00:00:00 <sandro> PRESENT: csma, chrisw, gary, dave, changhai, Adrian, Harold, paul, blaz, michael, stella, mikedean, jos, sandro, axel, said
00:00:00 <sandro> REMOTE: Bob
13:10:44 <DaveReynolds> DaveReynolds has joined #rif
Dave Reynolds: DaveReynolds has joined #rif ←
13:12:14 <sandro> sandro has joined #rif
Sandro Hawke: sandro has joined #rif ←
13:13:46 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
13:13:46 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/27-rif-irc#T13-13-46
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/27-rif-irc#T13-13-46 ←
13:15:52 <GaryHallmark> GaryHallmark has joined #rif
Gary Hallmark: GaryHallmark has joined #rif ←
13:16:19 <ChrisW> ChrisW has joined #rif
Chris Welty: ChrisW has joined #rif ←
13:17:38 <mdean> mdean has joined #rif
Mike Dean: mdean has joined #rif ←
13:17:44 <Blaz> Blaz has joined #rif
Blaz Novak: Blaz has joined #rif ←
13:17:53 <StellaMitchell> StellaMitchell has joined #rif
Stella Mitchell: StellaMitchell has joined #rif ←
13:19:36 <sandro> testing....
Sandro Hawke: testing.... ←
13:19:46 <josb> josb has joined #rif
Jos De Bruijn: josb has joined #rif ←
13:19:50 <sandro> scribe: DaveReynolds
(Scribe set to Dave Reynolds)
13:20:01 <DaveReynolds> ScribeNick: DaveReynolds
13:20:26 <AxelPolleres> AxelPolleres has joined #rif
Axel Polleres: AxelPolleres has joined #rif ←
13:20:43 <AdrianP> AdrianP has joined #rif
Adrian Paschke: AdrianP has joined #rif ←
13:21:19 <DaveReynolds> Discussing resolutions proposed from day 1
Discussing resolutions proposed from day 1 ←
13:21:34 <sandro> topic: profiles (issue-29)
13:21:36 <ChrisW> PROPOSED: RIF will not specify a mechanism for profiles in RIF dialects
PROPOSED: RIF will not specify a mechanism for profiles in RIF dialects ←
13:21:41 <ChrisW> (closing issue-29)
Chris Welty: (closing ISSUE-29) ←
13:21:43 <Harold> Harold has joined #rif
Harold Boley: Harold has joined #rif ←
13:21:53 <ChrisW> PROPOSED: RIF will not specify a mechanism for profiles in RIF dialects (closing ISSUE-29)
PROPOSED: RIF will not specify a mechanism for profiles in RIF dialects (closing ISSUE-29) ←
13:21:56 <josb> +1
Jos De Bruijn: +1 ←
13:22:25 <DaveReynolds> Sandro: clarify that "profiles" means sub-dialects that are not themselves dialects
Sandro Hawke: clarify that "profiles" means sub-dialects that are not themselves dialects ←
13:22:59 <sandro> PROPOSED: RIF will not specify a mechanism for profiles (sublanguages of dialects, which are not themselves a dialect), closing issue-29
PROPOSED: RIF will not specify a mechanism for profiles (sublanguages of dialects, which are not themselves a dialect), closing ISSUE-29 ←
13:23:16 <DaveReynolds> csma: a mechanism for profiles would be a mechanism for specifying a sub-dialect by restriction of an existing dialect only
Christian de Sainte Marie: a mechanism for profiles would be a mechanism for specifying a sub-dialect by restriction of an existing dialect only ←
13:23:56 <DaveReynolds> Harold: might something like that in CORE
Harold Boley: might something like that in CORE ←
13:24:04 <sandro> csma: eg "BLD-minus-frames" will not be something that folks can define on their own, without us.
Christian de Sainte Marie: eg "BLD-minus-frames" will not be something that folks can define on their own, without us. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
13:24:20 <DaveReynolds> csma: we can define things by reference, the point is to not have a generic mechanism
Christian de Sainte Marie: we can define things by reference, the point is to not have a generic mechanism ←
13:24:23 <csma> csma has joined #rif
Christian de Sainte Marie: csma has joined #rif ←
13:24:31 <DaveReynolds> s/mechanism/mechanism for this/
s/mechanism/mechanism for this/ ←
13:24:53 <sandro> PROPOSED: RIF will not specify a mechanism for profiles (sub-languages of dialects, which are not themselves a dialect), (addressing part of issue-29)
PROPOSED: RIF will not specify a mechanism for profiles (sub-languages of dialects, which are not themselves a dialect), (addressing part of ISSUE-29) ←
13:25:23 <sandro> Harold: How is this different from a specialization using FLD?
Harold Boley: How is this different from a specialization using FLD? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
13:25:34 <DaveReynolds> Harold: difference is that the output is a dialect or not a dialect, the profile lacks that status of a formal dialect
Harold Boley: difference is that the output is a dialect or not a dialect, the profile lacks that status of a formal dialect ←
13:26:28 <DaveReynolds> No objections
No objections ←
13:26:35 <sandro> RESOLVED: RIF will not specify a mechanism for profiles (sub-languages of dialects, which are not themselves a dialect), (addressing part of issue-29)
RESOLVED: RIF will not specify a mechanism for profiles (sub-languages of dialects, which are not themselves a dialect), (addressing part of ISSUE-29) ←
13:27:08 <BobMoore> BobMoore has joined #rif
Bob Moore: BobMoore has joined #rif ←
13:27:10 <DaveReynolds> Next part of issue-29: do we allow dialects which extend only a subset of CORE
Next part of ISSUE-29: do we allow dialects which extend only a subset of CORE ←
13:27:15 <ChrisW> rrsagent, pointer?
Chris Welty: rrsagent, pointer? ←
13:27:15 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/27-rif-irc#T13-27-15
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/27-rif-irc#T13-27-15 ←
13:27:18 <sandro> csma: Is CORE the root of all extensions, all dialects?
Christian de Sainte Marie: Is CORE the root of all extensions, all dialects? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
13:28:18 <DaveReynolds> Sandro: argument against this is that might find later there are things in CORE we find too heavy
Sandro Hawke: argument against this is that might find later there are things in CORE we find too heavy ←
13:29:05 <DaveReynolds> ChrisW: still allows the notion of a CORE, but it might have to change, CORE should remain the LCD
Chris Welty: still allows the notion of a CORE, but it might have to change, CORE should remain the LCD ←
13:29:36 <DaveReynolds> csma: yesterday we were close to agreeing to allow extensions of subsets of CORE
Christian de Sainte Marie: yesterday we were close to agreeing to allow extensions of subsets of CORE ←
13:29:42 <DaveReynolds> Sandro: <surprise>
Sandro Hawke: <surprise> ←
13:30:11 <PaulVincent> PaulVincent has joined #rif
Paul Vincent: PaulVincent has joined #rif ←
13:30:15 <DaveReynolds> Gary: can't stop vendors doing some vendor PRD profile that might not include all of CORE
Gary Hallmark: can't stop vendors doing some vendor PRD profile that might not include all of CORE ←
13:30:46 <DaveReynolds> Sandro: but that would not be RIF
Sandro Hawke: but that would not be RIF ←
13:32:34 <DaveReynolds> ChrisW: yesterday's phrasing was to not constrain ourselves as to whether or not there would ever be a RIF dialect with is not a superset of all of CORE
Chris Welty: yesterday's phrasing was to not constrain ourselves as to whether or not there would ever be a RIF dialect with is not a superset of all of CORE ←
13:33:01 <DaveReynolds> Sandro: but want to discourage that
Sandro Hawke: but want to discourage that ←
13:33:25 <BobMoore> Is the phone bridge active? What is the conference number for today?
Bob Moore: Is the phone bridge active? What is the conference number for today? ←
13:34:10 <DaveReynolds> Harold: in the latter case the subset of CORE is random, doesn't make sense on its own. If the subset of CORE is meaningful that might be more acceptable.
Harold Boley: in the latter case the subset of CORE is random, doesn't make sense on its own. If the subset of CORE is meaningful that might be more acceptable. ←
13:34:22 <sandro> Hold on BobMoore
Sandro Hawke: Hold on BobMoore ←
13:34:29 <DaveReynolds> Harold: must be a community effort, not just vendor
Harold Boley: must be a community effort, not just vendor ←
13:34:44 <sandro> zakim, room for 10 for 600 minutes
Sandro Hawke: zakim, room for 10 for 600 minutes ←
13:34:44 <Zakim> I don't understand 'room for 10 for 600 minutes', sandro
Zakim IRC Bot: I don't understand 'room for 10 for 600 minutes', sandro ←
13:34:46 <sandro> zakim, room for 10 for 600 minutes?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, room for 10 for 600 minutes? ←
13:34:47 <Zakim> ok, sandro; conference Team_(rif)13:34Z scheduled with code 26631 (CONF1) for 600 minutes until 2334Z
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, sandro; conference Team_(rif)13:34Z scheduled with code 26631 (CONF1) for 600 minutes until 2334Z ←
13:35:14 <sandro> dialing in the room now, Bob
Sandro Hawke: dialing in the room now, Bob ←
13:35:31 <Zakim> Team_(rif)13:34Z has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: Team_(rif)13:34Z has now started ←
13:35:39 <Zakim> + +7.778.41.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: + +7.778.41.aaaa ←
13:36:16 <sandro> Zakim, +aaaa is BobMoore
Sandro Hawke: Zakim, +aaaa is BobMoore ←
13:36:16 <Zakim> sorry, sandro, I do not recognize a party named '+aaaa'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, sandro, I do not recognize a party named '+aaaa' ←
13:36:17 <Zakim> +??P1
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P1 ←
13:36:29 <sandro> Zakim, +7.778.41.aaaa is BobMoore
Sandro Hawke: Zakim, +7.778.41.aaaa is BobMoore ←
13:36:29 <Zakim> +BobMoore; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +BobMoore; got it ←
13:36:36 <sandro> zakim, ?P1 is Meeting_Room
Sandro Hawke: zakim, ?P1 is Meeting_Room ←
13:36:36 <Zakim> sorry, sandro, I do not recognize a party named '?P1'
Zakim IRC Bot: sorry, sandro, I do not recognize a party named '?P1' ←
13:36:40 <sandro> zakim, ??P1 is Meeting_Room
Sandro Hawke: zakim, ??P1 is Meeting_Room ←
13:36:40 <Zakim> +Meeting_Room; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Meeting_Room; got it ←
13:38:08 <DaveReynolds> csma: we could allow ourselves to specify a sub-CORE in future for such purposes
Christian de Sainte Marie: we could allow ourselves to specify a sub-CORE in future for such purposes ←
13:38:16 <DaveReynolds> Sandro: let's deal with that we
Sandro Hawke: let's deal with that we ←
13:38:22 <DaveReynolds> s/we/when the problem arises/
s/we/when the problem arises/ ←
13:38:50 <DaveReynolds> Paul: in that case the problem is the definition of CORE, not nec. the dialect that wants the subset
Paul Vincent: in that case the problem is the definition of CORE, not nec. the dialect that wants the subset ←
13:39:14 <sandro> PaulVincent, Sandro, Chrisw: If we find we need "D3" (a dialect extending a subset of Core) then we're in a bad situation, which we'll deal with at the time.
Sandro Hawke: PaulVincent, Sandro, Chrisw: If we find we need "D3" (a dialect extending a subset of Core) then we're in a bad situation, which we'll deal with at the time. ←
13:39:27 <DaveReynolds> Chrisw: should close issue-29 and open a new issue "is CORE required by every dialect"
Chris Welty: should close ISSUE-29 and open a new issue "is CORE required by every dialect" ←
13:39:41 <DaveReynolds> Sandro: don't need an issue there, if it arises then it becomes an issue then.
