15:57:31 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rif
15:57:31 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/01/19-rif-irc
15:57:33 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #rif
15:57:46 <sandro> RRSAgent, make record public
15:57:50 <sandro> zakim, this will be rif
15:57:50 <Zakim> ok, sandro; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
15:57:56 <sandro> zakim, who is here?
15:57:56 <Zakim> SW_RIF()11:00AM has not yet started, sandro
15:57:57 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, Harold, csma, AxelPolleres, trackbot, sandro
15:58:15 <sandro> Harold, any response on the wiki problem yet?
15:58:52 <csma> csma has changed the topic to: #rif 19 January RIF telecon; agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2010Jan/0007.html
15:59:10 <csma> Meeting: RIF telecon Jan 19 2010
15:59:22 <csma> Chair: Chris Welty
15:59:35 <csma> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2010Jan/0007.html
16:00:38 <ChrisW> ChrisW has joined #rif
16:00:49 <Zakim> SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
16:01:16 <ChrisW> list agenda
16:01:21 <ChrisW> zakim, list agenda?
16:01:22 <DaveReynolds> DaveReynolds has joined #rif
16:01:26 <Zakim> +[IBM]
16:01:31 <StellaMitchell> StellaMitchell has joined #rif
16:01:33 <sandro> oh, sorry, didn't do the zakim agenda thing.
16:01:34 <ChrisW> zakim, ibm is temporarily me
16:01:47 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
16:02:03 <Zakim> +ChrisW; got it
16:02:03 <ChrisW> agenda+ Admin
16:02:12 <ChrisW> zakim, next item
16:02:20 <ChrisW> agenda+ Liason
16:02:23 <AdrianP> AdrianP has joined #rif
16:02:24 <mdean> mdean has joined #rif
16:02:27 <ChrisW> agenda+ Actions
16:02:35 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Admin" taken up [from ChrisW]
16:02:36 <ChrisW> agenda+ Public Comments
16:02:37 <Zakim> +??P50
16:02:47 <ChrisW> agenda+ XML Syntax of Import
16:03:06 <Zakim> + +49.08.aaaa
16:03:06 <ChrisW> agenda+ PRD
16:03:11 <ChrisW> agenda+ Implementations
16:03:14 <Zakim> + +49.08.aabb
16:03:17 <ChrisW> agenda+ Test Cases
16:03:21 <ChrisW> agenda+ AOB
16:03:29 <CGI711> CGI711 has joined #RIF
16:03:31 <Zakim> +Mike_Dean
16:03:45 <Zakim> +Stella_Mitchell
16:03:47 <Zakim> +Sandro
16:03:47 <ChrisW> zakim, mute aabb
16:04:07 <ChrisW> zakim, aabb is csma
16:04:12 <ChrisW> zakim, unmute
16:04:19 <ChrisW> zakim, unmute csma
16:04:23 <csma> zakim, aabb is me
16:04:35 <Zakim> +49.08.aabb should now be muted
16:04:47 <Zakim> +csma; got it
16:04:51 <Zakim> I don't understand 'unmute', ChrisW
16:04:53 <Zakim> csma should no longer be muted
16:04:55 <Zakim> sorry, csma, I do not recognize a party named 'aabb'
16:05:03 <ChrisW> zakim, aaaa is CGI711
16:05:05 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:05:07 <Zakim> +AxelPolleres
16:05:07 <AxelPolleres> hi!
16:05:11 <ChrisW> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:05:14 <csma> zakim, unmute me
16:05:18 <Zakim> +CGI711; got it
16:05:24 <Zakim> On the phone I see ChrisW, DaveReynolds, CGI711, csma, Mike_Dean, Stella_Mitchell, Sandro, [IPcaller], AxelPolleres
16:05:27 <Harold> I am in another meeting; cannot join on the phone until in up to 60 mins.
16:05:38 <Zakim> csma was not muted, csma
16:05:54 <AdrianP> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
16:05:59 <csma> zakim, mute me
16:06:01 <sandro> zakim, are you slow?
