15:08:12 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rif
15:08:12 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/12/08-rif-irc
16:17:06 <ha-k> ha-k has joined #rif
16:19:09 <hak> hak has joined #rif
16:26:49 <Jing> Jing has joined #rif
16:36:43 <DZHirtle> DZHirtle has joined #rif
16:40:12 <DZHirtle> DZHirtle has left #rif
16:46:50 <Hirtle> Hirtle has joined #rif
16:55:26 <Jing> Jing has joined #rif
16:55:50 <ChrisW> ChrisW has joined #rif
16:56:22 <csma> csma has joined #rif
16:56:29 <sandro> sandro has joined #rif
16:56:45 <Harold> Harold has joined #rif
16:58:47 <jos> jos has joined #rif
17:02:17 <sandro> zakim, who is here?
17:02:17 <Zakim> SW_RIF()11:00AM has not yet started, sandro
17:02:18 <Zakim> On IRC I see jos, Harold, sandro, csma, ChrisW, Jing, Hirtle, hak, RRSAgent, Zakim
17:03:01 <Elisa> Elisa has joined #rif
17:05:20 <der> der has joined #rif
17:05:33 <giorgos> giorgos has joined #rif
17:07:37 <jos> jos has joined #rif
17:09:35 <phitzler> phitzler has joined #rif
17:09:54 <jos> Scribe: Jos de Bruijn
17:09:59 <jos> ScribeNick: jos
17:10:11 <jos> Meeting: first RIF f2f
17:10:23 <jos> Chair: Christian
17:12:02 <ericP> ericP has joined #rif
17:12:10 <mdean> mdean has joined #rif
17:12:56 <aharth> aharth has joined #rif
17:15:30 <jos> Topic: run through of agenda
17:17:36 <jos> Christian: we need scribes!
17:17:37 <pfps> pfps has joined #rif
17:18:32 <Zakim> SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
17:18:39 <Zakim> +??P3
17:18:49 <jos> Bijan: not all inputs in the charter are presented in the background
17:19:26 <jos> Christian: all background info will be included in the topics
17:19:29 <sandro> Zakim, ??P3 is JeremyC
17:19:29 <Zakim> +JeremyC; got it
17:20:01 <Zakim> + +1.650.696.aaaa
17:20:02 <jos> Topic: round of introductions
17:20:12 <jeremy> jeremy has joined #rif
17:20:52 <jeremy> Hi, just heard from hotel on Zakim
17:21:17 <ericP> zakim, who is here?
17:21:17 <Zakim> On the phone I see JeremyC, +1.650.696.aaaa
17:21:18 <Zakim> On IRC I see jeremy, pfps, aharth, mdean, ericP, phitzler, jos, giorgos, der, Elisa, Harold, sandro, ChrisW, Jing, Hirtle, hak, RRSAgent, Zakim
17:22:17 <ChrisW> jeremyC, can you hear anything>
17:22:25 <jeremy> hearing very well thankyou
17:23:09 <Zakim> + +1.604.930.aabb
17:24:30 <vassilis> vassilis has joined #rif
17:25:08 <bijan> bijan has joined #rif
17:26:12 <bparsia> bparsia has joined #rif
17:28:33 <bijan> On paper
17:29:42 <bijan> I'm afraid that I cannot find an electronic copy of the list
17:29:55 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg_f2f_1_participants.html
17:29:57 <ChrisW> zakim, who is on the phone
17:29:57 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the phone', ChrisW
17:30:00 <ChrisW> zakim, who is on the phone?
17:30:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see JeremyC, +1.650.696.aaaa, +1.604.930.aabb
17:30:25 <bijan> Well, that's a testimony to my inability to find that list
17:30:33 <ChrisW> zakim, aabb is meeting_room
17:30:33 <Zakim> +meeting_room; got it
17:31:10 <jos> Christian: observers will not be at every meeting; many observers are from OMG; other observers will become 
17:31:22 <jos> .. members after going through the red tape in their organization
17:31:37 <Zakim> -JeremyC
17:31:52 <sandro> +1 617 761 6200 conf code RIFWG
17:32:22 <Zakim> +??P1
17:32:36 <m> m has joined #RIF
17:33:16 <markus> markus has joined #rif
17:33:56 <jos> Topic: W3C process 101, roles and duties in a WG
17:34:23 <Zakim> +Giorgos_Stamou
17:34:32 <m> m has left #RIF
17:34:59 <m> m has joined #rif
17:35:32 <jos> Sandro: much of the content overlaps with DanC's presentation in the workshop in Washington in April
17:35:36 <JeffP> JeffP has joined #rif
17:35:46 <bijan> zakim, loquaciate me
17:35:46 <Zakim> I don't understand 'loquaciate me', bijan
17:37:04 <msintek> msintek has joined #rif
17:39:58 <holger> holger has joined #rif
17:42:56 <bijan> Current slides: http://www.w3.org/2005/12/rif/process101.html
17:43:07 <bijan> We are currently on slide 7
17:45:42 <bijan> Slide 13
17:47:12 <sandro> sandro's slides (again):  http://www.w3.org/2005/12/rif/process101.html
17:47:49 <Allen> Allen has joined #rif
17:48:11 <csma> csma has joined #rif
17:48:29 <sandro> sandro's slides (again again):  http://www.w3.org/2005/12/rif/process101.html
17:49:03 <Deborah> Deborah has joined #rif
17:55:34 <bijan> Slide 14
17:55:45 <bijan> I note that this is not a process based constraint on the working group
17:56:57 <bijan> Even our charter doesn't strictly bound us, since we only need to publish on use case "of interest to the working group". This could be almost none.