Sandro Hawke: don't need an issue there, if it arises then it becomes an issue then. ←
13:40:27 <csma> PROPOSED: we do not decide that all future dialect MUST extend Core (closing ISSUE-69)
PROPOSED: we do not decide that all future dialect MUST extend Core (closing ISSUE-69) ←
13:40:29 <DaveReynolds> Chrisw: issues reflect uncertainty or disagreement, the fact that we considered this and didn't conclude should be carried forward
Chris Welty: issues reflect uncertainty or disagreement, the fact that we considered this and didn't conclude should be carried forward ←
13:41:11 <josb> josb has joined #rif
Jos De Bruijn: josb has joined #rif ←
13:41:13 <csma> PROPOSED: we do not decide that all future dialects MUST extend Core (closing ISSUE-29)
PROPOSED: we do not decide that all future dialects MUST extend Core (closing ISSUE-29) ←
13:42:03 <DaveReynolds> Chrisw: this would be an issue we postponed in order to record for future working groups
Chris Welty: this would be an issue we postponed in order to record for future working groups ←
13:42:04 <csma> PROPOSED: we do not decide that all future dialects MUST extend Core (postponing ISSUE-29)
PROPOSED: we do not decide that all future dialects MUST extend Core (postponing ISSUE-29) ←
13:42:06 <GaryHallmark> future dialects SHOULD extend Core, however the WG recognizes that there is a trade-off between interoperability and ease of translator implementation. Therefore it is not required.
Gary Hallmark: future dialects SHOULD extend Core, however the WG recognizes that there is a trade-off between interoperability and ease of translator implementation. Therefore it is not required. ←
13:42:25 <sandro> ... and mostly, we'll have to deal with it at the time.
Sandro Hawke: ... and mostly, we'll have to deal with it at the time. ←
13:43:35 <sandro> PROPOSED: Future dialects SHOULD extend Core. (Closing ISSUE-29)
PROPOSED: Future dialects SHOULD extend Core. (Closing ISSUE-29) ←
13:43:49 <sandro> PROPOSED: Future RIF dialects SHOULD extend Core. (Closing ISSUE-29)
PROPOSED: Future RIF dialects SHOULD extend Core. (Closing ISSUE-29) ←
13:45:24 <sandro> RESOLVED: Future RIF dialects SHOULD extend Core. (Closing ISSUE-29)
RESOLVED: Future RIF dialects SHOULD extend Core. (Closing ISSUE-29) ←
13:45:38 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
13:45:38 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/27-rif-irc#T13-45-38
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/27-rif-irc#T13-45-38 ←
13:45:56 <DaveReynolds> Next proposed resolution was to remove "at risk" on external frames on BLD
Next proposed resolution was to remove "at risk" on external frames on BLD ←
13:46:55 <sandro> DaveReynolds: MK mentioned the two issues: (1) where do you send the query, and (2) ...?...
Dave Reynolds: MK mentioned the two issues: (1) where do you send the query, and (2) ...?... [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
13:47:26 <sandro> DaveReynolds: That's not a motivation -- if you want that, then add a language feature to do that.
Dave Reynolds: That's not a motivation -- if you want that, then add a language feature to do that. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
13:47:55 <AxelPolleres> q+
Axel Polleres: q+ ←
13:48:23 <DaveReynolds> Gary: possible relates to the issue of PRD systems being unable to put membership in the head, because membership is "externally" defined
Gary Hallmark: possible relates to the issue of PRD systems being unable to put membership in the head, because membership is "externally" defined ←
13:48:58 <DaveReynolds> Gary: dismayed by the asymmetry - external member/subclass more interesting for him than external frames
Gary Hallmark: dismayed by the asymmetry - external member/subclass more interesting for him than external frames ←
13:49:35 <DaveReynolds> Gary: that would then explain why it can't go in the head
Gary Hallmark: that would then explain why it can't go in the head ←
13:50:05 <DaveReynolds> csma: right, in PRD case they are always external
Christian de Sainte Marie: right, in PRD case they are always external ←
13:50:55 <DaveReynolds> Sandro: how would that look?
Sandro Hawke: how would that look? ←
13:51:10 <DaveReynolds> Gary/csma: External( ?x # IRIclasss)
Gary/csma: External( ?x # IRIclasss) ←
13:51:18 <DaveReynolds> Adrian: better to have typed variables
Adrian Paschke: better to have typed variables ←
13:51:28 <DaveReynolds> csma: this is a redesign
Christian de Sainte Marie: this is a redesign ←
13:51:40 <DaveReynolds> Sandro: could consider it an extension
Sandro Hawke: could consider it an extension ←
13:51:45 <DaveReynolds> MK: easy to add
Michael Kifer: easy to add ←
13:52:11 <DaveReynolds> MK: just an oversight it wasn't included
Michael Kifer: just an oversight it wasn't included ←
13:52:22 <DaveReynolds> Harold: this is in FLD
Harold Boley: this is in FLD ←
13:52:34 <Harold> BLD : 'External' '(' Atom | Frame ')'
Harold Boley: BLD : 'External' '(' Atom | Frame ')' ←
13:53:03 <DaveReynolds> MK: referenced overnight email
Michael Kifer: referenced overnight email ←
13:53:06 <Harold> FLD : 'External' '(' ATOMIC ')')
Harold Boley: FLD : 'External' '(' ATOMIC ')') ←
13:53:06 <Harold> ATOMIC ::= Const | Atom | Equal | Member | Subclass | Frame
Harold Boley: ATOMIC ::= Const | Atom | Equal | Member | Subclass | Frame ←
13:53:33 <DaveReynolds> MK: can't know where to address unless you have a convention, irrespective of frames/predicates etc
Michael Kifer: can't know where to address unless you have a convention, irrespective of frames/predicates etc ←
13:53:46 <DaveReynolds> MK: in this case the convention could be class
Michael Kifer: in this case the convention could be class ←
13:54:10 <DaveReynolds> Sandro: no, the class doesn't know about the instances
Sandro Hawke: no, the class doesn't know about the instances ←
13:54:55 <AxelPolleres> We can do ALL external calls with predicates, e.g. External( a [ p-> c] ) could be formulated as: External( call( "?a [ ?p-> ?c]" a b c ) or an external call to a SPARQL or SQL endpoint could be emulated with External( EvalSPARQL( ?X ?Y " SELECT ?X FROM ... WHERE { ... ?Y ... } " ), etc.
Axel Polleres: We can do ALL external calls with predicates, e.g. External( a [ p-> c] ) could be formulated as: External( call( "?a [ ?p-> ?c]" a b c ) or an external call to a SPARQL or SQL endpoint could be emulated with External( EvalSPARQL( ?X ?Y " SELECT ?X FROM ... WHERE { ... ?Y ... } " ), etc. ←
13:55:23 <DaveReynolds> csma: MISMO example: ?x # Mismo:elt
Christian de Sainte Marie: MISMO example: ?x # Mismo:elt ←
13:55:45 <AxelPolleres> ... so theoretically ther is neither an advantage nor harm in allowing/disallowing whatever terms in External.
Axel Polleres: ... so theoretically ther is neither an advantage nor harm in allowing/disallowing whatever terms in External. ←
13:55:47 <DaveReynolds> csma: the fact that this is external is only given by the fact that Mismo schema exists
Christian de Sainte Marie: the fact that this is external is only given by the fact that Mismo schema exists ←
13:57:00 <AdrianP> we are talking about an external type system
Adrian Paschke: we are talking about an external type system ←
13:58:05 <DaveReynolds> Dave: talking about three different cases - access to an external data source (c.f. email trail), a builtin with a fixed interpretation and an object where you change the slot values but not the type
Dave Reynolds: talking about three different cases - access to an external data source (c.f. email trail), a builtin with a fixed interpretation and an object where you change the slot values but not the type ←
13:58:12 <AxelPolleres> zakim, who is on the queue?
Axel Polleres: zakim, who is on the queue? ←
13:58:12 <Zakim> I see AxelPolleres on the speaker queue
Zakim IRC Bot: I see AxelPolleres on the speaker queue ←
13:58:30 <DaveReynolds> MK: builtins are external because they are not defined by your ruleset
Michael Kifer: builtins are external because they are not defined by your ruleset ←
13:59:00 <DaveReynolds> Changhai: what does that mean in the case of something like Mismo?
Changhai Ke: what does that mean in the case of something like Mismo? ←
13:59:26 <DaveReynolds> Sandro: if it is not external, are you somehow assuming there is no information available elsewhere?
Sandro Hawke: if it is not external, are you somehow assuming there is no information available elsewhere? ←
13:59:53 <DaveReynolds> MK: if it isn't external it will try to match against clauses in the ruleset
Michael Kifer: if it isn't external it will try to match against clauses in the ruleset ←
14:00:45 <DaveReynolds> csma: if you can assert it then it can't be external
Christian de Sainte Marie: if you can assert it then it can't be external ←
14:01:43 <MichaelKifer> MichaelKifer has joined #rif
Michael Kifer: MichaelKifer has joined #rif ←
14:01:50 <DaveReynolds> Axel: we clarified yesterday we could do all external calls with predicates using some query string.
Axel Polleres: we clarified yesterday we could do all external calls with predicates using some query string. ←
14:02:03 <DaveReynolds> Axel: two ways to go, either only predicates or allow any TERMs
Axel Polleres: two ways to go, either only predicates or allow any TERMs ←
14:03:43 <PaulVincent> Axel: its not about "external calls" (I think), its about using a Domain Specific Language with predicate constraints defined by the schema, and this being used to build the rules, with runtime-only access to facts (when you "run the rules with dataset X")...
Axel Polleres: its not about "external calls" (I think), its about using a Domain Specific Language with predicate constraints defined by the schema, and this being used to build the rules, with runtime-only access to facts (when you "run the rules with dataset X")... [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
14:03:56 <DaveReynolds> csma: is x = y, when x y are integer the same as numeric equals or not
Christian de Sainte Marie: is x = y, when x y are integer the same as numeric equals or not ←
14:03:59 <csma> q?
Christian de Sainte Marie: q? ←
14:04:05 <csma> ack axel
Christian de Sainte Marie: ack axel ←
14:04:31 <DaveReynolds> Harold: re Axel's approach, this would be some sort of builtin
Harold Boley: re Axel's approach, this would be some sort of builtin ←
14:04:55 <DaveReynolds> Axel: yes, we just have a choice of predicates or all TERMs
Axel Polleres: yes, we just have a choice of predicates or all TERMs ←
14:05:17 <DaveReynolds> MK: in that case the extreme would be to have one builtin called "external" !
Michael Kifer: in that case the extreme would be to have one builtin called "external" ! ←
14:06:05 <DaveReynolds> csma: how to distinguish between a membership relation defined externally and the case where you can define or modify it
Christian de Sainte Marie: how to distinguish between a membership relation defined externally and the case where you can define or modify it ←
14:06:12 <AxelPolleres> I propose the following:
Axel Polleres: I propose the following: ←
14:06:49 <AxelPolleres> Change the Definition of External schemas (sec 2.5 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/FLD) as follows:
Axel Polleres: Change the Definition of External schemas (sec 2.5 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/FLD) as follows: ←
14:06:54 <DaveReynolds> MK: there is no issue, if you write external, you go to some place based on some convention and the external source will satisfy the goal
Michael Kifer: there is no issue, if you write external, you go to some place based on some convention and the external source will satisfy the goal ←
14:07:26 <AxelPolleres> to allowing ANY term for τ
Axel Polleres: to allowing ANY term for τ ←
14:07:31 <DaveReynolds> MK: it doesn't stop you defining something internally as well
Michael Kifer: it doesn't stop you defining something internally as well ←
14:07:54 <DaveReynolds> MK: ?X:abc :- External(?X:abc)
Michael Kifer: ?X:abc :- External(?X:abc) ←
14:10:27 <sandro> DaveReynolds: CSMA, I think you're confusing two things in your example -- use subclass instead of member, since subclass *is* fixed by MISMO.
Dave Reynolds: CSMA, I think you're confusing two things in your example -- use subclass instead of member, since subclass *is* fixed by MISMO. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:11:49 <sandro> I'm finding what MichaelKifer said makes sense if I think of "external" as "evaluable" -- but not if I think of external data sources which you could merge with.
Sandro Hawke: I'm finding what MichaelKifer said makes sense if I think of "external" as "evaluable" -- but not if I think of external data sources which you could merge with. ←
14:12:49 <DaveReynolds> [not as scribe, to Sandro] which is why in the email trail I suggested that the external-data-source version is clearer with a different construct
[not as scribe, to Sandro] which is why in the email trail I suggested that the external-data-source version is clearer with a different construct ←
14:13:08 <AxelPolleres> +1 sandro. it is that only, not more, not less.
Axel Polleres: +1 sandro. it is that only, not more, not less. ←
14:13:14 <sandro> Gary: All external means is you can't put it in the conclusion.