16:06:16 <Changhai> Changhai has joined #RIF
16:06:24 <AdrianP> Zakim, IPcaller is me
16:06:25 <Zakim> +AdrianP; got it
16:06:25 <csma> zakim, unmute me
16:06:27 <ChrisW> previous minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2010Jan/att-0003/05-rif-minutes.html
16:06:32 <Zakim> csma should now be muted
16:06:35 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, sandro.
16:06:42 <StellaMitchell> yes, I can
16:06:47 <Zakim> sorry, AdrianP, I do not recognize a party named 'IPcaller'
16:06:49 <Zakim> csma should no longer be muted
16:06:51 <ChrisW> Scribe: StellaMitchell
16:07:03 <ChrisW> PROPOSED: Accept last meeting minutes
16:07:21 <StellaMitchell> cw:  any objections to above minutes?
16:07:23 <ChrisW> RESOLVED: Accept last meeting minutes
16:07:38 <ChrisW> zakim, list agenda
16:07:40 <AxelPolleres> q+
16:07:41 <StellaMitchell> cw: any agenda ammendments?
16:07:45 <Zakim> I see 9 items remaining on the agenda:
16:07:49 <Zakim> 1. Admin [from ChrisW]
16:07:52 <Zakim> 2. Liason [from ChrisW]
16:07:54 <Zakim> 3. Actions [from ChrisW]
16:07:55 <Zakim> 4. Public Comments [from ChrisW]
16:08:01 <Zakim> 5. XML Syntax of Import [from ChrisW]
16:08:06 <Zakim> 6. PRD [from ChrisW]
16:08:11 <StellaMitchell> csma: move xml syntax issue later?
16:08:12 <Zakim> 7. Implementations [from ChrisW]
16:08:14 <Zakim> 8. Test Cases [from ChrisW]
16:08:16 <Zakim> 9. AOB [from ChrisW]
16:08:32 <ChrisW> zakim, next item
16:08:32 <StellaMitchell> sandro: and looks like Axel would like to talk about importing rif from rdf
16:08:43 <Zakim> + +1.503.533.aacc
16:08:45 <Zakim> I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, ChrisW
16:08:48 <StellaMitchell> axel: I can only stay for 20 minutes
16:08:56 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
16:08:56 <Zakim> On the phone I see ChrisW, DaveReynolds, CGI711, csma, Mike_Dean, Stella_Mitchell, Sandro, AdrianP, AxelPolleres, +1.503.533.aacc
16:08:56 <ChrisW> q?
16:09:06 <ChrisW> ack axel
16:09:06 <sandro> ack AxelPolleres 
16:09:10 <ChrisW> zakim, next item
16:09:14 <Zakim> agendum 2. "Liason" taken up [from ChrisW]
16:09:14 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, ack me
16:09:16 <Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
16:09:33 <Gary_Hallmark> Gary_Hallmark has joined #rif
16:09:43 <sandro> zakim, cgi711 is Changhai
16:09:43 <Zakim> +Changhai; got it
16:09:56 <StellaMitchell> axel:  I think we should define a mechanism to import rif documents from rdf
16:10:06 <StellaMitchell> ... this would be useful for SPARQL
16:10:23 <Gary> zakim, who is on the call?
16:10:23 <Zakim> On the phone I see ChrisW, DaveReynolds, Changhai, csma, Mike_Dean, Stella_Mitchell, Sandro, AdrianP, AxelPolleres, +1.503.533.aacc
16:10:24 <csma> zakim, mute me
16:10:25 <Zakim> csma should now be muted
16:10:33 <Gary> zakim, aacc is me
16:10:33 <Zakim> +Gary; got it
16:10:46 <StellaMitchell> ... we want to query RDF+ RIF combinations from SPARQL
16:11:32 <StellaMitchell> ...and because of the way SPARQL is defined, querying a RIF document that imports RDF (what we already define) does not work well
16:12:55 <StellaMitchell> cw:  you are suggesting defining RIF imports from RDF graphs?
16:12:59 <StellaMitchell> axel: yes
16:13:00 <DaveReynolds> q+
16:13:18 <StellaMitchell> axel: ....but we need to define the semantics of the import
16:13:40 <StellaMitchell> cw: where do you think this would be documented?
