14:43:04 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rif
14:43:04 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/09/07-rif-irc
14:43:14 <csma> rrsagent, make log public
14:43:49 <csma> Zakim, this is RIF
14:43:51 <Zakim> csma, I see SW_RIF()11:00AM in the schedule but not yet started.  Perhaps you mean "this will be RIF".
14:44:05 <csma> Zakim, this will be RIF
14:44:05 <Zakim> ok, csma; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 16 minutes
14:44:21 <csma> Meeting: RIF telecon 
14:44:38 <csma> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2010Sep/0000.html
14:44:47 <csma> Chair: Christian de Sainte Marie
14:46:37 <csma> Regrets: MichaelKifer, HaroldBoley
14:46:58 <csma> rrsagent, make minutes
14:46:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/09/07-rif-minutes.html csma
14:51:31 <csma> zakim, clear agenda
14:51:31 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:51:53 <csma> agendum+ Admin
14:52:18 <csma> agendum+ Liaisons
14:52:31 <csma> agendum+ Action review
14:52:51 <csma> agendum+ RIF in RDF
14:53:19 <csma> agendum+ RIF and XML data
14:53:36 <csma> agendum+ RIF Primer
14:53:48 <csma> agendum+ UCR
14:53:55 <csma> agendum+ Test cases
14:54:05 <csma> agendum+ AOB (next meeting)
14:58:30 <Doug> Doug has joined #rif
14:58:53 <Zakim> SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
14:59:00 <Zakim> +Doug
14:59:44 <Zakim> +Sandro
14:59:48 <StellaMitchell> StellaMitchell has joined #RIF
15:00:16 <mdean> mdean has joined #rif
15:00:34 <Zakim> +[IBM]
15:00:45 <Zakim> +Mike_Dean
15:00:46 <ChrisW> zakim, ibm is temporarily me
15:00:47 <Zakim> +ChrisW; got it
15:01:21 <Zakim> + +33.9.53.56.aaaa
15:01:33 <csma> zakim, aaaa is me
15:01:33 <Zakim> +csma; got it
15:01:42 <AdrianP> AdrianP has joined #rif
15:01:47 <csma> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:01:49 <Zakim> On the phone I see Doug, Sandro, ChrisW, Mike_Dean, csma
15:01:51 <Zakim> + +1.607.257.aabb
15:02:15 <StellaMitchell> zakim,  aabb is me
15:02:15 <Zakim> +StellaMitchell; got it
15:02:19 <csma> Scribe: Stella Mitchell
15:02:42 <csma> scribenick: StellaMitchell
15:03:55 <Zakim> +Leora_Morgenstern
15:04:13 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:04:17 <Leora> Leora has joined #rif
15:04:22 <csma> next item
15:04:38 <AdrianP> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
15:04:38 <Zakim> +AdrianP; got it
15:04:46 <csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2010Sep/0001.html
15:05:09 <StellaMitchell> csma: will propose to accept the above minutes next call
15:05:32 <StellaMitchell> csma: added UCR publication plan to agenda per Adrian's request
15:05:52 <csma> next item
15:06:01 <DaveReynolds> DaveReynolds has joined #rif
15:07:23 <csma> next item
15:07:25 <StellaMitchell> csma, sandro: RIF/SPARQL topics will continue by email
15:07:56 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:08:29 <StellaMitchell> close action-1047 
15:08:29 <trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel
15:08:39 <StellaMitchell> action-1047 completed
15:09:14 <StellaMitchell> sandro: I decided not to work on action-1046, so we can close that - it's not high enough priority for the time left
15:10:10 <ChrisW> trackbot, this is rif
15:10:10 <trackbot> Sorry, ChrisW, I don't understand 'trackbot, this is rif'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
15:10:37 <ChrisW> trackbot, associate this channel with rif
15:10:37 <trackbot> Associating this channel with rif...