Gary Hallmark: All external means is you can't put it in the conclusion. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:13:52 <AxelPolleres> ... thus we can allow any terms in External. is it up to the dialect author to define what that external schema complying to a specific term means.
Axel Polleres: ... thus we can allow any terms in External. is it up to the dialect author to define what that external schema complying to a specific term means. ←
14:14:08 <sandro> Gary: So if you want to say some term must never occur in a conclusion, then mark it external.
Gary Hallmark: So if you want to say some term must never occur in a conclusion, then mark it external. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:14:29 <AxelPolleres> ... so, I actualy have lost, WHAT we actually are discussing now?
Axel Polleres: ... so, I actualy have lost, WHAT we actually are discussing now? ←
14:14:44 <sandro> indeed. :)
Sandro Hawke: indeed. :) ←
14:14:49 <DaveReynolds> Paul: do we need to specify things external reference to Mismo in *RIF*, surely it is clear at runtime
Paul Vincent: do we need to specify things external reference to Mismo in *RIF*, surely it is clear at runtime ←
14:16:26 <DaveReynolds> csma: but even if in production rule engines things are always external we should still mark that, to be conformant with other engines
Christian de Sainte Marie: but even if in production rule engines things are always external we should still mark that, to be conformant with other engines ←
14:16:49 <DaveReynolds> [scribe can't follow this well enough so nuances may be getting lost]
[scribe can't follow this well enough so nuances may be getting lost] ←
14:17:02 <DaveReynolds> Paul: can handle as a constraint in the spec
Paul Vincent: can handle as a constraint in the spec ←
14:17:41 <DaveReynolds> csma: we need to differentiate between internal and external #/##, even if at the moment we only use external, but need distinction in future
Christian de Sainte Marie: we need to differentiate between internal and external #/##, even if at the moment we only use external, but need distinction in future ←
14:17:43 <GaryHallmark> choice is External(Atom) or External(ATOMIC) -- can we just vote which we want???
Gary Hallmark: choice is External(Atom) or External(ATOMIC) -- can we just vote which we want??? ←
14:18:07 <DaveReynolds> Paul: at the moment no PR engine deals with non-external member/subclass
Paul Vincent: at the moment no PR engine deals with non-external member/subclass ←
14:19:06 <DaveReynolds> Gary: choice is external(Atom) or external(ATOMIC) can we just vote on that then move on
Gary Hallmark: choice is external(Atom) or external(ATOMIC) can we just vote on that then move on ←
14:19:31 <AxelPolleres> +1 for External( ATOMIC )
Axel Polleres: +1 for External( ATOMIC ) ←
14:20:04 <DaveReynolds> Paul: this is a usage issue, if PR engines only deal with external definitions, then is some future hypothetical case where you could also define internally really important to cover
Paul Vincent: this is a usage issue, if PR engines only deal with external definitions, then is some future hypothetical case where you could also define internally really important to cover ←
14:20:11 <DaveReynolds> s/cover/cover?/
s/cover/cover?/ ←
14:20:38 <AxelPolleres> sorry, anybody else feeling that we waste valuable WG time here on a minor issue?
Axel Polleres: sorry, anybody else feeling that we waste valuable WG time here on a minor issue? ←
14:21:32 <sandro> I don't think it's minor, AxelPolleres, but I'm not sure this is the most productive approach to it. It seems important to understand externals, but I don't know how we'll get there.
Sandro Hawke: I don't think it's minor, AxelPolleres, but I'm not sure this is the most productive approach to it. It seems important to understand externals, but I don't know how we'll get there. ←
14:21:33 <DaveReynolds> csma: if there are two cases we need two different syntaxes
Christian de Sainte Marie: if there are two cases we need two different syntaxes ←
14:22:19 <josb> I agree that we might want to cut short this discussion
Jos De Bruijn: I agree that we might want to cut short this discussion ←
14:22:29 <AxelPolleres> ... by reading the definition of exxternal schemata.
Axel Polleres: ... by reading the definition of exxternal schemata. ←
14:23:30 <DaveReynolds> Paul: using external to define a constraint on the implementation, isn't better to do that as a specification?
Paul Vincent: using external to define a constraint on the implementation, isn't better to do that as a specification? ←
14:23:40 <DaveReynolds> s/better/it better/
s/better/it better/ ←
14:25:19 <DaveReynolds> Paul: could use test in PR and Logic system but in PR dialect could simply say always external without needed separate syntax, is that more flexible?
Paul Vincent: could use test in PR and Logic system but in PR dialect could simply say always external without needed separate syntax, is that more flexible? ←
14:25:43 <DaveReynolds> csma: but in future dialects you could have dynamic membership, then you would lack a syntax
Christian de Sainte Marie: but in future dialects you could have dynamic membership, then you would lack a syntax ←
14:25:57 <DaveReynolds> Paul: but just define a new dialect PRDD that supports that new capability
Paul Vincent: but just define a new dialect PRDD that supports that new capability ←
14:26:19 <DaveReynolds> csma: BLD needs it now so why not define it now and use in PRD?
Christian de Sainte Marie: BLD needs it now so why not define it now and use in PRD? ←
14:26:58 <DaveReynolds> Changhai: could use external predicate like instanceOf to represent these tests
Changhai Ke: could use external predicate like instanceOf to represent these tests ←
14:27:25 <DaveReynolds> csma: would need to add isntanceOf etc to DTB for PRD
Christian de Sainte Marie: would need to add isntanceOf etc to DTB for PRD ←
14:27:41 <DaveReynolds> s/isn/ins/
s/isn/ins/ ←
14:28:26 <PaulVincent> Response to Axel: it could well be a minor issue - I've no idea whether LP guys will ever want to input production rules and do reasoning on the rules... (I guess this is the potential of a shared core)
Paul Vincent: Response to Axel: it could well be a minor issue - I've no idea whether LP guys will ever want to input production rules and do reasoning on the rules... (I guess this is the potential of a shared core) ←
14:28:51 <GaryHallmark> biz rule use case for membership in conclusion: if c#Customer and c[spent->$400] then c#GoldCustomer
Gary Hallmark: biz rule use case for membership in conclusion: if c#Customer and c[spent->$400] then c#GoldCustomer ←
14:28:53 <DaveReynolds> csma: not close to consensus?
Christian de Sainte Marie: not close to consensus? ←
14:29:23 <sandro> Chrisw: This issue is just External-Atom and External-Atomic
Chris Welty: This issue is just External-Atom and External-Atomic [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:29:24 <Harold> BLD : 'External' '(' Atom | Frame ')'
Harold Boley: BLD : 'External' '(' Atom | Frame ')' ←
14:29:31 <Harold> FLD : 'External' '(' ATOMIC ')')
Harold Boley: FLD : 'External' '(' ATOMIC ')') ←
14:29:31 <Harold> <Harold> ATOMIC ::= Const | Atom | Equal | Member | Subclass | Frame
Harold Boley: <Harold> ATOMIC ::= Const | Atom | Equal | Member | Subclass | Frame ←
14:30:43 <PaulVincent> I think Gary's example would translate to if ext(c#Customer) and ...
Paul Vincent: I think Gary's example would translate to if ext(c#Customer) and ... ←
14:30:50 <sandro> csma: three ways: external(atom), external(atom|Frame), or external(atomic)
Christian de Sainte Marie: three ways: external(atom), external(atom|Frame), or external(atomic) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:31:07 <DaveReynolds> Jos: this would require a new LC for BLD?
Jos De Bruijn: this would require a new LC for BLD? ←
14:31:11 <AxelPolleres> Paul, but this discussion ONLY revolves around the allowed syntax to external calls, which is purely syntactic, the semantics of the External calls is not defined in the rule language, I could interpret an ?X#?Y as "?X goes well with ?Y and creamcheese" or whatever, upto the author defining that external schema.
Axel Polleres: Paul, but this discussion ONLY revolves around the allowed syntax to external calls, which is purely syntactic, the semantics of the External calls is not defined in the rule language, I could interpret an ?X#?Y as "?X goes well with ?Y and creamcheese" or whatever, upto the author defining that external schema. ←
14:32:09 <AxelPolleres> ... I don't see what this has to do with LP?
Axel Polleres: ... I don't see what this has to do with LP? ←
14:33:44 <PaulVincent> Axel: yes, but the issue is whether stuff that is ext will always be ext? ie C is a CreamChees may be ext in a PRD, but not in BLD - so immediately this makes sharing info more difficult? But, it might not be an issue...
Axel Polleres: yes, but the issue is whether stuff that is ext will always be ext? ie C is a CreamChees may be ext in a PRD, but not in BLD - so immediately this makes sharing info more difficult? But, it might not be an issue... [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
14:33:51 <DaveReynolds> Straw test on choice: external(ATOM) external(ATOMIC) external([ATOM|Frame])
Straw test on choice: external(ATOM) external(ATOMIC) external([ATOM|Frame]) ←
14:34:37 <DaveReynolds> Straw test on choice: (1) external(ATOM) (2) external(ATOMIC) (3) external([ATOM|Frame])
Straw test on choice: (1) external(ATOM) (2) external(ATOMIC) (3) external([ATOM|Frame]) ←
14:36:14 <AxelPolleres> Paul, redefining/reusing "#" in an external is as problematic/non-problematic as for instance defining an External( rif:iri( ...) ) predicate.
Axel Polleres: Paul, redefining/reusing "#" in an external is as problematic/non-problematic as for instance defining an External( rif:iri( ...) ) predicate. ←
14:36:35 <AxelPolleres> ... where the latter is even possible with ATOM.
Axel Polleres: ... where the latter is even possible with ATOM. ←
14:38:55 <josb> Why do people seem to assume that built-ins are the best way to access data sources?
Jos De Bruijn: Why do people seem to assume that built-ins are the best way to access data sources? ←
14:39:02 <DaveReynolds> DaveReynolds has joined #rif
DaveReynolds has joined #rif ←
14:39:29 <DaveReynolds> Pref for (1) - 3
Pref for (1) - 3 ←
14:39:43 <DaveReynolds> Pref for (2) - 6
Pref for (2) - 6 ←
14:39:51 <ChrisW> (1) is EXTERNAL(ATOM)
Chris Welty: (1) is EXTERNAL(ATOM) ←
14:40:02 <ChrisW> (2) is EXTERNAL(ATOMIC)
Chris Welty: (2) is EXTERNAL(ATOMIC) ←
14:40:10 <josb> re 2: what does external equality mean?
Jos De Bruijn: re 2: what does external equality mean? ←
14:40:26 <DaveReynolds> Pref for (3) - 2
Pref for (3) - 2 ←
14:40:56 <DaveReynolds> Object to (1) - 1 (MK)
Object to (1) - 1 (MK) ←
14:41:01 <PaulVincent> What is Bob voting? :)
Paul Vincent: What is Bob voting? :) ←
14:41:51 <DaveReynolds> Object to (2) - 1 (Jos)
Object to (2) - 1 (Jos) ←
14:41:59 <BobMoore> Bob isn't voting because he is struggling to figure out the consequences
Bob Moore: Bob isn't voting because he is struggling to figure out the consequences ←
14:42:21 <PaulVincent> Ah... like me
Paul Vincent: Ah... like me ←
14:42:49 <BobMoore> I'm not really in favour of an option that means we HAVE to support dynamic class membership in PRD
Bob Moore: I'm not really in favour of an option that means we HAVE to support dynamic class membership in PRD ←
14:42:52 <DaveReynolds> Object to (3) - 1 (Axel)
Object to (3) - 1 (Axel) ←
14:43:26 <BobMoore> Not that dynamic class membership is not a lot of fun when programming real world applications
Bob Moore: Not that dynamic class membership is not a lot of fun when programming real world applications ←
14:43:35 <DaveReynolds> Jos - equality is equality, what makes external equality different from equality
Jos - equality is equality, what makes external equality different from equality ←
14:44:00 <PaulVincent> Bob: of course, SRL does allow subclasses of externals to be defined in a ruleset. But I can't remember if you can change object membership at runtime...
Bob Moore: of course, SRL does allow subclasses of externals to be defined in a ruleset. But I can't remember if you can change object membership at runtime... [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
14:44:25 <DaveReynolds> Axel - agrees with Gary's argument that frame but not #/## is strange
Axel - agrees with Gary's argument that frame but not #/## is strange ←
14:44:26 <BobMoore> ah but Nexpert allowed you to do that
Bob Moore: ah but Nexpert allowed you to do that ←
14:45:07 <PaulVincent> Hmmm... but Nexpert was an internal object model and bwd chaining ...