16:13:55 <StellaMitchell> axel: ideally, swc, but it's late for that so maybe a WG note
16:14:20 <sandro> q+
16:14:48 <ChrisW> ack DaveReynolds
16:15:54 <StellaMitchell> daver:  suggesting something with SPARQL entailment regimes
16:16:08 <MichaelKifer> MichaelKifer has joined #rif
16:16:54 <StellaMitchell> axel:  dave's suggestion is a minimilistic option, but not ideal because you can't refer directly to the RIF ruleset
16:17:04 <Zakim> + +1.631.833.aadd
16:17:23 <sandro> axel: Dave's approach would not allow the imported ruleset to be named in the graph
16:17:23 <MichaelKifer> zakim, aadd is me
16:17:23 <Zakim> +MichaelKifer; got it
16:17:26 <ChrisW> ack sandro
16:18:11 <StellaMitchell> sandro:  I support what axel is suggesting. Another way to do this would be to have a way of expressing rif in rdf (we are very close to that already).
16:19:22 <StellaMitchell> ...the SPARQL entailment regime idea would not provide support for non-SPARQL users who also want this capability
16:19:46 <AxelPolleres> q+
16:19:54 <StellaMitchell> ....I've been asked a number of times how to use RIF from RDF
16:20:09 <StellaMitchell> cw: how close are we to having an RDF syntax of RIF
16:20:23 <StellaMitchell> sandro: I think we may just have to define a namepace. we are very close.
16:21:16 <StellaMitchell> cw:  you mean we'd have to address the 1 or 2 places where rif xml is not striped?
16:21:49 <sandro> sandro: yes, like var.
16:21:50 <StellaMitchell> sandro: yes, I've meant to do this, but have not had time
16:22:34 <StellaMitchell> cw: any volunteers to work on this?
16:22:44 <StellaMitchell> ...I also get these questions
16:22:57 <StellaMitchell> sandro: I can take an action for this
16:22:57 <csma> q+
16:23:03 <ChrisW> action: sandro to document an rdf syntax for rif
16:23:03 <trackbot> Created ACTION-968 - Document an rdf syntax for rif [on Sandro Hawke - due 2010-01-26].
16:23:04 <AxelPolleres> ack me
16:23:08 <csma> ack me
16:23:21 <StellaMitchell> csma: why do you say that var is not striped?
16:23:44 <Harold> Var is a 'leaf class'.
16:24:10 <StellaMitchell> sandro: we didn't name the property. 
16:24:55 <csma> zakim, mute me
16:24:55 <Zakim> csma should now be muted
16:24:57 <StellaMitchell> sandro: we only have literal content for var and const; const has an obvious mapping
16:25:04 <ChrisW> zakim, next item
16:25:04 <Zakim> agendum 3. "Actions" taken up [from ChrisW]
16:25:12 <Harold> <Var>PCDATA</Var> uses XML's PCDATA, which can be mapped to an RDF property.
16:26:20 <csma> zakim, unmute me
16:26:20 <Zakim> csma should no longer be muted
16:26:30 <sandro> So, in RDF, that would look like <Var><name>PCDATA</name></Var>      (where "<name>" might be "<varname>" or .... something else.  RIF doesnt say.(
16:27:12 <StellaMitchell> csma: I think actions 965 to 967 are obsolete
16:27:29 <StellaMitchell> ...we rolled back resolution and now need new actions
16:27:50 <Zakim> -AxelPolleres
16:28:00 <StellaMitchell> actions 965 to 967 have been obsoleted
16:28:05 <StellaMitchell> close action-964
16:28:05 <trackbot> ACTION-964 Update public comment list closed
16:28:30 <StellaMitchell> close action-961
16:28:30 <trackbot> ACTION-961 Check base64Binary case http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Builtins_Binary closed
16:28:57 <StellaMitchell> action 960 is continued
16:28:57 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 960
16:29:13 <Harold>  Rather than having another level of role tags within the Var class, I guess <Var name="CDATA"/> would be better for the purpose of RDF mapping.