15:10:37 <trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel
15:10:37 <trackbot> If you want to associate this channel with an existing Tracker, please say 'trackbot, associate this channel with #channel' (where #channel is the name of default channel for the group)
15:10:45 <ChrisW> trackbot, associate this channel with #rif
15:10:45 <trackbot> Associating this channel with #rif...
15:11:01 <ChrisW> close action 1047
15:11:21 <ChrisW> close action-1047
15:11:21 <trackbot> ACTION-1047 Write down "RIF-direct semantics" proposal for RIF-in-RDF. closed
15:11:36 <StellaMitchell> close action-1046
15:11:36 <trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel
15:12:01 <StellaMitchell> close action-1044
15:12:01 <trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel
15:12:46 <StellaMitchell> actions 1043 and 1041 are completed
15:14:08 <StellaMitchell> action-1039 closed
15:14:08 <trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel
15:14:16 <StellaMitchell> action-1040 continuted
15:14:42 <StellaMitchell> action-1037 continued
15:14:54 <StellaMitchell> close action-1033
15:14:54 <trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel
15:15:17 <StellaMitchell> close action-1032  
15:15:17 <trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel
15:15:43 <StellaMitchell> close action-1031
15:15:43 <trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel
15:16:05 <StellaMitchell> action-1010 continued
15:16:22 <StellaMitchell> action-1004 continued
15:16:34 <StellaMitchell> action-935 continued
15:16:41 <StellaMitchell> action-152 continued
15:17:19 <StellaMitchell> actions 1035 and 1036 continued
15:17:51 <csma> next item
15:19:13 <StellaMitchell> sandro: Axel and I talked about imports and he wrote a spec - this will be a Note. It would be good if someone could check over the semantics.
15:20:37 <StellaMitchell> sandro:  sandro:   rif-used-with-profile vs. rif-imported-with-profile - is Chris ok with this naming
15:20:55 <StellaMitchell> cw: Yes, I was more concerned that it is past tense
15:21:46 <StellaMitchell> sandro:  the document needs a review; aiming to publish as a note by the end of the month
15:23:27 <StellaMitchell> leora: I will review the RIF/RDF document for clarity and usability since I need to review it in detail in order to write my primer section anyway
15:24:35 <StellaMitchell> ....it would take me a week - if I get it by Weds afternoon
15:24:35 <AdrianP> yes, will make sense to have a RIF telecon for the remaining three weeks
15:24:56 <StellaMitchell> csma: should we have a telecon each week until the end of the group?
15:24:56 <csma> action: Leora to review RIF in RDF by Sept 14
15:24:56 <trackbot> Created ACTION-1048 - Review RIF in RDF by Sept 14 [on Leora Morgenstern - due 2010-09-14].
15:25:36 <StellaMitchell> sandro: remaining changes are not something leora really needs to wait on
15:25:47 <StellaMitchell> leora: I'll reivew it by tomorrow then
15:26:00 <StellaMitchell> sandro: I would like Dave Reynolds to review this also
15:26:21 <StellaMitchell> DaveR: ok
15:26:27 <csma> action: Dave to review RIF in RDF by Sept 14
15:26:27 <trackbot> Created ACTION-1049 - Review RIF in RDF by Sept 14 [on Dave Reynolds - due 2010-09-14].
15:28:06 <StellaMitchell> sandro:  does anyone know about [???] - it involves RIF being embedded in RDF as one big string
15:28:22 <csma> s/???/WSML light/
15:29:26 <csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/105
15:29:45 <StellaMitchell> csma: we still have an issue open on RIF and RDF - 105 above
15:30:21 <StellaMitchell> sandro: this is resolved, that's the recent work by Axel and I, which now needs to be reviewed
15:30:34 <StellaMitchell> ...we'll leave it open for now and resolve after reviews
15:30:42 <csma> next item
15:31:35 <csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/103
15:31:47 <StellaMitchell> csma: almost ready to have the next version of "RIF and XML data" reviewed...I think I have addressed all issues raised on earlier versions
15:32:32 <csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/104
15:32:38 <StellaMitchell> csma:  issue 103:  spec doesn't refer to that data model any longer
15:33:31 <StellaMitchell> issue 104:  using NCNames in spec - issue is really how to deal with attributes and properties that are not in a namespace
15:33:53 <StellaMitchell> ...there are 2 suggested approaches:  1. use dummy namespace
15:34:08 <ChrisW> sandro: never believe me when I say "I don't need an action"
15:34:56 <StellaMitchell> ... 2.   extend space of rif:iri to contain ncnames
15:35:18 <StellaMitchell> ....(1 abuses notion of namespace and 2 abuses notion of iri)
15:36:28 <StellaMitchell> sandro: maybe there's a 3rd option...