17:57:14 <bijan> Slide 16
17:57:31 <bijan> Slide 18
17:58:29 <sandro> slide 7
17:59:06 <jos> ChrisW: roles and responsibilities in the WG
18:00:07 <jos> .. many differences between how W3C and other standards bodies do things
18:00:22 <jos> .. role: director of W3C: TimBL
18:00:45 <jos> ... role: WG chairs: Christian and ChrisW
18:00:53 <jos> ... tale credit for all the work
18:01:01 <jos> ... role: staff contact: Sandro
18:01:22 <jos> ... coordinates technical support
18:01:39 <jos> ... role: primary and alternate participants
18:02:01 <jos> ... any number of people from each organization can join the WG
18:02:16 <jos> ... each orgnization nominated one primary member
18:02:33 <jos> ... when there is a vote, each organization has one vote
18:02:56 <jos> ... the primary is responsible for representing the position of the organization and casting the vote
18:03:29 <jos> ... role: observers
18:04:34 <jos> ... role of observers not clear to ChrisW
18:04:54 <jos> ... members are expected to participate in weekly telecons
18:05:34 <jos> ... members are expected to review the documents produced by the WG
18:06:02 <Adrian> Adrian has joined #rif
18:06:05 <jos> ... members are expected to contribute to the documents
18:06:16 <jos> ... role: editor
18:06:37 <jos> ... already editors required for use cases & requirements document and the issues list
18:07:13 <jos> ... issues list very important; maintaining is a time-consuming task
18:07:26 <jos> ... having a large number of editors on a draft doesn't work
18:07:41 <jos> ... there will be a limit of two editors by default
18:08:07 <jos> ... role: contributor/author
18:08:41 <jos> ... contributors have recognition of efforts w/o being an editor
18:09:02 <jos> ... drafts are maintained in the W3C CVS
18:09:30 <jos> ... thus, editors need to be willing to use CVS
18:10:02 <jos> s/tale/take
18:10:06 <jos> ... role: scribe
18:10:17 <jos> ... every telecon and f2f is scribed
18:10:47 <jos> ... everyone is expected to scribe at some point in time
18:11:00 <jos> ... role: invited expert
18:11:15 <jos> ... do not represent W3C member organizations
18:11:50 <jos> ... Jeff Pan, Ben Grosof and Michael Kifer are invited experts
18:12:11 <jos> ... role: task force
18:12:28 <sandro> But Jeff and Ben are both temporary measures.
18:12:29 <jos> ... task force is small subgroup of WG
18:12:52 <jos> ... at discretion of chairs
18:12:54 <sandro> (Aberdeen is joining, and MIT as a W3C host is complicated.)
18:13:15 <jos> ... liaison activities
18:13:35 <jos> ... there will be liaison positions
18:13:56 <jos> ... will be responsible for representing RIF WG in other activity
18:14:14 <jos> ... there will be coordination with other W3C WGs
18:14:57 <jos> ... for such things as document reviews, requested expertise
18:16:12 <Zakim> -meeting_room
18:16:52 <jeremy> jeremy has joined #rif
18:17:03 <jp> jp has joined #rif
18:25:30 <Allen> Allen has joined #rif
18:25:34 <Donald> Donald has joined #RIF
18:28:41 <edbark> edbark has joined #rif
18:38:07 <sandro> zakim, who is here?
18:38:07 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.650.696.aaaa, jeremy (muted), Giorgos_Stamou
18:38:08 <Zakim> On IRC I see edbark, Donald, Allen, jeremy, Deborah, csma, holger, msintek, mkroetzsch, bijan, vassilis, pfps, aharth, mdean, ericP, phitzler, jos, giorgos, der, Elisa, Harold,
18:38:10 <Zakim> ... sandro, ChrisW, Jing, Hirtle, hak, RRSAgent, Zakim
18:43:13 <Mala> Mala has joined #rif
18:45:52 <jp> jp has joined #rif
18:47:45 <jos> Scribe: Holger Lausen
18:48:01 <jos> ScribeNick: holger
18:48:02 <sandro> zakim, who is on the phone?
18:48:02 <Zakim> On the phone I see +1.650.696.aaaa, jeremy (muted), Giorgos_Stamou
18:48:17 <sandro> jeremy, girogos, can you hear?