Paul Vincent: Hmmm... but Nexpert was an internal object model and bwd chaining ... ←
14:46:55 <AxelPolleres> redefining/reusing "=" in an external schema is as problematic/non-problematic as for instance defining an External( rif:iri( ...) ) predicate.
Axel Polleres: redefining/reusing "=" in an external schema is as problematic/non-problematic as for instance defining an External( rif:iri( ...) ) predicate. ←
14:47:54 <PaulVincent> Axel: I wonder if referencing an external nerual net / fuzzy logic system would be a use case for an ext(=)
Axel Polleres: I wonder if referencing an external nerual net / fuzzy logic system would be a use case for an ext(=) [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
14:49:41 <ChrisW> action: Chris to open an issue on what things are external
ACTION: Chris to open an issue on what things are external ←
14:49:41 <trackbot> Created ACTION-601 - Open an issue on what things are external [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-10-04].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-601 - Open an issue on what things are external [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-10-04]. ←
14:50:23 <ChrisW> issue: Which to make external: ATOMIC, ATOM, or ATOM|FRAME
ISSUE: Which to make external: ATOMIC, ATOM, or ATOM|FRAME ←
14:50:23 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-78 - Which to make external: ATOMIC, ATOM, or ATOM|FRAME ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/78/edit .
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-78 - Which to make external: ATOMIC, ATOM, or ATOM|FRAME ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/78/edit . ←
14:50:28 <sandro> ACTION-601 closed
Sandro Hawke: ACTION-601 closed ←
14:50:29 <trackbot> ACTION-601 Open an issue on what things are external closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-601 Open an issue on what things are external closed ←
14:51:02 <ChrisW> rraagent, pointer?
Chris Welty: rraagent, pointer? ←
14:51:09 <ChrisW> rrsagent, pointer?
Chris Welty: rrsagent, pointer? ←
14:51:09 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/27-rif-irc#T14-51-09
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/27-rif-irc#T14-51-09 ←
14:52:01 <BobMoore> from a pragmatic perspecitve if I am building a rule or logic engine, everything is internal at "execution" time even if I have to "import" external definitions
Bob Moore: from a pragmatic perspecitve if I am building a rule or logic engine, everything is internal at "execution" time even if I have to "import" external definitions ←
14:52:07 <DaveReynolds> csma: so do not remove "at risk" on external frames but perhaps point to issue-78 in the text
Christian de Sainte Marie: so do not remove "at risk" on external frames but perhaps point to ISSUE-78 in the text ←
14:52:35 <BobMoore> ... the problem arises when I try to map my internal representations back to an external representation
Bob Moore: ... the problem arises when I try to map my internal representations back to an external representation ←
14:53:05 <PaulVincent> Bob: yes, its internal with constraints on what I can do... which is what I was commenting with Christian - PRDs using external schemas are just constrained on what they do...
Bob Moore: yes, its internal with constraints on what I can do... which is what I was commenting with Christian - PRDs using external schemas are just constrained on what they do... [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
14:53:47 <DaveReynolds> MK: have another option from Dave of adding another argument to external to specify the source see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Sep/0193.html
Michael Kifer: have another option from Dave of adding another argument to external to specify the source see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Sep/0193.html ←
14:54:23 <DaveReynolds> Next discussion: proposed modified text to BLD conformance clause
Next discussion: proposed modified text to BLD conformance clause ←
14:56:50 <DaveReynolds> "In addition, conformant BLD producers and consumers should preserve all annotations where possible"
"In addition, conformant BLD producers and consumers should preserve all annotations where possible" ←
14:57:39 <AxelPolleres> "In addition, conformant BLD producers and consumers SHOULD preserve all annotations"
Axel Polleres: "In addition, conformant BLD producers and consumers SHOULD preserve all annotations" ←
14:57:57 <AxelPolleres> ... "where possible" is subsumed by should, isn't it?
Axel Polleres: ... "where possible" is subsumed by should, isn't it? ←
15:00:05 <sandro> DaveReynolds: The "where possible" is good because it acknowledges that it may not always be possible.
Dave Reynolds: The "where possible" is good because it acknowledges that it may not always be possible. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:01:01 <AxelPolleres> "In addition, conformant BLD producers and consumers External(should) preserve all annotations where possible OR 1=2."
Axel Polleres: "In addition, conformant BLD producers and consumers External(should) preserve all annotations where possible OR 1=2." ←
15:01:24 <Harold> We could say: When you omit existing annotations, then you MUST add an annotation (* "annotation omitted" *)" at the enclosing syntactic construct.
Harold Boley: We could say: When you omit existing annotations, then you MUST add an annotation (* "annotation omitted" *)" at the enclosing syntactic construct. ←
15:02:12 <ChrisW> PROPOSED: remove round-tripping clause from conformance, add sentence to RIF_BLD clauses
PROPOSED: remove round-tripping clause from conformance, add sentence to RIF_BLD clauses ←
15:02:19 <josb> +1
Jos De Bruijn: +1 ←
15:02:27 <Harold> +1
Harold Boley: +1 ←
15:02:30 <AxelPolleres> +1
Axel Polleres: +1 ←
15:02:33 <AdrianP> +1
Adrian Paschke: +1 ←
15:02:36 <Blaz> +1
Blaz Novak: +1 ←
15:02:37 <GaryHallmark> +1
Gary Hallmark: +1 ←
15:02:41 <ChrisW> PROPOSED: remove round-tripping clause from BLD conformance, add sentence to RIF_BLD clauses
PROPOSED: remove round-tripping clause from BLD conformance, add sentence to RIF_BLD clauses ←
15:02:51 <ChrisW> PROPOSED: remove round-tripping clause from BLD conformance, add sentence to RIF_BLD clauses, closing round-tripping issue
PROPOSED: remove round-tripping clause from BLD conformance, add sentence to RIF_BLD clauses, closing round-tripping issue ←
15:03:08 <ChrisW> PROPOSED: remove round-tripping clause from BLD conformance, add sentence to RIF_BLD clauses, closing round-tripping issue 26
PROPOSED: remove round-tripping clause from BLD conformance, add sentence to RIF_BLD clauses, closing round-tripping ISSUE-26 ←
15:03:32 <DaveReynolds> No objections
No objections ←
15:03:33 <ChrisW> RESOLVED: remove round-tripping clause from BLD conformance, add sentence to RIF_BLD clauses, closing round-tripping issue 26
RESOLVED: remove round-tripping clause from BLD conformance, add sentence to RIF_BLD clauses, closing round-tripping ISSUE-26 ←
15:06:19 <ChrisW> rrsagent, pointer?
Chris Welty: rrsagent, pointer? ←
15:06:19 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/27-rif-irc#T15-06-19
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/27-rif-irc#T15-06-19 ←
15:29:39 <Zakim> -BobMoore
(No events recorded for 23 minutes)
Zakim IRC Bot: -BobMoore ←
15:32:35 <Zakim> -Meeting_Room
Zakim IRC Bot: -Meeting_Room ←
15:32:37 <Zakim> Team_(rif)13:34Z has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: Team_(rif)13:34Z has ended ←
15:32:37 <Sandro> Topic: Parallel Session: PRD
15:32:39 <Zakim> Attendees were BobMoore, Meeting_Room
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were BobMoore, Meeting_Room ←
15:34:15 <PaulVincent> PaulVincent has joined #rif
Paul Vincent: PaulVincent has joined #rif ←
15:41:31 <PaulVincent> Presume Bob will join the PRD conflict resolution discussion ...
(No events recorded for 7 minutes)
Paul Vincent: Presume Bob will join the PRD conflict resolution discussion ... ←
15:42:04 <mdean> mdean has joined #rif
Mike Dean: mdean has joined #rif ←
15:42:46 <BobMoore> Just dropped off the phone, will call back in when you restart
Bob Moore: Just dropped off the phone, will call back in when you restart ←
15:43:35 <DaveReynolds_> DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif
DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif ←
15:44:34 <AxelP> AxelP has joined #rif
Axel Polleres: AxelP has joined #rif ←
15:45:16 <MichaelKifer> MichaelKifer has joined #rif
Michael Kifer: MichaelKifer has joined #rif ←
15:45:50 <PaulVincent> Paul to scribe...
Paul Vincent: Paul to scribe... ←
15:46:00 <PaulVincent> Bob - we are restarting
Paul Vincent: Bob - we are restarting ←
15:46:23 <AdrianP> AdrianP has joined #rif
Adrian Paschke: AdrianP has joined #rif ←
15:47:29 <Zakim> Team_(rif)13:34Z has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: Team_(rif)13:34Z has now started ←
15:47:30 <saidtabet> saidtabet has joined #rif
Said Tabet: saidtabet has joined #rif ←
15:47:36 <Zakim> +BobMoore
Zakim IRC Bot: +BobMoore ←
15:47:55 <csma> csma has joined #rif
Christian de Sainte Marie: csma has joined #rif ←
15:47:56 <GaryHallmark> bob, slides are coming
Gary Hallmark: bob, slides are coming ←
15:47:59 <BobMoore> Waiting for the meeting room to dial back in
Bob Moore: Waiting for the meeting room to dial back in ←
15:48:04 <GaryHallmark> and we will dial in soon
Gary Hallmark: and we will dial in soon ←
15:48:29 <PaulVincent> Bob - can you dial in now?
Paul Vincent: Bob - can you dial in now? ←
15:49:23 <BobMoore> I am already on the phone
Bob Moore: I am already on the phone ←
15:49:39 <PaulVincent> CR = conflict resolution
Paul Vincent: CR = conflict resolution ←
15:50:16 <csma> zakim, what is the code?
Christian de Sainte Marie: zakim, what is the code? ←
15:50:16 <Zakim> the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), csma
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), csma ←
15:50:19 <Zakim> +??P1
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P1 ←
15:51:02 <BobM> BobM has joined #rif
Bob Moore: BobM has joined #rif ←
15:51:16 <PaulVincent> CSMA: details what is CR - which rule to fire when many can
Christian de Sainte Marie: details what is CR - which rule to fire when many can [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
15:52:00 <mdean> mdean has joined #rif
Mike Dean: mdean has joined #rif ←
15:54:00 <PaulVincent> CSMA: CR covers all fireable instances of rules at a point in time including e.g. those handled by rule priority, also rules that may not be placed on agenda due to "no repeat" constraints
Christian de Sainte Marie: CR covers all fireable instances of rules at a point in time including e.g. those handled by rule priority, also rules that may not be placed on agenda due to "no repeat" constraints [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
15:54:38 <PaulVincent> Gary: usually fire 1 rule, this may change WM, then other rules may not be fired
Gary Hallmark: usually fire 1 rule, this may change WM, then other rules may not be fired [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
15:55:18 <PaulVincent> CSMA: yes ,we aretalking about rule execution cycle eg fire all actions without reinstantiating...
