RIF Telecon 2-Mar-2010 -- 02 Mar 2010

Admin

Odd ... I have been told I'm the first participant.

<ChrisW> scribe: LeoraMorgenstern

<ChrisW> scribenick: LeoraMorgenstern

<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2010Feb/att-0032/2010-02-16-rif-minutes.html

<ChrisW> Minutes from last telecon

ok, do you hear me now?

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: approve minutes of last meeting

chris, did you set the agenda item?

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: approve minutes of last meeting

Ok -- otherwise it messes up the numbering.

Liason

Nothing new in liaison

sandro, I can't hear you --- except that you had a call with Axel about the SPARQL regime?

<ChrisW> sandro: been participating in telecons with SPARQL wg about "entailment regimes" for RIF in SPARQL

Action Review

mikedean: needs to get an implementation report from Jeff Sherman

Jeff Sherman did send a report on Feb. 16; notes that the implementation doesn't yet handle RDF and OWL.

mikedean: not planning to add this for RIF at this point.
... will add implementation report of SWRL-RIF translator

<ChrisW> close action-951

<trackbot> ACTION-951 Get implementation report for SIL closed

close ACTION-951

<trackbot> ACTION-951 Get implementation report for SIL closed

Harold: has an action to draft reply to Riazinov
... this affects Christian as well.

<Harold> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_AR4

<sandro> sandro: xml:lang makes no sense on anything but plain literals.

Harold: problem with language tags on non-literal constants

sandro: that's not valid.

<sandro> chat

sandro: chat is pronounced differently and has a different semantics in French and English, so it's understandable that you would want a language tag, but ...

<sandro> I think we'd best follow RDF on this --- only PlainLiterals have languge tags.

<sandro> (different semantics are not the point -- language tags are important for screen readers.)

Oh, okay; I'll edit. But really,, would you never be interested in the semantics? How about, at least, the part of language?

Close action-564

<trackbot> ACTION-564 Finish PS to XML conversion based on LC BLD grammar closed

chris: in actions that are completed but pending review, there are actions by Jos and by Axel.

close action-920

<trackbot> ACTION-920 Look at informal list mappings closed

close action-914

<trackbot> ACTION-914 Replace name, var, and dialect by ncname in all BNF grammars closed

close action-862

<trackbot> ACTION-862 Devise a "deep" equality test case closed

close action-928

<trackbot> ACTION-928 Update mappings section of DTB to resolve type promotion issue closed

Public Comments

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Public_Comments

<sandro> ACTION: chris to send response to Ian Horrocks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/02-rif-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-981 - Send response to Ian Horrocks [on Christopher Welty - due 2010-03-09].

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_DM3

<scribe> ACTION: chris to send DM3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/02-rif-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-982 - Send DM3 [on Christopher Welty - due 2010-03-09].

<Harold> Christian already answer that public comment with:

<Harold> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-comments/2010Feb/0000.html

okay, I'll close that action then.

close action-982

<trackbot> ACTION-982 Send DM3 closed

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_WL2

Moving specs to PR

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Exit_Criteria

<ChrisW> "To validate the Core specification, we merely want two systems which use the distinction about what is or is not in Core, such as Core document validators, or producers which can be set to never emit documents outside of Core. "

chris: do we have any evidence that anyone has implemented this?

sandro: will start editing version of exit criteria that mentions best candidates

chris: mike dean, does your implementation (get name) know whether something is in core?

mikedean's implementation: silk (edit in)

<scribe> ACTION: chris to ask Susan M whether her implementation can do this. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/02-rif-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-983 - Ask Susan M whether her implementation can do this. [on Christopher Welty - due 2010-03-09].

chris: I don't know about IBM's J rules.

<sandro> editing http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/CR_Exit

sandro: not sure whether his rdf-rif translator will meet the above exit criterion.

chris: Gary, what about OBR (from Oracle)? Do you check if it's in Core?

Gary: No

chris: hard to add?

gary: won't happen for months.

sandro: winds up being a priority for me, then.

chris: best candidates are Christian's, Sandro's, & ?