18:48:20 <Zakim> +??P0
18:48:24 <holger> Topic: Charter Over view
18:48:26 <bijan> Slides: http://www.w3.org/2005/12/rif/charter-overview.html
18:48:40 <bijan> Slide 2
18:48:43 <giorgos> I can hear
18:48:47 <sandro> zakim, aaaa is Meeting_Room
18:48:48 <Zakim> +Meeting_Room; got it
18:49:07 <holger> Sandro: everyone should have read the charter by now
18:49:33 <sandro> zakim, who is on the phone?
18:49:33 <Zakim> On the phone I see Meeting_Room, jeremy (muted), Giorgos_Stamou, jeremy.a
18:49:47 <sandro> jeremy?  you on two lines?
18:50:20 <holger> ... deliberables should be understood by all
18:50:24 <bijan> Slide 3
18:50:44 <holger> ... charter is sort of project plan
18:51:56 <Zakim> -jeremy
18:53:04 <JeffP> JeffP has joined #rif
18:53:10 <holger> ... about the history of the layercake
18:53:27 <holger> ... rules have been come more important and priminent in that layer cake
18:54:20 <holger> ... 2 years ago sandro drafted a charter for a *semantic* rule working group
18:54:38 <holger> ... but was not sucessfull, but now ILOG approached W3C for a more broad rule effort
18:57:33 <w3c> w3c has joined #rif
18:57:37 <bijan> slide 6
18:57:44 <bijan> Slide 7
18:58:35 <holger> ... 2 phase design was result of to get good scope and fast results
19:00:09 <bijan> Slide 8
19:00:15 <holger> ... phase 2 should be kept in mind but not worry us for now
19:01:37 <holger> ... phase 2 may start after candidate recommendation
19:02:26 <holger> ... about deadlines: if no results are shown w3c may shut down working group
19:02:36 <holger> ... however with good reason extension might negotiated
19:03:51 <holger> bijan: are there examples for w3c groups that come to recommendation in 10 month?
19:04:11 <holger> Sandro: I am not aware and don't follow other shedules
19:04:52 <holger> ... a problem with some working groups is that during livetime they extend feature list
19:05:09 <holger> ... should not occur to us since we have 2 phases
19:05:34 <holger> bijan: one possability but still very challenging
19:06:01 <holger> benjamin: have the same point timeline is very challenging
19:06:29 <holger> ... should use use cases for priotorizing
19:06:47 <holger> dave: should stick to 2 phase approach
19:07:12 <holger> ... and to what is defined in charter
19:07:24 <holger> Sandro: phase 1 is to set the ground
19:08:07 <holger> benjamin: however priorities of phase 2 requirements might impact phase 1
19:09:16 <holger> ChrisW: agrees with Benjamin part of phase 1 is to prioratize what is in phase 2
19:09:45 <holger> ... decission what is to be in phase 2 must be done before phase 2 starts
19:10:01 <bijan> This seems to be proposing to fix the problem with the possible unrealisticness of the schedule by adding *more* and more *contentious* work in phase I.
19:10:09 <ChrisW-using-Sand> ^CHrisW^csma^
19:10:30 <Adrian> Adrian has joined #rif
19:10:44 <holger> ... need to agree that phase1 is not really usefull (wrt. features) but sets the ground with architecture and extension mechanism.
19:10:45 <bijan> Ah, csma puts a stake in the ground against the extra work
19:10:53 <ChrisW-alt> THe point: part of Phase 1 is defining Phase 2
19:11:10 <jeremy> q+ to argue for less
19:11:26 <ChrisW-alt> ...this will happen along the way, not just at the end
19:11:35 <ChrisW-alt> Speaker: Ugo
19:12:14 <holger> ugo: w3c process might be slow due to consensus need
19:12:21 <Zakim> +meeting_room.a
19:12:27 <holger> ... what is the chairs approach to that?
19:12:36 <holger> Sandro: can you be more sepcific
19:13:19 <holger> ugo: are you in favour of voting mechanism or are you more in favour of the w3c consensus approach?
19:13:52 <holger> ChrisW: most of time only 2 conflicting opinions, will try to reach consensus
19:14:09 <holger> however votes are the last method to resolve conflicts
19:14:20 <holger> ... in phase 1 I do not expect this necessary
19:14:21 <ChrisW-alt> ^ChrisW^csma^
19:14:55 <bijan> W3C working groups have "formal votes" and they need not *resolve* issues. Members are allowed to make a formal objection which carry *great weight* against moving to, e.g., LC or CR or REc
19:15:02 <holger> sandro: in phase 2 2 solutions might be the outcome
19:16:21 <ChrisW-alt> zakim, meeting_room.a is hassan
19:16:21 <Zakim> +hassan; got it
19:16:39 <bijan> zakim, queue?
19:16:39 <Zakim> I see jeremy on the speaker queue
19:17:20 <holger> pascal: necessary to distinct phase1 and phase2 issues. However some phase2 features might be only possible with specific decission in phase 1.