Christian de Sainte Marie: yes ,we aretalking about rule execution cycle eg fire all actions without reinstantiating... [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
15:55:55 <PaulVincent> Gary: example of "fire all actions" could be a DB Trigger, but not commonly PR engines
Gary Hallmark: example of "fire all actions" could be a DB Trigger, but not commonly PR engines [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
15:56:49 <PaulVincent> Said: early CLIPS systems etc might execute all instance actions in same cycle
Said Tabet: early CLIPS systems etc might execute all instance actions in same cycle [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
15:57:32 <AxelPolleres> AxelPolleres has joined #rif
Axel Polleres: AxelPolleres has joined #rif ←
15:57:34 <PaulVincent> CSMA: example of differentiation is sequential processing mode in BREs
Christian de Sainte Marie: example of differentiation is sequential processing mode in BREs [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
15:57:55 <BobMoore> BobMoore has joined #rif
Bob Moore: BobMoore has joined #rif ←
15:59:42 <BobMoore> BobMoore has joined #rif
Bob Moore: BobMoore has joined #rif ←
16:02:03 <PaulVincent> Changhai: strategy could be set per rule
Changhai Ke: strategy could be set per rule [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
16:02:26 <ChrisW> FYI: FLD discussion is on the #fld channel
Chris Welty: FYI: FLD discussion is on the #fld channel ←
16:02:33 <PaulVincent> CSMA: Strategy defined per rule/ruleset, OR have a default
Christian de Sainte Marie: Strategy defined per rule/ruleset, OR have a default [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
16:02:56 <PaulVincent> Said: multiple strategies is not practicable
Said Tabet: multiple strategies is not practicable [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
16:03:51 <PaulVincent> CSMA: propose an annotation as default-for-all is unlikely; a standard set of annotations makes sense
Christian de Sainte Marie: propose an annotation as default-for-all is unlikely; a standard set of annotations makes sense [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
16:04:38 <PaulVincent> Gary: lets discuss what the strategies are before discussing annotations
Gary Hallmark: lets discuss what the strategies are before discussing annotations [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
16:05:07 <PaulVincent> Said: also can have case of multiple cooperating engines
Said Tabet: also can have case of multiple cooperating engines [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
16:05:28 <PaulVincent> CSMA: OK so 3rd option is a programmable strategy
Christian de Sainte Marie: OK so 3rd option is a programmable strategy [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
16:09:39 <PaulVincent> Changhai: practice might be a tag for strategy independent from execution mode
Changhai Ke: practice might be a tag for strategy independent from execution mode [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
16:11:07 <PaulVincent> CSMA: Discussion on No Repeat / refraction / noloop - loops will continue to fire if the condition still holds
Christian de Sainte Marie: Discussion on No Repeat / refraction / noloop - loops will continue to fire if the condition still holds [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
16:12:09 <PaulVincent> CSMA: eg if emp.salary < 10000 then emp.salary=emp.salary*1.1 ==> repeats until all emp have salary are >= 10000
Christian de Sainte Marie: eg if emp.salary < 10000 then emp.salary=emp.salary*1.1 ==> repeats until all emp have salary are >= 10000 [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
16:15:32 <PaulVincent> CSMA: eg if alarm(X) then print alarm, alarm(1) and alarm(2), but on no-repeat print alarm only fires once
Christian de Sainte Marie: eg if alarm(X) then print alarm, alarm(1) and alarm(2), but on no-repeat print alarm only fires once [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
16:16:12 <PaulVincent> CSMA: no-repeat above applies on actions only in the same rule
Christian de Sainte Marie: no-repeat above applies on actions only in the same rule [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
16:16:55 <BobMoore> I'm quite happy with the concept of "no repeat" since it is the default behaviour of Blaze Advisor and I believe OPS5/Clips/Drools
Bob Moore: I'm quite happy with the concept of "no repeat" since it is the default behaviour of Blaze Advisor and I believe OPS5/Clips/Drools ←
16:18:06 <BobMoore> ... what maybe more of a problem is converting the description of the notion of "no repeat" into a more formal definition suitbable for the PRD specification
Bob Moore: ... what maybe more of a problem is converting the description of the notion of "no repeat" into a more formal definition suitbable for the PRD specification ←
16:20:48 <BobMoore> Alarm example is weaker here than the salary example
Bob Moore: Alarm example is weaker here than the salary example ←
16:21:39 <PaulVincent> CSMA: if alarm(X) and X.a>100 then print alarm(X) and no-repeat so will print once for alarm(1) and alarm(1).a>100 fact doesn't change
Christian de Sainte Marie: if alarm(X) and X.a>100 then print alarm(X) and no-repeat so will print once for alarm(1) and alarm(1).a>100 fact doesn't change [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
16:21:42 <BobMoore> Point in the salary example is you fire the rule to increase salary from 500 to 550, but not again to fire the rule from 550 to 605
Bob Moore: Point in the salary example is you fire the rule to increase salary from 500 to 550, but not again to fire the rule from 550 to 605 ←
16:22:41 <PaulVincent> Bob: votes for preferring Gary's example...
Bob Moore: votes for preferring Gary's example... [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
16:25:34 <PaulVincent> Gary: does issue change if there are intermediate changes?
Gary Hallmark: does issue change if there are intermediate changes? [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
16:26:12 <PaulVincent> CSMA: intermediate cycles have no effect (unless facts change)
Christian de Sainte Marie: intermediate cycles have no effect (unless facts change) [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
16:29:37 <DaveReynolds_> DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif
DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif ←
16:32:31 <PaulVincent> Gary: JESS actions cannot add new instances during a rule action in the same rule cycle
Gary Hallmark: JESS actions cannot add new instances during a rule action in the same rule cycle [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
16:33:56 <AxelPolleres> Dave, can you paste a link to the OWL Full/DL implementation you just mentioned?
Axel Polleres: Dave, can you paste a link to the OWL Full/DL implementation you just mentioned? ←
16:36:37 <PaulVincent> Changhai: Rule agenda is key
Changhai Ke: Rule agenda is key [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
16:36:40 <BobMoore> I think we are tiptoeing around the big problem which is that production rules are non-monatonic
Bob Moore: I think we are tiptoeing around the big problem which is that production rules are non-monatonic ←
16:37:28 <BobMoore> you can't understand what is going on without a veiw of the current state of working memory and the current state of the agenda
Bob Moore: you can't understand what is going on without a veiw of the current state of working memory and the current state of the agenda ←
16:39:14 <PaulVincent> Said: qu is what you do to put rules on the agenda
Said Tabet: qu is what you do to put rules on the agenda [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
16:40:57 <PaulVincent> CSMA: semantic description: we can consider that the agenda is always rebuilt, regardless of mechanisms to optimize this
Christian de Sainte Marie: semantic description: we can consider that the agenda is always rebuilt, regardless of mechanisms to optimize this [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
16:42:01 <BobMoore> BobMoore has joined #rif
Bob Moore: BobMoore has joined #rif ←
16:42:25 <AxelPolleres> BTW... the example misses External ( ... )
Axel Polleres: BTW... the example misses External ( ... ) ←
16:43:54 <AxelPolleres> Do you agree that Exists ?x (And (ex:p(?x) pred:isNotInteger(?x) pred:isNotString(?x))) is true in RIF?
Axel Polleres: Do you agree that Exists ?x (And (ex:p(?x) pred:isNotInteger(?x) pred:isNotString(?x))) is true in RIF? ←
16:49:01 <AxelPolleres> ok, I overlooked/misread that.
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Axel Polleres: ok, I overlooked/misread that. ←
16:51:29 <PaulVincent> Gary: need to define what is monitored for change in rules?
Gary Hallmark: need to define what is monitored for change in rules? [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
16:52:01 <PaulVincent> Axel: are you on the right IRC channel?
Axel Polleres: are you on the right IRC channel? [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
16:58:22 <PaulVincent> Paul: suggestion to check out all the various BRE semantics
(No events recorded for 6 minutes)
Paul Vincent: suggestion to check out all the various BRE semantics [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
16:58:35 <AxelPolleres> yes, I am
Axel Polleres: yes, I am ←
16:58:50 <AxelPolleres> ooops :-)
Axel Polleres: ooops :-) ←
16:58:56 <AxelPolleres> on the wring
Axel Polleres: on the wring ←
16:59:02 <PaulVincent> Changhai: ... but we can agree on refraction?
Changhai Ke: ... but we can agree on refraction? [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
16:59:11 <AxelPolleres> s/ing/ong/
Axel Polleres: s/ing/ong/ ←
17:00:45 <PaulVincent> CSMA: summary 1: no repeat: remove same instance as long as some condition holds
Christian de Sainte Marie: summary 1: no repeat: remove same instance as long as some condition holds [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
17:01:39 <PaulVincent> CSMA: 1b: what is "same instance"?
Christian de Sainte Marie: 1b: what is "same instance"? [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
17:04:02 <PaulVincent> CSMA: 1b: ... binding variable in condition, or in action, or in both?
Christian de Sainte Marie: 1b: ... binding variable in condition, or in action, or in both? [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
17:08:02 <PaulVincent> CSMA/Gary: looks at Example 1 again...
Paul Vincent: CSMA/Gary: looks at Example 1 again... ←
17:14:29 <PaulVincent> Paul: questions whether action references are indeed having any affect on agenda...
(No events recorded for 6 minutes)
Paul Vincent: questions whether action references are indeed having any affect on agenda... [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
17:16:22 <PaulVincent> CSMA: proposal 1 doesnt work, possibly proposal 2 doesnt
Christian de Sainte Marie: proposal 1 doesnt work, possibly proposal 2 doesnt [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
17:16:33 <BobMoore> Paul - yes action references do have an effect on agenda
Bob Moore: Paul - yes action references do have an effect on agenda ←
17:16:49 <BobMoore> ... or at least for some engines!
Bob Moore: ... or at least for some engines! ←
17:17:36 <PaulVincent> Bob - ues I recall SRL pattern - action can involve a fire-once response...
Paul Vincent: Bob - ues I recall SRL pattern - action can involve a fire-once response... ←
17:18:57 <PaulVincent> ,,, which is why we need to list examples to determine the subset for default in RIF...
Paul Vincent: ,,, which is why we need to list examples to determine the subset for default in RIF... ←
17:19:10 <BobMoore> Paul - in SRL if you do not use a pattern (ie PRD variable) in the action the rule will only fire once. If you put in any action INCLUDING "ignore", the rule fires for all binding which satisfy the rule conditions
Bob Moore: Paul - in SRL if you do not use a pattern (ie PRD variable) in the action the rule will only fire once. If you put in any action INCLUDING "ignore", the rule fires for all binding which satisfy the rule conditions ←
17:20:01 <PaulVincent> Bob - thx - so ignore is the BA switch for semantics...
Paul Vincent: Bob - thx - so ignore is the BA switch for semantics... ←
17:20:33 <BobMoore> Paul - in effect yes
Bob Moore: Paul - in effect yes ←
17:23:22 <PaulVincent> Bob - OK we need to include action references in the example list :)
Paul Vincent: Bob - OK we need to include action references in the example list :) ←
17:24:31 <PaulVincent> CSMA: summary: we made some progress on mutual understanding
Christian de Sainte Marie: summary: we made some progress on mutual understanding [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
17:25:00 <BobMoore> Suggestion - we go back to the drawing board. and map out two or three scenario examples and those of us with a production rule engine say what the execution sequence will be for our engine and then compare notes to
Bob Moore: Suggestion - we go back to the drawing board. and map out two or three scenario examples and those of us with a production rule engine say what the execution sequence will be for our engine and then compare notes to ←
17:25:08 <BobMoore> ... determine common ground
Bob Moore: ... determine common ground ←
17:25:21 <PaulVincent> +1
Paul Vincent: +1 ←
17:25:40 <BobMoore> I think we are aguing about what PR system might do while for RIF we need to be clear about what real ones actually do
Bob Moore: I think we are aguing about what PR system might do while for RIF we need to be clear about what real ones actually do ←
17:26:56 <PaulVincent> CSMA: Important: we need to define "keys" for strategies
Christian de Sainte Marie: Important: we need to define "keys" for strategies [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
17:27:08 <PaulVincent> closing discusssion
Paul Vincent: closing discusssion ←
17:27:36 <PaulVincent> CSMA: correction: what are the variables for no repeat - but may only be UNIQUE keys
Christian de Sainte Marie: correction: what are the variables for no repeat - but may only be UNIQUE keys [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
17:28:19 <PaulVincent> CSMA: reply to Bob - need common ground, agree
Christian de Sainte Marie: reply to Bob - need common ground, agree [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
17:29:09 <Zakim> -??P1
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P1 ←
17:29:13 <Zakim> -BobMoore
Zakim IRC Bot: -BobMoore ←
17:29:15 <Zakim> Team_(rif)13:34Z has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: Team_(rif)13:34Z has ended ←
17:29:15 <Zakim> Attendees were BobMoore
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were BobMoore ←
17:29:36 <BobMoore> when will you be back from lunch?
Bob Moore: when will you be back from lunch? ←
18:17:49 <DaveReynolds_> DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif
(No events recorded for 48 minutes)
DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif ←
18:22:19 <csma> We are back
Christian de Sainte Marie: We are back ←
18:22:30 <csma> not started yet, though
Christian de Sainte Marie: not started yet, though ←
18:22:34 <csma> I will ping you
Christian de Sainte Marie: I will ping you ←
18:26:34 <josb> josb has joined #rif
Jos De Bruijn: josb has joined #rif ←
18:33:10 <csma> Bob, we start (Actions in PRD)
(No events recorded for 6 minutes)
Christian de Sainte Marie: Bob, we start (Actions in PRD) ←
18:33:23 <DaveReynolds_> DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif
DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif ←
18:33:57 <csma> We are dialing right now
Christian de Sainte Marie: We are dialing right now ←
18:34:36 <Zakim> Team_(rif)13:34Z has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: Team_(rif)13:34Z has now started ←
18:34:40 <GaryHallmark> zakim, what is the code?