15:38:08 <csma> o[namespace#attribute(localname)->value]
15:39:27 <csma> o[namespace#localname->value]
15:41:24 <StellaMitchell> csma: the examples above are what we're talking about....1st involves attribute of element, 2nd involves child of element
15:41:59 <StellaMitchell> sandro: should we spend more telecon time going over this issue now?
15:42:01 <sandro>         ?x[<http://example.org/customertable#Name -> ?y]
15:42:11 <StellaMitchell> Doug: yes, I think we should
15:42:14 <sandro>    And( ?x[<http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace#attribute(lang)> -> "en"^^xs:language])
15:43:04 <sandro>          ?x[<http://example.org/customertable#Name> -> ?y]
15:43:23 <csma>   <Customer xml:lang="en">
15:43:25 <csma>     <Name> John </Name>
15:43:26 <csma>   </Customer>
15:44:36 <StellaMitchell> 1st pasted example above pasted by Sandro (with the And) can be used to bind to the lang attribute
15:45:07 <StellaMitchell> ...2nd is used to bind to child element "Name"
15:45:27 <StellaMitchell> csma: and problem is when there isn't a namespace
15:45:43 <StellaMitchell> sandro: even when there is a namespace, I think this syntax is odd
15:45:53 <sandro> sandro: ... #attribute(lang) ... seems very odd
15:45:55 <csma> <http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace#@lang>
15:46:09 <StellaMitchell> csma: I have no problem with changing the syntax
15:46:43 <StellaMitchell> ....the current syntax is intended to be explicit
15:47:21 <csma> ?x[<Name> -> ?y]
15:47:29 <DaveReynolds> XML Schema component designators do use (..) in their syntax, though rather differently
15:47:36 <csma> ?x[<#Name> -> ?y]
15:47:48 <csma> ?x[<http://example.org/dummy#Name> -> ?y]
15:48:27 <sandro> maybe:   http://www.w3.org/ns/none
15:48:58 <StellaMitchell> csma: but if attribute lang or subelement Name have no namespace...
15:49:43 <StellaMitchell> ...in first 2 examples above don't work
15:49:57 <StellaMitchell> ....we could use a dummy namespace as above
15:49:58 <csma> ?x["Name"xs:NCName -> ?y]
15:50:31 <StellaMitchell> sandro: dummy namespace works but it's a hack
15:51:22 <StellaMitchell> csma: alternatively, we could change the spec so that an ncname is a rif:iri
15:52:00 <sandro> sandro: about about just using a string, instead of an iri?
15:52:19 <StellaMitchell> ...for the frame slot name
15:54:14 <sandro>   ?x[ ("Element", "Name") -> ?y ]
15:54:17 <ChrisW> time check
15:54:24 <sandro>   ?x[ ("Element", "http://example.org", "Name") -> ?y ]
15:54:31 <sandro>   ?x[ ("Attribute", "http://example.org", "Name") -> ?y ]
15:54:37 <sandro>   ?x[ ("Attribute", "Name") -> ?y ]
15:55:37 <StellaMitchell> sandro: we could do something like above: the slot name could always be a list that would optionally include a namespace
15:56:02 <csma> q?
15:56:28 <StellaMitchell> daver: lists are allowed as slot names but this would break RDF
15:56:37 <StellaMitchell> ... also, ???
15:56:39 <sandro> dave: What about XML Schema Component Designators.