19:17:57 <holger> david: own experience with eclipse environment, extensions are driven by the people who extend
19:18:16 <holger> ... however designer of the core might not always be aware of the extension possabilities
19:18:28 <ChrisW-alt> zakim, ack jeremy
19:18:28 <Zakim> jeremy, you wanted to argue for less
19:18:30 <Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
19:18:55 <holger> jermey: most people seem to be motivated by phase 2
19:19:31 <jp> help
19:19:50 <bijan> +1 to jermey
19:20:11 <holger> ... phase 2 should allow revisit phase 1
19:21:37 <holger> csma: use cases are for phase 2
19:22:05 <holger> ... phase 1 only shall provide the basis of the use cases and *not* solve them 
19:22:11 <bijan> Slide 9
19:22:33 <ChrisW-alt> The Charter: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/charter
19:22:48 <holger> sandro: glossary not mentioned in charter, but should be at least internal glossary
19:23:46 <w3c> w3c has joined #rif
19:24:22 <bijan> Slide 10
19:24:36 <jeremy> he said "this is normative, and this is ..."
19:24:37 <bijan> Tech spec, OWL compat and thats it
19:24:42 <jeremy> OK ta
19:24:53 <bijan> Use cases and Requer adn TEst cases "have flexibilty
19:25:16 <holger> ... real use case for the details
19:25:17 <bijan> See: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/charter#deliverables
19:25:46 <holger> ... test cases have to prooved to be useful
19:25:57 <bijan> Slide 11
19:26:04 <holger> csma: tomorrow slot about concrete role of usecase and testcases
19:26:30 <ChrisW-alt> correction: tomorrow we will discuss use cases
19:26:46 <ChrisW-alt> ...not test cases (at least as described on the agenda)
19:26:53 <bijan> I would like to note that the RDF and OWL tests were *not* designed as confromance tests though the are sometimes used that way
19:26:54 <jeremy> Not conformance tests  !!! (my opinion)
19:26:59 <bijan> :)
19:27:42 <holger> sandro: personal note on testcases good to check conformance
19:27:58 <holger> ... did this with OWL test cases.
19:28:14 <holger> bijan: makes point that test suites are not conformence tests
19:28:34 <holger> sandro: yes. They can however clarify
19:29:04 <holger> csma: word conformence will be removed
19:29:36 <ChrisW-alt> jeremy, you must speak loudly, we can barely hear you
19:29:47 <holger> sandro: glossary are about 30 sec. answers
19:29:49 <bijan> slide 13
19:31:08 <bijan> slide 15
19:31:54 <holger> ... about OWL: anyone wants to discuss it now?
19:32:22 <Donald> Donald has joined #rif
19:32:32 <holger> ... reads charter word by word
19:33:45 <holger> csma: stresses "do not reinvent" if something can be done in OWL it should not be dublicated
19:33:50 <bijan> Slide 14
19:35:23 <holger> bijan: is it part of charter to have mapping of n-ary predicates to rdf?
19:35:38 <holger> csma: no he did not say that
19:36:46 <holger> bijan: should not close down the mapping of n-ary to triples, there are multiple ways.
19:36:59 <holger> csma: up to the WG
19:37:10 <Mala_Mehrotra> Mala_Mehrotra has joined #rif
19:37:41 <holger> jon: reads out charter section shown on slite
19:38:16 <holger> csma: "starting point" does not say too much
19:39:10 <jp> from the charter: In order to allow interoperability with RDF and object-oriented systems, the syntax must support named arguments (also called "role" or "slot" names), allowing n-ary facts, rules, and queries to be provided through property/value interfaces.
19:39:29 <jp> 2.2.4
19:40:00 <holger> dieter: need to address rdf anyway
19:40:21 <jeremy> q+ to make process point: chair interprets charter
19:40:22 <holger> csma: the question is if the charter prescribes already a certain way of the mapping
19:40:44 <holger> ... interprets that it does not
19:41:01 <jeremy> ack
19:41:02 <holger> ... suggest that there is no preimposed way to do the mapping
19:43:06 <holger> jeremy: chairs are supposed to interpret the charter?
19:43:22 <holger> ChrisW: not clear to me what is discussed.
19:43:28 <holger> ... lets move on
19:44:05 <holger> sandro: compatibility with PRR
19:44:31 <bijan> To address the other co-chairs puzzlement about the discussion, while no one objected to the point that we must deal with rdf and with nary predicates, the question was whether the *specific method* of encoding nary predicates in RDF was a charter derived constraint, or just one possible approach
19:44:53 <bijan> Slide 16
19:45:27 <bijan> slide 17
19:45:31 <bijan> All done
19:46:00 <holger> csma: asks if there is more discussion on charter
19:46:50 <holger> benjamin: have a process question - what is the process on how to decide the shedule to be extended?
19:47:59 <holger> csma: we will achieve the deadline
19:48:17 <holger> ... (said in my role of project manager)
19:49:28 <holger> csma: working group is about "rule interchange format" and not "rule language for the web"
19:49:34 <holger> ... any bad fealings?
19:49:59 <holger> ... someone advertising WRL (points to dieter)
19:50:19 <holger> bijan: I do not understand the difference.
19:51:36 <holger> csma: question is: do we want a vendor neutral xml format for interchange? Or do we want a language that is directly executed by different engines?