16:29:23 <StellaMitchell> continue 959
16:29:43 <StellaMitchell> close action-958
16:29:43 <trackbot> ACTION-958 Draft response to IH closed
16:30:05 <StellaMitchell> continue 952
16:30:47 <StellaMitchell> continue 951  (very close to done)
16:31:10 <StellaMitchell> continue 940 and 941, will draft replies now
16:31:30 <StellaMitchell> Harold, what the status of reply to Alex Riaz?
16:32:13 <StellaMitchell> continue 880
16:32:29 <StellaMitchell> continue 850
16:33:11 <ChrisW> zakim, list agenda
16:33:11 <Zakim> I see 7 items remaining on the agenda:
16:33:12 <Zakim> 3. Actions [from ChrisW]
16:33:12 <Zakim> 4. Public Comments [from ChrisW]
16:33:13 <Zakim> 5. XML Syntax of Import [from ChrisW]
16:33:13 <Zakim> 6. PRD [from ChrisW]
16:33:14 <Zakim> 7. Implementations [from ChrisW]
16:33:14 <Zakim> 8. Test Cases [from ChrisW]
16:33:16 <Zakim> 9. AOB [from ChrisW]
16:33:19 <ChrisW> zakim, next item
16:33:19 <Zakim> agendum 4. "Public Comments" taken up [from ChrisW]
16:33:58 <StellaMitchell> csma: we have 3 that need replies and there is a new public comment?
16:34:08 <csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-comments/2010Jan/0000.html
16:34:09 <Harold> Alex Riazanov action is ongoing
16:34:33 <StellaMitchell> stella: I think we decided (long ago) to provide RDF/XML versions of imported documents
16:34:47 <StellaMitchell> ....is there a recommended tool to convert turtle to RDF/XML?
16:35:19 <StellaMitchell> (for test cases)
16:35:48 <StellaMitchell> csma: I talked to this commenter about his issue and suggested he post to public list
16:36:27 <StellaMitchell> cw: I think that's up to implementations. There is only one normative RDF syntax right?
16:36:33 <StellaMitchell> sandro: now there is RDFa
16:37:01 <StellaMitchell> ...I'm not sure RDF that says there is only one normative syntax
16:38:32 <StellaMitchell> cw: I think RIF doesn't need to take a stand on what RDF syntax needs to be supported, in imported documents
16:39:22 <StellaMitchell> csma: so an implementation can claim to support RDF imports even if it supports only its proprietary syntax?
16:40:50 <StellaMitchell> csma: another possibility would be to require a syntax indicator to go along with import statements
16:41:25 <StellaMitchell> ...so that consumers can check before processing
16:41:30 <ChrisW> action: csma to draft response on public comment JA
16:41:30 <trackbot> Created ACTION-969 - Draft response on public comment JA [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2010-01-26].
16:43:37 <StellaMitchell> cw: do we have actions covering all unanswered public comments?
16:43:50 <StellaMitchell> ...yes, looks like we do
16:44:10 <ChrisW> zakim, take up item 6
16:44:10 <Zakim> agendum 6. "PRD" taken up [from ChrisW]
16:44:48 <StellaMitchell> csma: I sent email summarizing the issue about refraction
16:44:59 <StellaMitchell> ...I tested a few systems, but don't have a license for Jess
16:45:08 <StellaMitchell> I think we have 3 issues:
16:45:37 <StellaMitchell> ...1. the modify in clips is really a retract followed by an assert
16:46:21 <StellaMitchell> ...2. in prd we look at state only after each action block. but the update of the agenda in most systems looks after each change...including intermediate states
16:47:30 <StellaMitchell> ...3. currently the state of a rule instance is characterized by binding of rule variables, but this is not always adequagte, specifially when there is a disjunction in the condition of the rule and the disj doesn't contain any rule varialbles
16:48:00 <StellaMitchell> So my proposal is that we change the PRD spec in three ways
16:48:24 <StellaMitchell> ...1. change definition of rule instance
16:48:59 <StellaMitchell> ...2. we consider refraction with respect to all the states of the fact base, i.e. after each atomic action rather than after each action block
16:49:56 <StellaMitchell> ...(above 2 are fairly minor)
16:51:21 <StellaMitchell> ....3. change modify so that it is not an atomic action, and if we do this we don't need modify in prd any more
16:51:27 <AdrianP> I would propose we keep modify with an atomic semantics
16:51:40 <AdrianP> Clips can represent their modify as retract+assert
16:51:50 <AdrianP> in RIF
16:52:04 <StellaMitchell> cw: are these 3 points co-dependent
16:52:06 <StellaMitchell> csma: yes
16:52:46 <StellaMitchell> csma: modify_noloop cannot be implemented in clips
16:52:51 <Gary> I don't care about interoperating with clips.