<sandro> riftr

<scribe> ACTION:sandro to send riftr implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/02-rif-minutes.html#action04]

chris: have 2 BLD consumers
... have 2 PR
... have 2 PRD consumers
... for BLD: Silk, ontobroker(partial), Iris

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/CR_Exit

and more from Sandro's table, linked above.

chris: for Core, candidates are J rules, rifter, and nameless thing.
... for DTB, J rules are going through slowly

gary: mostly finished going through types

chris: also RIFle from Luis Polo

again, see link above

chris: still missing OWL implementation
... FLD implementation is from Michael Kifer (Core Answer Set Programming Dialect)
... waiting for an implementation from mike dean, coming shortly, within a week or two.
... biq questions: satisfying Core and OWL-RL requirements.
... also must discuss changes to documents.
... Core has been changed only once since publication, by Harold. Needs to be logged in the appendix.

harold: is taking care of that now.

chris: BLD: many changes since publication, by Harold and Michael, to the xml, overview.

<scribe> ACTION: michael to update change log on BLD, coordinating with Harold. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/02-rif-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - michael

<trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. msintek, mkifer, merdmann)

<scribe> ACTION: mkifer to update change log for BLD, coordinating with Harold. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/02-rif-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-984 - Update change log for BLD, coordinating with Harold. [on Michael Kifer - due 2010-03-09].

chris: DTB: Axel not here.

<sandro> ACTION: chris to get Jos to add changelog for SWC [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/02-rif-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-985 - Get Jos to add changelog for SWC [on Christopher Welty - due 2010-03-09].

<Leora_M> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/UCR

<sandro> I like the Venn diagram in there, and wonder about using the one I did for RuleML somewhere.... http://www.w3.org/2009/Talks/1105-ruleml/rif-venn-3.png

<AdrianP> Leora has reorganized it since the last publication

<Leora_M> leora: have re-organized UCR; woudl still need to add actual RIF rules to examples. Can't do until Mar. 14, and would spend max 1 week doing so.

<AdrianP> * Leora, there seem to be some formatting errors in the new UCR version, sometimes </div> appears

<Leora_M> Adrian, you are right. This happened when I was trying to add in some PRD syntax for a use case.

<Leora_M> I just realized when I looked again this morning. Well, I re-remembered: this happened in October, and I got sidetracked then.

<Leora_M> That is one of the many things I have to fix.

<Leora_M> missing Dave's whole conversation.

<Leora_M> chris: overview doc: has not changed.

<Leora_M> chris: We'll publish it as a note, or wait?

<Leora_M> sandro: we'll probably need to make some changes to overview as we get closer to publication.

<Leora_M> chris: We'll have weekly telecons in March for the P

<Leora_M> chris: for the PR push.

<Leora_M> chris: Next week we'll vote on all resolutions mentioned in this week's agenda.

<Leora_M> chris: Default: keep at risk features unless there's a reason not to .

<Leora_M> chris: we'll vote on them next week. Objectors should say something about it in next week.

Test cases

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RDF_Combination_Constant_Equivalence_1

<sandro> lets get rif of the rif:iri bit.

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: Accept RDF_Combination_Constant_Equivalence_1 test case

<DaveReynolds> +1

<ChrisW> +1

<sandro> +1

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: Accept RDF_Combination_Constant_Equivalence_1 test case

<mdean> +1

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RDF_Combination_Constant_Equivalence_2

<AdrianP> +1

<sandro> <Const type="&xs;string">this is a plain literal</Const>

<AdrianP> my +1 was delayed and on the previous test case

<sandro> sandro: This only holds under D-entailment not Simple entailment.

<sandro> sandro: Uh oh.... It looks like SWC

<sandro> SWC is wrong here....

<sandro> looking in http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-plain-literal/

<sandro> sandro: I think SWC just didn't get updated....

<Leora_M> dave: See table 1, line 2 of SWC

<sandro> ACTION: sandro to bring up http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RDF_Combination_Constant_Equivalence_2 with Jos [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/03/02-rif-minutes.html#action08]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-986 - Bring up http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RDF_Combination_Constant_Equivalence_2 with Jos [on Sandro Hawke - due 2010-03-09].

AOB

<AdrianP> bye

- DRAFT -

RIF Telecon 2-Mar-2010

02 Mar 2010

Attendees

Contents