19:51:50 <jeremy> q+ to ask about semantics
19:52:04 <holger> peter: I view both to be exactly the same
19:52:31 <holger> jeremy: disagrees and sees both as different things
19:53:17 <bijan> I would like to point out that we should avoid the "Semantic Web" part of the analogy
19:53:28 <holger> ... just identifying the space we are working in.
19:53:44 <bijan> I.e., Peter just meant, I think, that developing a Rule Interchange Language requires developing a Rule Language
19:54:08 <bijan> s/Rule Interchange Language/Rule Interchange Format/
19:54:19 <holger> ... to exchange rules in a common format and not to design a new language
19:54:43 <jeremy> wasn't me speaking above
19:54:58 <bijan> Was it...hassan?
19:55:16 <holger> who was it?
19:55:47 <giorgos> not me
19:55:52 <jeremy> q-
19:55:54 <hak> It was me - Hassan Ait-Kaci
19:57:33 <holger> Edd: issue is weather the interpretations are well enough defined such that the interachange and the extension do not modify the interpretation
19:58:29 <holger> dieter: Should not include all features but apply the 80/20 rule to include 20% feature to achieve 80% 
19:59:49 <jeremy> q+ to illustrate raising hand on IRC
19:59:56 <jeremy> q-
20:00:02 <bijan> well done
20:00:38 <holger> joshua: the tricky part is not to design some particular features, but to identify overlaps and concrete interpretations and to characterize the difference between concrete rule language
20:01:08 <holger> csma: closes session
20:01:10 <Zakim> -hassan
20:01:37 <holger> s/Edd/Ed
20:01:44 <msintek> msintek has left #rif
20:02:01 <Zakim> -jeremy.a
20:03:31 <PaulV> PaulV has joined #rif
20:07:58 <PaulV> quit
20:16:07 <Hirtle> Hirtle has left #rif
20:46:47 <Zakim> -Giorgos_Stamou
20:47:35 <der> der has joined #rif
20:50:18 <giorgos> giorgos has joined #rif
20:56:19 <Zakim> +Sandro
20:56:52 <Zakim> -Sandro
21:00:16 <Jing> Jing has joined #rif
21:00:40 <Zakim> +??P3
21:00:54 <sandro> sandro has joined #rif
21:02:38 <phitzler> phitzler has joined #rif
21:02:54 <markus> markus has joined #rif
21:02:56 <Mala_Mehrotra> Mala_Mehrotra has joined #rif
21:03:05 <jeremy> earlier could you hear hassan better than me?
21:03:17 <jeremy> was problem my end or yours?
21:04:43 <msintek> msintek has joined #rif
21:05:44 <jos> jos has joined #rif
21:06:02 <ChrisW> ChrisW has joined #rif
21:06:08 <Zakim> +hassan
21:06:12 <sandro> I thought it was pretty similar
21:06:30 <jeremy> ahh, i could hear hassan really well
21:06:36 <ugo> ugo has joined #rif
21:06:43 <jeremy> so problem was your end
21:06:46 <bijan> bijan has joined #rif
21:08:01 <Allen> Allen has joined #rif
21:08:19 <Donald> Donald has joined #rif
21:08:20 <aharth> aharth has joined #rif
21:08:35 <hirtle> hirtle has joined #rif
21:09:32 <GaryH> GaryH has joined #rif
21:09:37 <csma> csma has joined #rif
21:10:15 <PaulV> PaulV has joined #rif
21:10:35 <der> Scribe: Dave Reynolds
21:10:45 <der> ScribeNick: der
21:10:47 <mdean> mdean has joined #rif
21:10:48 <Elisa> Elisa has joined #rif
21:11:00 <holger> holger has joined #rif
21:11:15 <der> Topic: History of KR standardization, Ben Grosof
21:11:29 <der> Slides: to be posted
21:13:16 <jp> jp has joined #rif
21:15:27 <hirtle> hirtle has joined #rif
21:15:34 <der> Highlighting CLIPS syntax as a de facto rule interchange, at least in past
21:15:46 <jp> ? is there a link to this presentation?
21:16:10 <der> Not yet, to be posted
21:16:17 <hirtle> as in, after the talk?
21:16:23 <jp> k tnx
21:17:15 <ChrisW> ChrisW has left #rif
21:17:23 <ChrisW> ChrisW has joined #rif
21:17:36 <Zakim> +??P25
21:20:37 <bijan> I would like to point out that I find much of this presentation tendentious
21:23:35 <der> Bijan corrects SWRL comments on implementation - there exists a non-FOL reasoner, non-LP implmentation, Kaon
21:23:47 <bijan> I guess it depends on what you mean by "non-LP"
21:23:55 <ChrisW> tendentious: Marked by a strong implicit point of view; partisan: a tendentious account of the recent elections.