Gary Hallmark: zakim, what is the code? ←
18:34:40 <Zakim> the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), GaryHallmark
Zakim IRC Bot: the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), GaryHallmark ←
18:34:43 <Zakim> +??P0
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P0 ←
18:34:56 <saidtabet> saidtabet has joined #rif
Said Tabet: saidtabet has joined #rif ←
18:35:07 <PaulVincent> PaulVincent has joined #rif
Paul Vincent: PaulVincent has joined #rif ←
18:35:31 <PaulVincent> Bob - we are reconvening FYI
Paul Vincent: Bob - we are reconvening FYI ←
18:37:21 <GaryHallmark> ACTION ::= ASSERT | Retract | New | ACTION_BLOCK
Gary Hallmark: ACTION ::= ASSERT | Retract | New | ACTION_BLOCK ←
18:37:23 <GaryHallmark> ASSERT ::= Atom | Frame
Gary Hallmark: ASSERT ::= Atom | Frame ←
18:37:24 <GaryHallmark> New ::= 'New' ( Var '#' )? Const
Gary Hallmark: New ::= 'New' ( Var '#' )? Const ←
18:37:26 <GaryHallmark> Retract ::= 'Retract' '(' Atom | Frame | TERM ')'
Gary Hallmark: Retract ::= 'Retract' '(' Atom | Frame | TERM ')' ←
18:37:27 <GaryHallmark> ACTION_BLOCK ::= 'And' '(' ASSERT+ ')' | 'Do' Var* '(' ACTION* ')'
Gary Hallmark: ACTION_BLOCK ::= 'And' '(' ASSERT+ ')' | 'Do' Var* '(' ACTION* ')' ←
18:37:36 <csma> zakim, ??P0 is MeetingRoom
Christian de Sainte Marie: zakim, ??P0 is MeetingRoom ←
18:37:37 <Zakim> +MeetingRoom; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +MeetingRoom; got it ←
18:38:15 <GaryHallmark> rrsagent, delete action 30
Gary Hallmark: rrsagent, delete ACTION-30 ←
18:38:15 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'delete action 30', GaryHallmark. Try /msg RRSAgent help
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I'm logging. I don't understand 'delete ACTION-30', GaryHallmark. Try /msg RRSAgent help ←
18:38:20 <AdrianP> AdrianP has joined #rif
Adrian Paschke: AdrianP has joined #rif ←
18:38:38 <Blaz> Blaz has joined #rif
Blaz Novak: Blaz has joined #rif ←
18:40:36 <AdrianP> AdrianP has joined #rif
Adrian Paschke: AdrianP has joined #rif ←
18:41:02 <AdrianP> Zakim, who is on the phone?
Adrian Paschke: Zakim, who is on the phone? ←
18:41:02 <Zakim> On the phone I see MeetingRoom
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see MeetingRoom ←
18:41:12 <PaulVincent> Gary: assert atom = add a tuple, assert a frame = add a slot, and inverse for retract; retract term is remove all slots and membership
Gary Hallmark: assert atom = add a tuple, assert a frame = add a slot, and inverse for retract; retract term is remove all slots and membership [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
18:41:50 <MichaelKifer> MichaelKifer has joined #rif
Michael Kifer: MichaelKifer has joined #rif ←
18:42:11 <MichaelKifer_> MichaelKifer_ has joined #rif
Michael Kifer: MichaelKifer_ has joined #rif ←
18:42:17 <PaulVincent> Gary: new creates a new obj and adds onjid into membership for given class
Gary Hallmark: new creates a new obj and adds onjid into membership for given class [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
18:42:19 <MichaelKifer_> #fld
Michael Kifer: #fld ←
18:42:35 <Harold> Harold has joined #rif
Harold Boley: Harold has joined #rif ←
18:43:26 <PaulVincent> CSMA: constructor gives default values means this must be explicitly defined in action part
Christian de Sainte Marie: constructor gives default values means this must be explicitly defined in action part [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
18:44:44 <PaulVincent> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/PRD#Presentation_syntax
Paul Vincent: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/PRD#Presentation_syntax ←
18:45:28 <BobMoore> Dialing in now - I can only stay for a short while as it is family supper time soon
Bob Moore: Dialing in now - I can only stay for a short while as it is family supper time soon ←
18:45:58 <Zakim> +BobMoore
Zakim IRC Bot: +BobMoore ←
18:46:25 <PaulVincent> Gary: Looking at example 2.11
Gary Hallmark: Looking at example 2.11 [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
18:47:24 <MichaelKifer_> MichaelKifer_ has joined #rif
Michael Kifer: MichaelKifer_ has joined #rif ←
18:48:40 <PaulVincent> CSMA: why not allow initialization with values?
Christian de Sainte Marie: why not allow initialization with values? [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
18:50:08 <PaulVincent> Gary: in OBR we do Java new + setProperty calls
Gary Hallmark: in OBR we do Java new + setProperty calls [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
18:53:22 <PaulVincent> Gary: multiple "new"s require multiple variables
Gary Hallmark: multiple "new"s require multiple variables [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
18:53:38 <GaryHallmark> GaryHallmark has joined #rif
Gary Hallmark: GaryHallmark has joined #rif ←
18:56:19 <PaulVincent> Gary: reviews draft semantics in 3.3
Gary Hallmark: reviews draft semantics in 3.3 [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
19:00:31 <GaryHallmark> GaryHallmark has joined #rif
Gary Hallmark: GaryHallmark has joined #rif ←
19:02:24 <Zakim> -BobMoore
Zakim IRC Bot: -BobMoore ←
19:02:25 <BobMoore> Supper time - I'll be back in 30 mins or so
Bob Moore: Supper time - I'll be back in 30 mins or so ←
19:03:34 <PaulVincent> Gary: working memory union with asserted atom a may need to be defined as not a set union but mappings to the domain
Gary Hallmark: working memory union with asserted atom a may need to be defined as not a set union but mappings to the domain [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
19:04:05 <csma> PROPOSED: add construct DO in then-part of PRD rules to declare ?local variables for New frames (according to Gary's proposal)
PROPOSED: add construct DO in then-part of PRD rules to declare ?local variables for New frames (according to Gary's proposal) ←
19:04:15 <PaulVincent> Harold: clarify this is just the action part of a rule
Harold Boley: clarify this is just the action part of a rule [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
19:04:35 <csma> PROPOSED: add construct New with Gary's proposed syntax and semantics in then-part of PRD rules
PROPOSED: add construct New with Gary's proposed syntax and semantics in then-part of PRD rules ←
19:05:55 <GaryHallmark_> GaryHallmark_ has joined #rif
Gary Hallmark: GaryHallmark_ has joined #rif ←
19:07:18 <csma> PROPOSED: add possibility to Retract a TERM in then-part of PRD rules with Gary's proposed syntax, to remove a frame object
PROPOSED: add possibility to Retract a TERM in then-part of PRD rules with Gary's proposed syntax, to remove a frame object ←
19:08:43 <PaulVincent> Paul: issue is with external constructors and mapping from multiple asserts to that
Paul Vincent: issue is with external constructors and mapping from multiple asserts to that [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
19:12:00 <PaulVincent> CSMA: methods needed too per yesterday discussion
Christian de Sainte Marie: methods needed too per yesterday discussion [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
19:12:53 <PaulVincent> CSMA: no time to discuss modify semantics
Christian de Sainte Marie: no time to discuss modify semantics [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
19:14:03 <GaryHallmark_> GaryHallmark_ has joined #rif
Gary Hallmark: GaryHallmark_ has joined #rif ←
19:15:12 <csma> PROPOSED: add possibility to Retract a TERM in then-part of PRD rules with Gary's proposed syntax, to remove a frame object, that is, remove any reference to that object in the working memory
PROPOSED: add possibility to Retract a TERM in then-part of PRD rules with Gary's proposed syntax, to remove a frame object, that is, remove any reference to that object in the working memory ←
19:17:07 <Zakim> -MeetingRoom
Zakim IRC Bot: -MeetingRoom ←
19:17:08 <Zakim> Team_(rif)13:34Z has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: Team_(rif)13:34Z has ended ←
19:17:08 <Zakim> Attendees were MeetingRoom, BobMoore
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were MeetingRoom, BobMoore ←
19:17:26 <csma> PROPOSED: add possibility to Retract a TERM in then-part of PRD rules with Gary's proposed syntax, to remove a frame object, that is, remove object from the instances of its class as well as all the frames with that object
PROPOSED: add possibility to Retract a TERM in then-part of PRD rules with Gary's proposed syntax, to remove a frame object, that is, remove object from the instances of its class as well as all the frames with that object ←
19:18:11 <PaulVincent> Gary: can't use ext constructors as these are methods (could be added later, but need to handle asserts now)
Gary Hallmark: can't use ext constructors as these are methods (could be added later, but need to handle asserts now) [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
19:19:12 <csma> PROPOSED: add possibility to Retract a TERM in then-part of PRD rules with Gary's proposed syntax, to remove a frame object, that is, remove object from the instances of its class as well as all the frames with that object in the object position
PROPOSED: add possibility to Retract a TERM in then-part of PRD rules with Gary's proposed syntax, to remove a frame object, that is, remove object from the instances of its class as well as all the frames with that object in the object position ←
19:22:20 <csma> PROPOSED: add construct DO in then-part of PRD rules to declare ?local variables for New frames (according to Gary's proposal)
PROPOSED: add construct DO in then-part of PRD rules to declare ?local variables for New frames (according to Gary's proposal) ←
19:22:24 <PaulVincent> Adrian: would like to re-use Do for local vars for other uses
Adrian Paschke: would like to re-use Do for local vars for other uses [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
19:22:33 <PaulVincent> CSMA: ... but this would be a separate different proposal
Christian de Sainte Marie: ... but this would be a separate different proposal [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
19:23:45 <csma> PROPOSED: add construct DO in then-part of PRD rules to declare ?local variables for New frames (according to Gary's proposal); not excluding that later resolutions might extend the use of local variables in the action part.
PROPOSED: add construct DO in then-part of PRD rules to declare ?local variables for New frames (according to Gary's proposal); not excluding that later resolutions might extend the use of local variables in the action part. ←
19:24:57 <PaulVincent> Paul: concern that new(obj) --> pattern of rif statements --> new(obj) is an overload
Paul Vincent: concern that new(obj) --> pattern of rif statements --> new(obj) is an overload [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
19:25:15 <PaulVincent> CSMA: later we could use aliases for that, but want to retain compatibility
Christian de Sainte Marie: later we could use aliases for that, but want to retain compatibility [ Scribe Assist by Paul Vincent ] ←
19:26:15 <csma> PROPOSED: add construct New with Gary's proposed syntax and semantics in then-part of PRD rules
PROPOSED: add construct New with Gary's proposed syntax and semantics in then-part of PRD rules ←
19:29:07 <csma> PROPOSED: add construct New with Gary's proposed syntax and semantics in then-part of PRD rules; not excluding extending the use of constructors once we resolve how to call "methods".