16:53:33 <Gary> We need to consider some concrete test cases to better understand the issues here
16:53:38 <StellaMitchell> changhai: one possibility is to keep modify as it is now and remove modify_noloop test case
16:53:40 <AdrianP> right, that is a problem of the Clips semantics which does not support atomic  modifies
16:54:11 <Zakim> +[NRCC]
16:54:20 <StellaMitchell> csma:  we can't keep modify as it is because that would mean we have something in spec that cannot be implemented
16:54:29 <Harold> zakim, [NRCC] is me.
16:54:29 <Zakim> +Harold; got it
16:54:32 <StellaMitchell> changhai:  it can be implemented by some
16:55:02 <StellaMitchell> cw: we are discussing whether we need to change the semantics for CLIPS
16:55:20 <StellaMitchell> csma: gary, how is modify implemented in Jess?
16:55:49 <StellaMitchell> ...in terms of agenda
16:56:16 <StellaMitchell> gary: it's complicated. 
16:56:27 <StellaMitchell> cw: can jess implement modify_noloop
16:56:38 <StellaMitchell> gary: no, but for a different reason that clips cannot
16:57:08 <StellaMitchell> cw:  would the jess problem with modify_noloop require a prd fix?
16:57:15 <StellaMitchell> ...different from the one csma proposed?
16:57:29 <StellaMitchell> gary: i don't completely understand csma's proposal yet.
16:57:43 <StellaMitchell> cw: gary, what changes to you have in mind?
16:58:03 <StellaMitchell> gary: not completely sure yet, but related to existential variables
16:58:56 <StellaMitchell> csma: no, taking bindings into account does not change anything with respect to clips and jrules
16:59:19 <StellaMitchell> gary: for jess, it would
17:00:51 <StellaMitchell> csma:  details of behavior of different rule engines
17:01:29 <StellaMitchell> ....let's discuss more by email to clarify these situations 
17:02:02 <StellaMitchell> cw: if semantics needs to change, we need to do another last call and we would want to do that as soon as possible
17:02:49 <StellaMitchell> gary: discussing slots and clips, and not happy with the way clips behaves there
17:03:08 <AdrianP> Jess modify changes the slot values of facts already in working memory
17:03:09 <StellaMitchell> cw: csma, what granularity were you talking about wrt facts?
17:03:15 <StellaMitchell> csma: atom in the rif sense
17:05:06 <StellaMitchell> cw: so, csma will send some examples to gary?
17:05:17 <StellaMitchell> ..and is another telecon needed?
17:05:28 <ChrisW> action: csma to send some examples of the failure case to gary
17:05:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-970 - Send some examples of the failure case to gary [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2010-01-26].
17:05:41 <AdrianP> yes, Tuesday would work for me
17:05:43 <ChrisW> action: csma to schedule a PRD telecon next week
17:05:43 <trackbot> Created ACTION-971 - Schedule a PRD telecon next week [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2010-01-26].
17:06:21 <StellaMitchell> gary: csma, if you could come up with simple rif test case, positive and negative cases relating to the issues you were talking about
17:06:29 <ChrisW> zakim, take up item 7
17:06:29 <Zakim> agendum 7. "Implementations" taken up [from ChrisW]
17:06:35 <StellaMitchell> csma: yes, by end of week and prd telecon next week
17:06:36 <Zakim> -Sandro
17:06:53 <Zakim> +Sandro
17:07:08 <StellaMitchell> cw: status of implementations, any news?