21:24:16 <jp> while your at it define "inference"
21:24:22 <mkroetzsch> ^Kaon^KAON2^
21:24:38 <vassilis> vassilis has joined #rif
21:24:39 <bijan> I mean, KAON2 works by a (somewhat complex) reduction to positive disjuctive datalog
21:24:45 <giorgos> giorgos has joined #rif
21:24:50 <bijan> But this is very difference than, say, AL Log
21:25:06 <bijan> very different
21:25:41 <bijan> What I mean is that KAON2 implements a direct decision procedure for a rather expressive subset of SWRL (namely DL Safe SHIQ rules)
21:26:45 <mkroetzsch> KAON2: http://kaon2.semanticweb.org/
21:32:42 <der> [slides on semantics and examples, inferencing, ontology, skipped over, not presented]
21:32:48 <JeffP> JeffP has joined #rif
21:32:58 <ugo> ugo has left #rif
21:35:32 <der> Sandro: use some of material as basis for glossary? Benjamin maintain?
21:35:41 <Deborah> Deborah has joined #rif
21:35:41 <der> BG: depends
21:36:04 <der> Topic: W3C recommendations of relevance, Sandro
21:36:36 <sandro> sandros slides: http://www.w3.org/2005/12/rif/glossary_w3c.html
21:38:46 <ChrisW-alt> slide 7
21:39:41 <der> Bijan: why is web arch relevant, given RIF charter is for interchange?
21:40:29 <der> Sandro: e.g. use of URIs etc as in RDF and OWL is part of this group's charter
21:41:26 <der> Bijan questions how formally Sandro represents tbl and DanC
21:42:37 <der> PPS: points out that people who know XSD are likely confused by it, e.g. xsd:duration
21:42:59 <der> s/PPS/pfps/
21:44:51 <Zakim> -jeremy
21:45:09 <ChrisW-alt> oops
21:45:26 <Zakim> +??P3
21:45:36 <der> [not as scribe: I think S in SPARQL is Simple, at least according to some members]
21:45:46 <ChrisW-alt> zakim, who is on the phone?
21:45:46 <Zakim> On the phone I see Meeting_Room, hassan, ??P25, jeremy
21:46:37 <jos> jos has joined #rif
21:47:20 <bijan> [der see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005JulSep/0345.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARQL
21:47:34 <der> Harold: MathML is good for describing functions
21:47:48 <ChrisW-alt> zakim, ?p25 is PedramAbrari
21:47:48 <Zakim> sorry, ChrisW-alt, I do not recognize a party named '?p25'
21:47:57 <ChrisW-alt> zakim, ??p25 is PedramAbrari
21:47:57 <Zakim> +PedramAbrari; got it
21:48:09 <der> .. a sub-initiative might be logical fns in MathML for user defined functions
21:49:25 <der> Topic: Harold Boley, glossary entries
21:49:47 <der> Anyone know the URL for the slides?
21:58:30 <der> Slides presented by authors of each entry - MK for f-logic, Mike Dean for SWRL, Jos for WRL
22:01:04 <sandro> Igor
22:01:20 <der> ChrisW points out we treat these languages as examples of this that must interoperate, not as languages to argue over
22:01:31 <der> s/this/things/
22:01:48 <der> .. just covered web rule languages in this section
22:02:22 <der> Discussion on how to do interchange w/o defining "a language"
22:03:01 <der> Grosof: need "X language" terminology where X can be ..
22:03:08 <sandro> Execution Language
22:03:08 <sandro> Authoring Language
22:03:08 <sandro> RDF Encoding Syntax
22:03:08 <sandro> Concrete Syntax
22:03:08 <sandro> Abstraction Sytnax
22:04:04 <der> Jos: horn logic used ambiguously - subset of FOL v. LP
22:06:59 <der> Topic: Chris Menzel, Common Logics
22:07:50 <jos> What was especially strange is the interpretation of Harold of Datalog. All model-theoretic definitions of Datalog in the literature are based on minimal Herbrand models and *not* first-order models
22:08:20 <der> ChrisW: introduces CL, owl & rdf embedding, not kif but descended ..
22:08:40 <der> .. has formal semantics which we will need too
22:10:41 <Harold> Harold has joined #rif
22:13:09 <Harold> As I mentioned in the glossary overiew, the current entries give a top-level characterization.
22:14:26 <sandro> (laughter at KIF example's english being amusingly different from KIF version)
22:14:26 <Harold> Further distinctions such as FOL vs. LP semantics should be added for Datalog, Horn logic, and (indeed) for more expressive languages.
22:16:55 <der> Slide on KIF is first order provokes discussion on whether it is really fully expressable in first order
22:17:31 <sandro> cm's conclusion: KIF maybe isn't needed any more, if every tool starts working with RIF
22:21:19 <jos> I think we need a different name for the function-free subset of Horn logic (with safety condition)
22:21:46 <jos> Using "Datalog" is IMHO not clear
22:21:46 <sandro> a name other than "datalog" ?
22:21:48 <sandro> interesting.
22:22:20 <jos> Yes, because Datalog is based on minimal model semantics, whereas Harold also wanted to describe first-order semantics
22:22:33 <phitzler> In that case we should probably also avoid "Datalog" because it's ambiguoug as to semantics. Depending on whom you ask.
22:23:02 <phitzler> practical solution is to make it a practice to always state which semantics you mean
22:23:06 <jos> Maybe we should start using citations when talking ;)
22:24:04 <jos> Yes
22:26:48 <jos> How and when will the glossary be published? It would be helpful to have this common terminology asap.