PROPOSED: add construct New with Gary's proposed syntax and semantics in then-part of PRD rules; not excluding extending the use of constructors once we resolve how to call "methods". ←
19:31:19 <csma> PROPOSED: add construct New with Gary's proposed syntax and semantics in then-part of PRD rules; not excluding extending it later with the use of constructors once we resolve how to call "methods"
PROPOSED: add construct New with Gary's proposed syntax and semantics in then-part of PRD rules; not excluding extending it later with the use of constructors once we resolve how to call "methods" ←
15:32:37 <Sandro> Topic: Parallel Session: FLD, DTB
15:32:37 <Sandro> subtopic: FLD
15:43:22 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #fld
(No events recorded for 10 minutes)
RRSAgent IRC Bot: RRSAgent has joined #fld ←
15:43:22 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/27-fld-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/27-fld-irc ←
15:53:33 <ChrisW> FLD open items
(No events recorded for 10 minutes)
Chris Welty: FLD open items ←
15:55:07 <ChrisW> add aggregates
Chris Welty: add aggregates ←
15:59:41 <Blaz> Blaz has joined #fld
Blaz Novak: Blaz has joined #fld ←
15:59:44 <josb> josb has joined #fld
Jos De Bruijn: josb has joined #fld ←
15:59:49 <DaveReynolds> DaveReynolds has joined #fld
DaveReynolds has joined #fld ←
16:00:07 <mdean> mdean has joined #fld
Mike Dean: mdean has joined #fld ←
16:00:40 <Harold> Harold has joined #fld
Harold Boley: Harold has joined #fld ←
16:00:56 <ChrisW> 1) modules
Chris Welty: 1) modules ←
16:00:59 <ChrisW> 2) aggregates
Chris Welty: 2) aggregates ←
16:01:54 <Harold> 3) external (contingent on what we need in BLD)
Harold Boley: 3) external (contingent on what we need in BLD) ←
16:02:12 <AxelPolleres> AxelPolleres has joined #fld
Axel Polleres: AxelPolleres has joined #fld ←
16:06:59 <AxelPolleres> Why does PRD use NmNot for Naf?
Axel Polleres: Why does PRD use NmNot for Naf? ←
16:07:21 <AxelPolleres> I think it should be fine if they use Naf.
Axel Polleres: I think it should be fine if they use Naf. ←
16:08:36 <AxelPolleres> If we talk about Naf in the body, what about Naf in the haed, Disjunction in the head?
Axel Polleres: If we talk about Naf in the body, what about Naf in the haed, Disjunction in the head? ←
16:09:25 <Harold> "Equivalence of well-founded and stable semantics" (Francoise Gire):
Harold Boley: "Equivalence of well-founded and stable semantics" (Francoise Gire): ←
16:09:27 <Harold> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.47.3980
Harold Boley: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.47.3980 ←
16:14:30 <Harold> Patricia Hill, John Lloyd: Gödel Programming Language (http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~bowers/goedel.html).
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Harold Boley: Patricia Hill, John Lloyd: Gödel Programming Language (http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~bowers/goedel.html). ←
16:15:50 <ChrisW> Posible dialect (for testing FLD, as well as being potentially useful):
Chris Welty: Posible dialect (for testing FLD, as well as being potentially useful): ←
16:16:14 <ChrisW> locally stratified neg + removing "unique context" requirement on contstants
Chris Welty: locally stratified neg + removing "unique context" requirement on contstants ←
16:29:39 <DaveReynolds_> DaveReynolds_ has joined #fld
(No events recorded for 13 minutes)
DaveReynolds_ has joined #fld ←
16:38:14 <ChrisW> Proposal: have three dialects: BLD w/o negative guards, BLD w/o equality in the head, and BLD
(No events recorded for 8 minutes)
PROPOSED: have three dialects: BLD w/o negative guards, BLD w/o equality in the head, and BLD ←
17:00:15 <AxelPolleres> Exists ?X (http://example.com/qqq"^^rif:iri(?X) ) would be entailed, yes?
(No events recorded for 22 minutes)
Axel Polleres: Exists ?X (http://example.com/qqq"^^rif:iri(?X) ) would be entailed, yes? ←
17:00:43 <AxelPolleres> ... in the example of sec 3.9.
Axel Polleres: ... in the example of sec 3.9. ←
17:04:55 <AxelPolleres> So, the answer to the query Exists ?X (http://example.com/qqq"^^rif:iri(?X) ) would be true, but there is no concrete instance for ?X which can be output as answer.
Axel Polleres: So, the answer to the query Exists ?X (http://example.com/qqq"^^rif:iri(?X) ) would be true, but there is no concrete instance for ?X which can be output as answer. ←
18:17:50 <DaveReynolds_> DaveReynolds_ has joined #fld
(No events recorded for 72 minutes)
DaveReynolds_ has joined #fld ←
18:26:35 <josb> josb has joined #fld
(No events recorded for 8 minutes)
Jos De Bruijn: josb has joined #fld ←
18:33:24 <DaveReynolds_> DaveReynolds_ has joined #fld
(No events recorded for 6 minutes)
DaveReynolds_ has joined #fld ←
18:38:38 <Blaz> Blaz has joined #fld
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Blaz Novak: Blaz has joined #fld ←
18:41:25 <sandro> sandro has joined #fld
Sandro Hawke: sandro has joined #fld ←
18:41:26 <AxelPolleres> AxelPolleres has joined #fld
Axel Polleres: AxelPolleres has joined #fld ←
18:41:36 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
18:41:36 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/27-fld-irc#T18-41-36
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2008/09/27-fld-irc#T18-41-36 ←
18:41:45 <trackbot> trackbot has joined #fld
Trackbot IRC Bot: trackbot has joined #fld ←
18:41:45 <trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel ←
18:41:45 <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)
Trackbot IRC Bot: 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) ←
18:42:04 <sandro> trackbot, associate this channel with #rif
Sandro Hawke: trackbot, associate this channel with #rif ←
18:42:04 <trackbot> Associating this channel with #rif...
Trackbot IRC Bot: Associating this channel with #rif... ←
18:42:15 <sandro> issue-79?
18:42:15 <trackbot> ISSUE-79 does not exists
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-79 does not exists ←
18:42:20 <sandro> issue-78?
18:42:20 <trackbot> ISSUE-78 -- Which to make external: ATOMIC, ATOM, or ATOM|FRAME -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-78 -- Which to make external: ATOMIC, ATOM, or ATOM|FRAME -- OPEN ←
18:42:20 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/78
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/78 ←
18:43:02 <ChrisW> action: michael to update entailment definition to be for documents and revert rif:local semantics
ACTION: michael to update entailment definition to be for documents and revert rif:local semantics ←
18:43:02 <trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - michael
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - michael ←
18:43:02 <trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. mkifer, msintek, merdmann)
Trackbot IRC Bot: Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. mkifer, msintek, merdmann) ←
18:43:11 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Aug/0074.html
Axel Polleres: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Aug/0074.html ←
18:43:13 <ChrisW> action: mkifer to update entailment definition to be for documents and revert rif:local semantics
ACTION: mkifer to update entailment definition to be for documents and revert rif:local semantics ←
18:43:14 <trackbot> Created ACTION-602 - Update entailment definition to be for documents and revert rif:local semantics [on Michael Kifer - due 2008-10-04].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-602 - Update entailment definition to be for documents and revert rif:local semantics [on Michael Kifer - due 2008-10-04]. ←
18:43:29 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Sep/0000.html
Axel Polleres: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Sep/0000.html ←
18:43:34 <sandro> jos: entailment will be for both documents and conditions.
Jos De Bruijn: entailment will be for both documents and conditions. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:43:47 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Sep/0142.html
Axel Polleres: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Sep/0142.html ←
18:44:32 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Sep/0187.html
Axel Polleres: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Sep/0187.html ←
18:44:46 <AxelPolleres> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Sep/0194.html
Axel Polleres: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Sep/0194.html ←
18:45:48 <ChrisW> issue: negative guards in DTB - is this another dialect?
ISSUE: negative guards in DTB - is this another dialect? ←
18:45:48 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-79 - Negative guards in DTB - is this another dialect? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/79/edit .
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-79 - Negative guards in DTB - is this another dialect? ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/79/edit . ←
18:48:10 <MichaelKifer_> MichaelKifer_ has joined #fld
Michael Kifer: MichaelKifer_ has joined #fld ←
18:52:33 <sandro> subtopic: issue-67 string-less-than
18:53:17 <sandro> chrisw: who wants only fn:compare?
Chris Welty: who wants only fn:compare? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:53:28 <sandro> 1
Sandro Hawke: 1 ←
18:53:32 <sandro> er 2
Sandro Hawke: er 2 ←
18:53:53 <sandro> chrisw: who wants the added stuff?
Chris Welty: who wants the added stuff? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:53:56 <sandro> 5 or so.
Sandro Hawke: 5 or so. ←
18:58:36 <sandro> chrisw: we'll have to take this back to the main group.
Chris Welty: we'll have to take this back to the main group. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:58:50 <sandro> subtopic: issue-61 Casting to/from rif:iri
18:59:01 <sandro> All DTB issues: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/products/18
Sandro Hawke: All DTB issues: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/products/18 ←
19:01:57 <sandro> chrisw: this should have beenn closed as part of resolution at some past meeting.
Chris Welty: this should have beenn closed as part of resolution at some past meeting. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:04:57 <sandro> subtopic: operators on rif:text
19:05:19 <sandro> DaveReynolds: I'd like equal, but not other compare....?
Dave Reynolds: I'd like equal, but not other compare....? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:06:03 <AxelPolleres> which functions should we have for rdf:text?
Axel Polleres: which functions should we have for rdf:text? ←
19:09:17 <AxelPolleres> equal inequality might be useful.
Axel Polleres: equal inequality might be useful. ←
19:10:18 <sandro> Dave: Just define equality as equality of the lexical form.
Dave Reynolds: Just define equality as equality of the lexical form. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:11:00 <sandro> ACTION: axel to discuss in rdf:text task force the including of certain functions and preficates, and name of extractor (eg func:lang-from-text)
ACTION: axel to discuss in rdf:text task force the including of certain functions and preficates, and name of extractor (eg func:lang-from-text) ←
19:11:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-603 - Discuss in rdf:text task force the including of certain functions and preficates, and name of extractor (eg func:lang-from-text) [on Axel Polleres - due 2008-10-04].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-603 - Discuss in rdf:text task force the including of certain functions and preficates, and name of extractor (eg func:lang-from-text) [on Axel Polleres - due 2008-10-04]. ←
19:13:29 <sandro> Dave: Just use string-equality on the lexical represtnation of rdf:XMLLiteral. It's just sugar for compare of string version (assuming there is one).
Dave Reynolds: Just use string-equality on the lexical represtnation of rdf:XMLLiteral. It's just sugar for compare of string version (assuming there is one). [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:13:49 <sandro> Axel: These is no cast from rdf:XMLLiteral to string.
Axel Polleres: These is no cast from rdf:XMLLiteral to string. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:13:53 <sandro> Jos: Let's add one
Jos De Bruijn: Let's add one [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:13:59 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
19:14:07 <sandro> DaveReynolds: +1
Dave Reynolds: +1 [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:14:58 <sandro> Axel: cast string to XMLLiteral, as well?
Axel Polleres: cast string to XMLLiteral, as well? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:15:02 <sandro> Sandro: I'd think so.
Sandro Hawke: I'd think so. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:15:47 <AxelPolleres> XMLLiteral to and from string conversions (casts) plus equals/not-equals
Axel Polleres: XMLLiteral to and from string conversions (casts) plus equals/not-equals ←
19:16:48 <sandro> ACTION: Axel add text for casting to string and equal/not-equal, an (for discussion) from-string (which requires implementing XML canonicalization.
ACTION: Axel add text for casting to string and equal/not-equal, an (for discussion) from-string (which requires implementing XML canonicalization. ←
19:16:48 <trackbot> Created ACTION-604 - Add text for casting to string and equal/not-equal, an (for discussion) from-string (which requires implementing XML canonicalization. [on Axel Polleres - due 2008-10-04].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-604 - Add text for casting to string and equal/not-equal, an (for discussion) from-string (which requires implementing XML canonicalization. [on Axel Polleres - due 2008-10-04]. ←
19:17:19 <sandro> Dave: Fiddling with XML at the string level isn't very useful --- we'd like nice XML support some day.
Dave Reynolds: Fiddling with XML at the string level isn't very useful --- we'd like nice XML support some day. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:20:19 <AxelPolleres> 13) Editor's Note: No less-than-or-equal or greater-than-or-equal predicates are defined in this draft for durations, since there are no separate op:dayTimeDuration-equal nor op:yearMonthDuration-equalpredicates in [XPath-Functions], but only a common predicate op:duration-equal. Future versions of this working draft may resolve this by introducing new equality predicates pred:dayTimeDuration-equal and pred:yearMonthDuration-equal with restricted inten
Axel Polleres: 13) Editor's Note: No less-than-or-equal or greater-than-or-equal predicates are defined in this draft for durations, since there are no separate op:dayTimeDuration-equal nor op:yearMonthDuration-equalpredicates in [XPath-Functions], but only a common predicate op:duration-equal. Future versions of this working draft may resolve this by introducing new equality predicates pred:dayTimeDuration-equal and pred:yearMonthDuration-equal with restricted inten ←
19:20:19 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: introduce a single predicate duration-equal that only evaluates to true if the arguments are both of the same duration subtype and equal.