15:57:50 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-ref/
15:58:37 <StellaMitchell> csma: Good, I am going to look at the document above, that may provide the solution
16:00:56 <csma> <cust><number>1000</number></cust>
16:01:05 <StellaMitchell> csma: one more topic: how XML schemas are handled in RIF/XML combinations
16:01:57 <csma> ?x[ ("Element", "number") -> 1000 ]
16:02:07 <csma> ?x[ ("Element", "number") -> "1000" ]
16:03:06 <StellaMitchell> csma: consider the example above: we may have a schema that tells us that cust number is an integer or we may have no schema
16:04:06 <StellaMitchell> ...if we want the interpretation to be the same in both cases, then...
16:05:07 <StellaMitchell> ....however, we may not care whether the interpretation is the same in both cases
16:07:50 <StellaMitchell> csma: I think it is reasonable that the interpreation with schema would be different from that without schema, however I can understand that some people would think it's more elegant that interpreation with schema is a subset of interpreation without schema
16:08:41 <AdrianP> often quotes are interpreted as indicating that the value is a String instead of a numeric value
16:09:16 <StellaMitchell> sandro: I think all 4 cases should be handled and have a boolean flag on the import
16:09:50 <sandro> sandro: Let's have a boolean flag on Import where you say whether the the RIF is written using only string (the lexrep of the values) or is written to use the actual values; orthogonal to whether a schema is present.
16:10:32 <csma> q?
16:10:33 <DaveReynolds> not convinced that using strings in place of typed values when you know the typed values makes sense
16:10:44 <StellaMitchell> csma: The new version of this document will be ready by the end of the week, and we need a few reviewers. Ideally, I'd like Gary to, but he's not here...will ask him by email
16:12:01 <StellaMitchell> sandro: I'm thinking that if you have something that's working the way you want and then you get a schema, you don't want the behavior to change
16:12:05 <sandro> Yeah, I'm fine with schema means you have to use the datatype values, not the string.
16:12:32 <StellaMitchell> sandro: ...and you want to use the schema for validation
16:13:27 <StellaMitchell> daver: you can do the schema validation elsewhere. I think it's ok that if you change the semantics of the ruleset (by introducing a schema) that the behavior changes
16:14:42 <csma> next item
16:14:56 <StellaMitchell> csma: other volunteers for reviewing the XML data and RIF document?....  nonbe
16:15:08 <StellaMitchell> s/nonbe/none/
16:15:49 <StellaMitchell> leora:  we still need to finish the compatibility section and the test suite section
16:16:13 <StellaMitchell> ...I will work on this today
16:17:07 <StellaMitchell> chrisw: we have to wrap this up very soon. We can drop the sections that are not complete
16:17:34 <StellaMitchell> cw: I can put in a paragraph on the test suite in section 9, and we can drop section 7
16:17:46 <ChrisW_> ChrisW_ has joined #rif
16:18:28 <StellaMitchell> leora: does it make sense to have a RIF/RDF section without a RIF/OWL section?
16:18:55 <StellaMitchell> cw: yes, better to have both, but one section is still useful
16:19:27 <StellaMitchell> csma: if we only have time for one, I think RIF/OWL is more important
16:19:52 <StellaMitchell> cw:  I think RIF/RDF would be more widely used and so is more important
16:20:07 <Doug> agreed
16:20:32 <AdrianP> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Primer#RIF_in_RDF
16:20:33 <sandro> agreed -- by FAR the most important of rif AND rdf.    more than rif AND owl, and more than rif IN rdf.
16:20:44 <sandro> s/important of/important is/
16:20:46 <csma> +1
16:21:04 <StellaMitchell> daver: distinction between "RIF in RDF" and "RIF and RDF"...latter is more important
16:21:30 <csma> q?
16:21:52 <csma> next item
16:21:58 <StellaMitchell> csma: we already have identified reviewers for RIF Primer
16:22:15 <AdrianP> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/UCR
16:22:55 <sandro> +1 rif UCR is important, if someone can do the work.