22:28:19 <sandro> My suggestion is people put it into the RIF Wiki as quick as they can.
22:28:37 <jos> URI of the RDF wiki?
22:28:56 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/
22:32:32 <der> Slide on CL's ability to allow syntactic restiction ..
22:32:53 <der> .. Dieter asks for clarification how the integrity constraint works
22:33:10 <der> .. see Pat Hayes for more details on that
22:33:11 <GaryH> GaryH has joined #rif
22:34:09 <der> .. dialect is purely syntactic notion (but has semantic implications)
22:34:42 <sandro> zakim, who is on the phone?
22:34:42 <Zakim> On the phone I see Meeting_Room, hassan, PedramAbrari, jeremy (muted)
22:35:36 <jos> How do we organize discussion around entries in the glossary? Email or in-line comments in the Wiki?
22:36:08 <bijan> That's a tendentious claim!
22:36:23 <bijan> (That first order roughtly means "compact")
22:36:53 <jos> \me as a non-native speaker wonders what 'tendentious' means
22:37:34 <bijan> 	<ChrisW>	tendentious: Marked by a strong implicit point of view; partisan: a tendentious account of the recent elections.
22:37:38 <jp> from Meriam webster: marked by a tendency in favor of a particular point of view : BIASED
22:38:08 <bijan> It has a strong connotation of "contentious" or "controversial"
22:38:34 <bijan> It is not usually, at least in my usage, a pejorative *per se*
22:39:16 <der> Sandro: would xcl dialect restricted to horn fit with RIF phase 1?
22:39:33 <der> cm: yes
22:39:54 <sandro> cm: I think so ... not sure what exactly you need
22:40:10 <der> pfps: CL with equality won't be horn ..
22:40:34 <sandro> "A Horrocks Sentence"
22:41:29 <der> .. cm: use dialect restrictions to prevent the punning which the pseudo-higher order allows
22:42:43 <sandro> "It depends what you mean by 'having a different meaning'"  :-)
22:43:25 <sandro> (CM and PFPS going on....   we beyond what most of us are following.)
22:44:50 <sandro> Harold: SCL ... CL ?
22:45:11 <sandro> CM: SCL was an unnecessary diversion that has been channeled back into CL
22:45:11 <der> SCL? cm: unnecessary diversion, all channeled back into CL
22:46:20 <der> Dieter: can you express transitive closure?
22:47:00 <pfps> A Horrocks sentence is something like  (forall x forall y x=y) implies (Pa implies Qb)
22:47:11 <der>  .. cm tries to clarify question ... taken off line
22:47:12 <sandro> People on the phone: please get on the queue by saying "q+' on IRC
22:47:16 <pfps> This is an axiom in CL but not in FOL
22:47:23 <pfps> It is also an FOL sentence
22:48:24 <mkroetzsch> There was a question for the CL Website. It is http://cl.tamu.edu/
22:48:38 <der> mk: (refering to Dieter question) can't express that one relation is a transitive conclusion of another
22:48:40 <sandro> kifer: to express that one relationion is a transitive closure of another relation
22:48:56 <der> s/conclusion/closure/
22:49:00 <pfps> Consider the following rule:  x=y
22:49:30 <pfps> This brings up divergences between FOL and CL
22:49:37 <sandro> kifer: is not possible in FOL
22:51:05 <Zakim> -hassan
22:51:13 <Zakim> -jeremy
22:51:36 <hak> quit #rif
22:52:21 <jos> If I understand it correctly, the sentence is an axiom in CL, because x=y ensures that P and Q are actually interpreted as the same relation; is this correct?
22:55:40 <ircleuser> ircleuser has joined #rif
22:56:29 <ircleuser> ��
23:06:13 <JosD> JosD has joined #rif
23:18:29 <Zakim> + +aacc
23:18:37 <ekw> ekw has joined #rif
23:20:01 <Zakim> +hassan
23:20:47 <phitzler> phitzler has joined #rif
23:23:43 <pfps> in response to jos:  yes
23:23:52 <MarkusK> MarkusK has joined #rif
23:24:38 <mdean> scribe:  Mike Dean
23:24:39 <PaulV> PaulV has joined #rif
23:24:59 <mdean> Topic:  Christian:  tomorrow's schedule
23:25:15 <mdean> morning:  1 use case per person
23:25:48 <mdean> pet use cases, not necessary real - why you think RIF is interested/needed
23:26:00 <mdean> interests of everyone, plus useful base
23:26:10 <mdean> 5 minutes/person
23:26:33 <mdean> maybe we'll all have the same idea and be done very fast :-)
23:26:53 <mdean> in afternoon, take a few more elaborated use cases (e.g. from email list)
23:27:11 <mdean> identify candidates for Use Case and Requirements document
23:27:22 <mdean> what's needed, etc.
