IRC log of rif on 2010-01-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

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