16:23:33 <StellaMitchell> csma: We had decided to not have UCR as a recommendation, but Adrian would like to revisit
16:24:00 <StellaMitchell> adrian: I think it's an important document and we have already published and referenced it
16:24:01 <sandro> not "recommendation" there, just "current publication"
16:25:50 <csma> q?
16:26:06 <StellaMitchell> csma: only 2 active editors for UCR - Adrian and Leora
16:26:34 <StellaMitchell> cw:  I don't think UCR is the right place for usage examples
16:27:40 <StellaMitchell> ....so, I think the document has to be either completely rewritten to be useful, or we can deprecate the document, or we can remove the examples
16:27:47 <sandro> +1 "there were use cases that motivated RIF"
16:27:54 <Doug> Maybe include the examples in an appendix as ones which led to the current state etc.
16:29:25 <StellaMitchell> leora: I think it's important to include use cases which cannot be repesented in any RIF dialect (in UCR)
16:30:06 <StellaMitchell> csma: As ChrisW pointed out, UCR could be a Use Case and Requirements Document as originally intended and the Primer can contain RIF examples
16:30:08 <Leora> leora: my point is that it's important to indicate explicitly which use cases cannot be represented  in RIF dialects.
16:31:04 <StellaMitchell> cw: these are design use cases that influenced the design of the language; they are not all implementable
16:31:46 <StellaMitchell> cw:  I'm just saying to remove RIF syntax of the usage examples, not the examples themselves
16:32:29 <Zakim> -DaveReynolds
16:32:41 <StellaMitchell> sandro: don't say you can't do in RIF, say you need extensions to RIF to handle them
16:32:42 <sandro> sandro: Yes, say "you have to use an extension to do this", and make clear it cant be done in existing dialects.
16:33:06 <Zakim> -ChrisW
16:33:13 <StellaMitchell> csma: Adrian and Leora will both work on updating this
16:33:18 <sandro> +1 for each use case, say which dialects can be used.
16:33:25 <csma> action: Adrian to remove RIF syntax from UCR
16:33:26 <trackbot> Created ACTION-1050 - Remove RIF syntax from UCR [on Adrian Paschke - due 2010-09-14].
16:33:56 <csma> action: Leora to annotate use cases wrt implmentability w existing dialects
16:33:56 <trackbot> Created ACTION-1051 - Annotate use cases wrt implmentability w existing dialects [on Leora Morgenstern - due 2010-09-14].
16:34:14 <csma> next item
16:34:22 <StellaMitchell> csma: next call next week?
16:34:34 <sandro> I'm at risk next week, on vacation.
16:34:43 <csma> next telecon will be 14 Sept
16:34:49 <csma> q?
16:35:36 <AdrianP> after next week telecon, would be good to have someone for review
16:35:45 <AdrianP> Stella?
16:35:49 <csma> adourn?
16:35:54 <Zakim> -Doug
16:35:56 <Zakim> -Sandro
16:36:00 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean
16:36:01 <Zakim> -AdrianP
16:36:03 <Zakim> -Leora_Morgenstern
16:36:07 <csma> zakim, list attendees
16:36:07 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Doug, Sandro, Mike_Dean, ChrisW, +33.9.53.56.aaaa, csma, +1.607.257.aabb, StellaMitchell, Leora_Morgenstern, AdrianP, DaveReynolds
16:36:19 <csma> rrsagent, make minutes
16:36:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/09/07-rif-minutes.html csma
16:37:06 <Zakim> -StellaMitchell
16:37:15 <csma> zakim, who is on the phone?
16:37:15 <Zakim> On the phone I see csma
16:37:20 <Zakim> -csma
16:37:21 <Zakim> SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
16:37:23 <Zakim> Attendees were Doug, Sandro, Mike_Dean, ChrisW, +33.9.53.56.aaaa, csma, +1.607.257.aabb, StellaMitchell, Leora_Morgenstern, AdrianP, DaveReynolds
16:53:54 <Zakim> restarting bot in 2 minutes to recover bridge state