23:27:24 <JosD> JosD has joined #rif
23:27:48 <mdean> dissect case to see what is useful, missing
23:27:54 <mdean> shopping list of what we want in use cases
23:28:35 <mdean> random selection or ask for volunteers (cadavers)
23:29:24 <mdean> homework for tonight:  synthesize/consolidate use cases
23:29:57 <mdean> call for volunteers now
23:30:33 <hirtle> volunteer for what, exactly?
23:30:41 <hirtle> the "homework"?
23:31:17 <mdean> Harold Boley, Dave Reynolds, Paul, Benjamin, Vassilis, Mala, Bijan, Uli
23:31:25 <bijan> I didn't volunteer
23:31:34 <bijan> I volunteered uli
23:31:37 <mdean> sorry
23:31:54 <sandro> +Paula
23:31:57 <sandro> -Paula
23:32:02 <sandro> Volunteers Paula
23:33:15 <mdean> morning will be more personal
23:33:31 <mdean> no prescribed format initially
23:34:01 <mdean> Christian removes hat to present a few PRR glossary entries
23:34:08 <Zakim> -jeremy
23:34:18 <mdean> and OMG standards
23:34:41 <jeremy> Ahh - my call got dropped, but I'm flaking anyway
23:34:59 <ChrisW> ok - g'nite then?
23:35:01 <jeremy> I think I'll go to bed, and not redial ... see you all tomorrow
23:35:13 <mdean> 5 entries:  meta-model, production rule, PRR, SOA, JSR 94
23:35:30 <mdean> slides presumably to be made available
23:35:48 <sandro> ciao, Jeremy!
23:36:06 <mdean> meta-model is the ontology for a model
23:36:09 <mdean> extends UML
23:36:24 <mdean> no definition of meta-model in OMG literature :-(
23:37:55 <mdean> pfps skeptical of rule language ontology
23:38:32 <bijan> Now *that* is contentious :)
23:39:03 <mdean> OMG MOF, UML, and other standards are relevant to meta-models
23:39:56 <mdean> ?:  translation between rule languages if they share meta-model?
23:40:12 <mdean> syntax only?
23:40:23 <mdean> christian:  no, semantics too
23:40:38 <mdean> barkmeyer:  some confusion even within OMG
23:40:43 <MarkusK> ^?^Pascal Hitzler^
23:40:49 <mdean> thanx
23:41:14 <mdean> barkmeyer:  mapping between meta-models
23:41:32 <mdean> christian:  that's what is meant by sharing
23:41:43 <mdean> grosof:  sweetrules translations, e.g. jess to xsb
23:42:02 <mdean> grosof:  distinctions necessary to handle, e.g. negation, properly
23:42:20 <mdean> back to briefing slides
23:42:28 <mdean> slide:  production rule
23:42:56 <mdean> consequent is action or list of actions
23:43:23 <mdean> couldn't find statistics - but major vendors have 1000s of active customers
23:43:38 <mdean> users demanding standard rule interchange format
23:43:50 <mdean> vendors willing to implement
23:45:14 <mdean> slide:  PRR
23:45:23 <mdean> Production Rule Representation
23:45:35 <mdean> under specification at OMG
23:45:51 <JeffP> JeffP has joined #rif
23:46:08 <mdean> follow link to PRR Core UML diagram
23:47:31 <mdean> provides operational semantics not logic
23:48:56 <mdean> PRR support not much of a constraint
23:49:50 <mdean> defining PRR OCL (constraint language)
23:50:48 <mdean> translation to/from IRL and OCL via meta-models
23:51:10 <mdean> Bijan:  what are constraints expressed in UML diagram?
23:51:20 <mdean> Evan:  constraints are separate package
23:51:32 <mdean> weaker than Z
23:52:01 <mdean> OCL = Object Constraint Language
23:52:32 <mdean> Paul:  extension to OCL for rules
23:52:53 <mdean> ?:  difference between production rule and rule?
23:53:06 <mdean> not every rule is a production rule
23:53:32 <mdean> color on diagram is slightly different (hard to see) - provides for future extensions (other classes of rules)
23:53:33 <hak> q+
23:54:14 <mdean> PRR white paper in January
23:54:24 <mdean> slide:  SOA
23:54:29 <hak> q-
23:54:35 <mdean> Service Oriented Architecture
23:54:41 <mdean> end of OMG definitions
23:55:11 <mdean> large class of use cases
23:55:41 <mdean> RIF must be able to refer to web service as procedural attachment
23:55:51 <mdean> Slide:  JSR 94
23:55:58 <mdean> informative, not constraining
23:56:25 <mdean> RIF would be standard rule language for JSR 94
23:56:39 <mdean> part of the motivation for vendors to implement RIF
23:57:08 <mdean> no apparent impact on design of RIF
23:57:54 <mdean> Slide:  SBVR
23:58:13 <hak> who is speaking?
23:58:18 <mdean> Donald Chapin
23:58:25 <hak> Where are his slides?
23:58:40 <mdean> not posted yet
23:58:51 <mdean> Semantics of Business Vocabulary & Business Rules
23:58:59 <mdean> Business Modelling and Integration Domain Task Force
23:59:08 <mdean> OMG ^^
23:59:22 <mdean> "Semantic Beaver" (SBVR)