IRC log of rif on 2010-09-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:43:04 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
14:43:04 [RRSAgent]
logging to
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]
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 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]
14:59:44 [Zakim]
14:59:48 [StellaMitchell]
StellaMitchell has joined #RIF
15:00:16 [mdean]
mdean has joined #rif
15:00:34 [Zakim]
15:00:45 [Zakim]
15:00:46 [ChrisW]
zakim, ibm is temporarily me
15:00:47 [Zakim]
+ChrisW; got it
15:01:21 [Zakim]
+ +
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]
15:04:13 [Zakim]
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]
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]
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 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] 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]
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]
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]
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]
15:39:27 [csma]
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[< -> ?y]
15:42:11 [StellaMitchell]
Doug: yes, I think we should
15:42:14 [sandro]
And( ?x[<> -> "en"^^xs:language])
15:43:04 [sandro]
?x[<> -> ?y]
15:43:23 [csma]
<Customer xml:lang="en">
15:43:25 [csma]
<Name> John </Name>
15:43:26 [csma]
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]
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[<> -> ?y]
15:48:27 [sandro]
15:48:58 [StellaMitchell]
csma: but if attribute lang or subelement Name have no namespace...
15:49:43 [StellaMitchell] 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", "", "Name") -> ?y ]
15:54:31 [sandro]
?x[ ("Attribute", "", "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]
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]
15:58:37 [StellaMitchell]
csma: Good, I am going to look at the document above, that may provide the solution
16:00:56 [csma]
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]
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]
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]
16:20:32 [AdrianP]
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]
16:21:04 [StellaMitchell]
daver: distinction between "RIF in RDF" and "RIF and RDF"...latter is more important
16:21:30 [csma]
16:21:52 [csma]
next item
16:21:58 [StellaMitchell]
csma: we already have identified reviewers for RIF Primer
16:22:15 [AdrianP]
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]
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], 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]
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]
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]
16:35:36 [AdrianP]
after next week telecon, would be good to have someone for review
16:35:45 [AdrianP]
16:35:49 [csma]
16:35:54 [Zakim]
16:35:56 [Zakim]
16:36:00 [Zakim]
16:36:01 [Zakim]
16:36:03 [Zakim]
16:36:07 [csma]
zakim, list attendees
16:36:07 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Doug, Sandro, Mike_Dean, ChrisW, +, 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 csma
16:37:06 [Zakim]
16:37:15 [csma]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:37:15 [Zakim]
On the phone I see csma
16:37:20 [Zakim]
16:37:21 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
16:37:23 [Zakim]
Attendees were Doug, Sandro, Mike_Dean, ChrisW, +, csma, +1.607.257.aabb, StellaMitchell, Leora_Morgenstern, AdrianP, DaveReynolds
16:53:54 [Zakim]
restarting bot in 2 minutes to recover bridge state