17:07:43 <StellaMitchell> csma:  jose maria said they are currently implementing DTB and asked whether they should publish as a service or as a library
17:07:52 <StellaMitchell> ...this should be available within a couple weeks
17:08:07 <StellaMitchell> ...they are planning a complete implementatin of dTB
17:08:25 <StellaMitchell> ...will be open source and in java
17:09:12 <StellaMitchell> csma: jos sent an email about implementations
17:09:35 <StellaMitchell> cw: yes, that STI is not going to do anything soon
17:09:49 <StellaMitchell> cw: anything more on ontobroker?
17:10:02 <StellaMitchell> csma: unlikely that they would do more than they alreay have by the end of CR
17:10:28 <StellaMitchell> cw:  no progress on fuxi implementation
17:10:58 <StellaMitchell> csma: we'll be doing additional work on jrules
17:11:03 <StellaMitchell> cw: vampire/eye
17:11:18 <StellaMitchell> harold: alex r is interested but not progressing as fast as planned
17:11:35 <StellaMitchell> gary: oracle progressing, dtb is time-consuming
17:12:22 <StellaMitchell> mk: one fld implementation has been sent to rif mail list
17:12:42 <StellaMitchell> mdean: we have a silk dialect that is implemented but doesn't get have a semantics specified
17:12:52 <StellaMitchell> ...and something (??) else 
17:13:12 <csma> zakim, mute me
17:13:12 <Zakim> csma should now be muted
17:13:15 <StellaMitchell> s/??/logic programming dialect/
17:13:20 <ChrisW> zakim, take up item 5
17:13:20 <Zakim> agendum 5. "XML Syntax of Import" taken up [from ChrisW]
17:14:13 <ChrisW> action: harold to update core, bld, and fld xml schema to reflect resolution on imports
17:14:13 <trackbot> Created ACTION-972 - Update core, bld, and fld xml schema to reflect resolution on imports [on Harold Boley - due 2010-01-26].
17:14:36 <ChrisW> Topic: SemTech
17:14:58 <StellaMitchell> sandro:  would anyone be available to be on a RIF panel at semtech?
17:15:08 <csma> maybe
17:15:16 <csma> zakim, unmute me
17:15:16 <Zakim> csma should no longer be muted
17:15:21 <Gary> not me
17:15:25 <StellaMitchell> ...so far Sandro, Paul Vincent
17:15:27 <DaveReynolds> I'm a maybe
17:16:13 <StellaMitchell> mdean: I'm planning to be there
17:16:21 <StellaMitchell> cw: I'm planning to be there, but not definite
17:16:39 <csma> zakim, mute me
17:16:39 <Zakim> csma should now be muted
17:17:02 <StellaMitchell> sandro: sandro, paul, mike d definite, several maybes
17:17:04 <ChrisW> zakim, take up item 9
17:17:04 <Zakim> agendum 9. "AOB" taken up [from ChrisW]
17:17:05 <Zakim> -Harold
17:17:07 <ChrisW> zakim, take up item 8
17:17:07 <Zakim> agendum 8. "Test Cases" taken up [from ChrisW]
17:17:09 <csma> zakim, unmute me
17:17:09 <Zakim> csma should no longer be muted
17:17:34 <Zakim> -Sandro
17:17:56 <Zakim> +Sandro
17:18:00 <MichaelKifer> I have to go, sorry
17:18:09 <Zakim> -MichaelKifer
17:18:13 <MichaelKifer> MichaelKifer has left #rif
17:18:16 <StellaMitchell> rdf_subclass5 may have sparked this
17:19:06 <StellaMitchell> cw: love the builtin_strings testcase
17:19:09 <ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Builtins_String
17:19:26 <StellaMitchell> ...any other comments on this case, we reviewed once 
17:19:36 <ChrisW> PROPOSED: approve Builtins String
17:19:44 <StellaMitchell> +1
