when talking about the semantics.
Christian: Any problem with changing our profile URIs?
... Or do we want to stick to RIF URIs?
<josb> BTW, I don't have a strong opinion on the OWL DL vs OWL Direct Semantics issue
Sandro: Already consensus in the last telecon to move to new, shared URIs.
<josb> but I do suspect that OWL DL is easier to understand
<sandro> PROPOSED: Okay to change the entailment regime URIs to anything that Jos, Axel, and Sandro agree with.
<AxelPolleres> As for the URIs, the point that was made by OWL was that OWL DL is rather a profile than an entailment regime.... ah, ok. perfect, let's agree then
+1
<josb> +1
<sandro> RESOLVED: Okay to change the entailment regime URIs to anything that Jos, Axel, and Sandro agree with.
<StellaMitchell> and can they let us know when it happens so the test cases can be updated
<josb> @Axel: yes, the OWL people like to complicate things ;)
Sandro: OWL 2 is a Recommendation!
<AxelPolleres> +1 (to the PROPOSED, not to jos' comment ;-))
Review of Actions
Stella: Had a look at EBNF, but not a complete review.
<AxelPolleres> wanted to ask something more: will there anybody be @ TPAC?
<AxelPolleres> there is a meeting planned between HCLS and SPARQL, they also wanted to reach out to RIF, might make sense to then also talk RIF- SPARQL
<ChrisW> continued
Hassan: Trying to get back to converter now.
Public Comments
<ChrisW> Axel , we can talk about this at lunch
Chris: Trying to send response to Wolfgang Laun today.
<ChrisW> Axel?
<csma> ACTION: Chris to send the response to W Laun
<trackbot> Created ACTION-932 - Send the response to W Laun [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-11-03].
<AxelPolleres> sounds good
<csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-comments/2009Oct/0009.html
<csma> implementation report http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-comments/2009Oct/0011.html
<StellaMitchell> re: the test case syntax error comment: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Oct/0024.html
<StellaMitchell> I updated the zip file
Christian: Had changed schema to reflect location's type.
<csma> ACTION: csma to add the syntax for location and profile to agenda of next telecon
<trackbot> Created ACTION-933 - Add the syntax for location and profile to agenda of next telecon [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-11-03].
Harold: We need a 'class' tag like <Const> inside a 'method' tag like <location>.
Status update on our specs
Christian: Most likely we will not have all CR specs meet the exit criteria by end of the week.
... If, say, BLD, PRD, and Core would meet them, but not the other specs, what should we do?
... Move all? Move first batch?
Sandro: Hesitate to make a decision now.
... In general wouldn't want to have two batches within 1 or 2 months.
... Perhaps if it would be three months.
Christian: If one spec would be farther away from being implemented, we would need to be prepared.
... It's unlikely that 29 Oct exit line can be kept for all specs. Can we extend this DL?
Sandro: Yes, we need to decide when we are ready to apply for PR.
Christian: We need to strive to move fast.
<csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Implementations
Known implementations
Christian: CR requires consumer implementations.
<josb> and one for SWC!
<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Exit_Criteria
Christian: What qualifies as a consumer implementation wrt Tests?
Sandro: It's not mentioned explicitly in Exit Criteria but is obviously understood.
... Fair amount of liberty to decide which implementation will qualify.
Gary: Import is problemantic to implement.
<josb> My understanding is that this is not the case
Gary: also lists are problemantic because they are allowed in many places, even as slot names.
... (slot names of frames, not NAUs).
Sandro: We should not have 'not yet implemented' msgs in Exit Criteria implementations.
<csma> ACTION: Gary to send implementation report
<trackbot> Created ACTION-934 - Send implementation report [on Gary Hallmark - due 2009-11-03].
Gary: Will enumerate problemantic cases there.
... Probably a few weeks until such an early Oracle PRD implementation.
... Frames with multiple values is another problemantic case, so perhaps starting with single-valued slots.
... (lists could be used for multiple values.)
Hassan: Similarly, for nesting of frames.
... Maybe annotations can be used for coping with multiple values.
<sandro> (gary, I think your speakerphone is cutting in and out.)
Gary: Any solutions need to be safe and user-friendly.
Chris: Could you use lists generally, not just as a work-around?
... Even for single-valued slots.
<sandro> much static
Chris: white noise ...
<ChrisW> Zakim mute Hassan
Christian: Beyond work-arounds, we should have an object-oriented solution.
... Such issues should go into the implementation reports.
Gary: We should have a Test case for multiple-valued slots.
<sandro> Chris: There is a fundamental difference between these OO representations and FirstOrder representations, and this is it.
Chris: We should find the best interoperable solution, not the prettiest.
... PRD frames should have the right semantics.
Gary: A (standard) piece of metadata should specify the multiplicity of slots.
Christian: Yes, similar for names of rules -- they should be always at one place in the metadata.
Sandro: Object-relational mappers also use some conventions, even if not pretty.
Gary: We have no way to enforce single-valuedness of obviously unique slots like data-of-birth.
Christian: Test case should help.
... Can we meet end-of-November = end-of-WG DL for PRD implementation?
Gary: Yes.
Test cases
Sandro: How to report test results?
... Draft with Stella.
<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Test#Reporting_Test_Results
Sandro: People fill out the XML and send it back.
... Can also be sent to public lists.
Christian: Just publish it, so people can start to use it.
Sandro: Today or tomorrow.
... since reports are due really soon.
<csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Multiple_Context_Error
<csma> PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Multiple_Context_Error
Jos: For negative syntax tests, the highest dialect/s is/are used.
... Yet, say, negative BLD and PRD tests should be visible in Core.
<csma> ACTION: csma to talk to Stella about how to get BLD/PRD negative syntax test cases to appear as relevant to Core
<trackbot> Created ACTION-935 - Talk to Stella about how to get BLD/PRD negative syntax test cases to appear as relevant to Core [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-11-03].
<josb> +1
+1
Gary: Remove "Note: should this be an ImportRejectionTest instead?".
... Category Negative syntax test or ImportRejectionTest?
Christian: Or BOTH?
<csma> PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Multiple_Context_Error as an Import Rejection test case
<josb> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Category:ImportRejectionTest
Jos: So far ImportRejectionTests have only been used for importing OWL or RDF.
<josb> +1
Jos: Let's make this an ImportRejectionTest.
<csma> RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Multiple_Context_Error as an Import Rejection test case
<csma> ACTION: move that test case to new category
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - move
<ChrisW> yes
<hak> ok
<csma> ACTION: csma to move that test case to new category
<trackbot> Created ACTION-936 - Move that test case to new category [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-11-03].
<ChrisW> yes
<csma> Next telecon November 10
<josb> bye!
<csma> Regrats: DaveReynolds, MichaelKifer