17:19:49 <ChrisW> +1
17:19:49 <Gary> +1 it works for me
17:19:59 <ChrisW> RESOLVED: approve Builtins String
17:20:01 <AdrianP> +1
17:21:07 <StellaMitchell> gary: builtins_time....there is a typo
17:21:15 <StellaMitchell> ...relating to daytime vs. datetime
17:21:21 <StellaMitchell> ...and two typos in xml
17:22:11 <StellaMitchell> ...relating to commas or semicolons
17:23:13 <StellaMitchell> gary:  typo: search on xs:daytime
17:23:18 <StellaMitchell> change to datetime
17:23:20 <StellaMitchell> yes
17:23:38 <StellaMitchell> xml is generated by a took
17:23:44 <StellaMitchell> s/took/sool
17:24:05 <StellaMitchell> and the xml validates by the schema
17:24:41 <csma> zakim, mute me
17:24:41 <Zakim> csma should now be muted
17:24:49 <StellaMitchell> xml:  ," (twice)
17:24:52 <StellaMitchell> ok
17:25:06 <StellaMitchell> I will look into it
17:25:42 <StellaMitchell> look for commas in the PS
17:25:46 <StellaMitchell> o
17:25:59 <ChrisW> PROPOSED: accept Builtins_Time (modulo a few ximple typo fixes)
17:26:03 <AdrianP> +1
17:26:04 <Gary> +1 
17:26:06 <StellaMitchell> +1
17:26:08 <ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept Builtins_Time (modulo a few ximple typo fixes)
17:26:21 <DaveReynolds> 0 (just because I haven't checked!)
17:27:52 <csma> ack me
17:28:11 <StellaMitchell> stella: should we remove forall?
17:28:42 <ChrisW> PROPOSED: accept Builtins_boolean
17:28:47 <DaveReynolds> +1
17:28:50 <Gary> +1
17:28:54 <StellaMitchell> +1
17:28:56 <AdrianP> +1
17:28:57 <ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept Builtins_boolean
17:29:08 <ChrisW> TOPIC: AOB
17:29:29 <StellaMitchell> cw: any other business?
17:29:37 <StellaMitchell> cw: prd telecon next week
17:29:49 <ChrisW> zakim, list attendees
17:29:49 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been ChrisW, +49.08.aaaa, +49.08.aabb, Mike_Dean, DaveReynolds, Stella_Mitchell, Sandro, csma, AxelPolleres, AdrianP, +1.503.533.aacc, Changhai,
17:29:51 <AdrianP> buy
17:29:52 <Zakim> ... Gary, +1.631.833.aadd, MichaelKifer, Harold
17:29:52 <Zakim> -DaveReynolds
17:29:53 <Zakim> -Gary
17:29:54 <Zakim> -Stella_Mitchell
17:29:56 <Zakim> -AdrianP
17:29:58 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean
17:30:11 <ChrisW> REgrets: JosDeBruijn LeoraMorgenstern
17:30:14 <Zakim> -Changhai
17:30:18 <ChrisW> rrsagent, make minutes
17:30:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/01/19-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
17:30:22 <ChrisW> rrsagent, make logs public
17:30:30 <ChrisW> zakim, who is on the phone?
17:30:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see ChrisW, csma, Sandro
17:30:33 <csma> zakim, who is on the phone?
17:30:33 <Zakim> On the phone I see ChrisW, csma, Sandro
17:31:01 <ChrisW> stella, the minutes are there
17:31:07 <StellaMitchell> I see them, thanks
17:36:25 <Zakim> -Sandro
17:36:27 <Zakim> -ChrisW
17:36:28 <Zakim> -csma
17:36:29 <Zakim> SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
17:36:31 <Zakim> Attendees were ChrisW, +49.08.aaaa, +49.08.aabb, Mike_Dean, DaveReynolds, Stella_Mitchell, Sandro, csma, AxelPolleres, AdrianP, +1.503.533.aacc, Changhai, Gary, +1.631.833.aadd,
17:36:33 <Zakim> ... MichaelKifer, Harold
17:42:58 <ChrisWelty> ChrisWelty has joined #rif