PROPOSED: introduce a single predicate duration-equal that only evaluates to true if the arguments are both of the same duration subtype and equal. ←
19:25:41 <sandro> Chrisw: How did we end up with BLD forcing only one arity per function/predicate?
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Chris Welty: How did we end up with BLD forcing only one arity per function/predicate? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:26:29 <sandro> Jos: There are two different ways to handle the semantics of this, and each had problems, and we wanted to be able to extend to FOL.
Jos De Bruijn: There are two different ways to handle the semantics of this, and each had problems, and we wanted to be able to extend to FOL. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:26:36 <sandro> Chrisw: right, okay.
Chris Welty: right, okay. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:29:33 <sandro> Axel: we've defined strings to be rdf:text's with an empty language tag.
Axel Polleres: we've defined strings to be rdf:text's with an empty language tag. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:31:00 <sandro> Chrisw: Don't do that! I don't want every xs:string to also be an rdf:text.
Chris Welty: Don't do that! I don't want every xs:string to also be an rdf:text. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:31:20 <DaveReynolds> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec#xsd:string_as_a_restriction_of_rdf:text
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec#xsd:string_as_a_restriction_of_rdf:text ←
19:44:02 <sandro> Chrisw: rdf:text needs two builtins, one to get the string, one to get the language tag. And later we figure out what to do with casting.
(No events recorded for 12 minutes)
Chris Welty: rdf:text needs two builtins, one to get the string, one to get the language tag. And later we figure out what to do with casting. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:44:09 <sandro> RRSAgent, make minutes
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, make minutes ←
19:44:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/27-fld-minutes.html sandro
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/27-fld-minutes.html sandro ←
19:45:19 <Sandro> Topic: Debrief from Parallel Sessions
19:45:19 <DaveReynolds_> DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif
DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif ←
19:45:33 <Zakim> Team_(rif)13:34Z has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: Team_(rif)13:34Z has now started ←
19:45:40 <Zakim> +BobMoore
Zakim IRC Bot: +BobMoore ←
19:46:32 <BobMoore> can the meeting room rejoin?
Bob Moore: can the meeting room rejoin? ←
19:47:37 <DaveReynolds> Bob - doing it now
Bob - doing it now ←
19:48:29 <Zakim> +??P1
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P1 ←
19:49:15 <Harold> Debrief
Harold Boley: Debrief ←
19:49:26 <sandro> subtopic: Debrief of "FLD" Breakout
19:49:38 <DaveReynolds> zakim, ??P1 is Meeting_Room
zakim, ??P1 is Meeting_Room ←
19:49:38 <Zakim> +Meeting_Room; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Meeting_Room; got it ←
19:50:23 <josb> another nasty test case: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Disjunctive_Information_from_Unsafe_Builtins
Jos De Bruijn: another nasty test case: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Disjunctive_Information_from_Unsafe_Builtins ←
19:50:31 <Harold> Chrisw: FLD should have Modules (Michael).
Chris Welty: FLD should have Modules (Michael). [ Scribe Assist by Harold Boley ] ←
19:51:39 <Harold> Then discussed BLD.
Harold Boley: Then discussed BLD. ←
19:52:55 <Harold> Based on Jos' test cases that use negative guards, eq in head, and sneak in disjunction.
Harold Boley: Based on Jos' test cases that use negative guards, eq in head, and sneak in disjunction. ←
19:54:51 <Harold> subtopic: Debrief of "DTB" Breakout
19:56:03 <Harold> Chrisw: String compare operators from XPath are not symmetric between strings and numbers.
Chris Welty: String compare operators from XPath are not symmetric between strings and numbers. [ Scribe Assist by Harold Boley ] ←
19:57:36 <Harold> Issue 61 (casting to/from IRIs) should be formally closed, since it was de facto already in a telecon.
Harold Boley: ISSUE-61 (casting to/from IRIs) should be formally closed, since it was de facto already in a telecon. ←
19:58:35 <ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Aug/att-0012/2008-08-05-rif-minutes.html
Chris Welty: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Aug/att-0012/2008-08-05-rif-minutes.html ←
19:58:45 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-61, since the underlying decision was already settled in 08-05 meeting
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-61, since the underlying decision was already settled in 08-05 meeting ←
19:59:01 <sandro> RESOLVED: Close issue-61, since the underlying decision was already settled in 08-05 meeting
Sandro Hawke: RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-61, since the underlying decision was already settled in 08-05 meeting ←
19:59:07 <sandro> issue-61 closed
Sandro Hawke: ISSUE-61 closed ←
19:59:22 <sandro> action: chris close issue 61
ACTION: chris close ISSUE-61 ←
19:59:22 <trackbot> Created ACTION-605 - Close issue 61 [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-10-04].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-605 - Close ISSUE-61 [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-10-04]. ←
19:59:47 <DaveReynolds> s/RESOLEVED/RESOLVED/
s/RESOLEVED/RESOLVED/ ←
19:59:56 <Harold> Discussed rdf:text (int'lized string).
Harold Boley: Discussed rdf:text (int'lized string). ←
20:00:16 <Harold> Should bring in DTB built-ins.
Harold Boley: Should bring in DTB built-ins. ←
20:00:59 <sandro> Chrisw: we agreed rdf:text should have accessor functions for its two components. casting is not resolved.
Chris Welty: we agreed rdf:text should have accessor functions for its two components. casting is not resolved. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
20:01:05 <Harold> Casting of rdf:text discussed: string and lang tag.
Harold Boley: Casting of rdf:text discussed: string and lang tag. ←
20:02:07 <Harold> We need to decide on fn:compare.
Harold Boley: We need to decide on fn:compare. ←
20:02:28 <sandro> would look like: PROPOSED: Add fn;string-less-than, etc, in addition to fn:compare, to make string comparison symmetric with numeric comparison.
Sandro Hawke: would look like: PROPOSED: Add fn;string-less-than, etc, in addition to fn:compare, to make string comparison symmetric with numeric comparison. ←
20:02:34 <Harold> Also, remaining editor notes.
Harold Boley: Also, remaining editor notes. ←
20:02:55 <Harold> Dave: Did you discuss subdialects.
Dave Reynolds: Did you discuss subdialects. [ Scribe Assist by Harold Boley ] ←
20:04:36 <Harold> Chrisw: One possibility: 3 dialects, taking out equality in head, negative guards, or both.
Chris Welty: One possibility: 3 dialects, taking out equality in head, negative guards, or both. [ Scribe Assist by Harold Boley ] ←
20:04:47 <Harold> (from BLD.)
Harold Boley: (from BLD.) ←
20:06:08 <Harold> subtopic: Debrief of "PRD" Breakout
20:07:01 <Harold> Christian: Slides on Conflict Resolution
Christian de Sainte Marie: Slides on Conflict Resolution [ Scribe Assist by Harold Boley ] ←
20:09:47 <Harold> "Same instance" and "Same binding" discussions.
Harold Boley: "Same instance" and "Same binding" discussions. ←
20:10:46 <Harold> Nothing to propose here at this point.
Harold Boley: Nothing to propose here at this point. ←
20:11:02 <Harold> Christian: Actions in PRD
Christian de Sainte Marie: Actions in PRD [ Scribe Assist by Harold Boley ] ←
20:11:31 <StellaMitchell> StellaMitchell has joined #rif
Stella Mitchell: StellaMitchell has joined #rif ←
20:11:58 <Harold> PROPOSED: 'New' construct for action part of PRD rules.
PROPOSED: 'New' construct for action part of PRD rules. ←
20:12:48 <Harold> PROPOSED: 'Do' for action part of PRD rules.
PROPOSED: 'Do' for action part of PRD rules. ←
20:13:22 <Harold> Makes specified variables local to its scope.
Harold Boley: Makes specified variables local to its scope. ←
20:14:19 <Harold> PROPOSED: 'Retract' for action part of PRD rules extended from atoms and frames to TERMs.
PROPOSED: 'Retract' for action part of PRD rules extended from atoms and frames to TERMs. ←
20:18:09 <Harold> The TERM-identified frame information is removed: their object from the Member relation and the frames describing this object.
Harold Boley: The TERM-identified frame information is removed: their object from the Member relation and the frames describing this object. ←
20:18:59 <Harold> Michael: why not use Erase?
Michael Kifer: why not use Erase? [ Scribe Assist by Harold Boley ] ←
20:20:06 <Harold> Jos: TERM is ambiguous here.
Jos De Bruijn: TERM is ambiguous here. [ Scribe Assist by Harold Boley ] ←
20:20:20 <Harold> Discussion: doesn't seem so.
Harold Boley: Discussion: doesn't seem so. ←
20:20:53 <Harold> Christian: Can we pass these resolutions.
Christian de Sainte Marie: Can we pass these resolutions. [ Scribe Assist by Harold Boley ] ←
20:21:10 <Harold> Dave: Two of the three.
Dave Reynolds: Two of the three. [ Scribe Assist by Harold Boley ] ←
20:21:33 <Blaz> Blaz has joined #rif
Blaz Novak: Blaz has joined #rif ←
20:21:40 <Harold> Michael: What about obj[], ie nullary?
Michael Kifer: What about obj[], ie nullary? [ Scribe Assist by Harold Boley ] ←
20:23:27 <Harold> Dave/Michael/Christian: Since there are no function symbols in Core there is no ambiguity.
Harold Boley: Dave/Michael/Christian: Since there are no function symbols in Core there is no ambiguity. ←
20:24:16 <Harold> Michael: Yet, a new name (Erase?) would be good.
Michael Kifer: Yet, a new name (Erase?) would be good. [ Scribe Assist by Harold Boley ] ←
20:25:20 <Harold> Michael: What is 'Do' ?
Michael Kifer: What is 'Do' ? [ Scribe Assist by Harold Boley ] ←
20:25:43 <Harold> Gary: Corresponds to 'Exists' in BLD.
Gary Hallmark: Corresponds to 'Exists' in BLD. [ Scribe Assist by Harold Boley ] ←
20:25:45 <AxelPolleres> AxelPolleres has joined #rif
Axel Polleres: AxelPolleres has joined #rif ←
20:25:47 <Harold> ... W
Harold Boley: ... W ←
20:26:15 <Harold> e need to clarify single-assignment vs. re-assignment.
Harold Boley: e need to clarify single-assignment vs. re-assignment. ←
20:26:36 <Harold> Further discussion in coming Taskforce telecon.
Harold Boley: Further discussion in coming Taskforce telecon. ←
20:27:20 <Harold> topic: Process wrt f2f minutes
20:27:46 <Harold> Sandro: Gets better and better.
Sandro Hawke: Gets better and better. [ Scribe Assist by Harold Boley ] ←
20:28:14 <Harold> Cool stuff like moves all Resolutions to the top.
Harold Boley: Cool stuff like moves all Resolutions to the top. ←
20:29:11 <Harold> Easier to fix typos, inaccurate renderings of what people said, etc.
Harold Boley: Easier to fix typos, inaccurate renderings of what people said, etc. ←
20:29:41 <Harold> (especially for scribes)
Harold Boley: (especially for scribes) ←
20:30:40 <Harold> When command Scribenick was forgotten, can still be easily fixed now.
Harold Boley: When command Scribenick was forgotten, can still be easily fixed now. ←
20:31:37 <Harold> Christian: The way the history is changed is visible from the original archive.
Christian de Sainte Marie: The way the history is changed is visible from the original archive. [ Scribe Assist by Harold Boley ] ←
20:32:03 <Harold> ... Benefit of wiki: everyone can edit.
Harold Boley: ... Benefit of wiki: everyone can edit. ←
20:32:37 <Harold> Sandro: What about: If you edit something in the history , send email to the scribe.
Sandro Hawke: What about: If you edit something in the history , send email to the scribe. [ Scribe Assist by Harold Boley ] ←
20:33:16 <Harold> Point them to the diff of your changes.
Harold Boley: Point them to the diff of your changes. ←
20:34:16 <Harold> There is also topic:, subtopic: subsubtopic:
Harold Boley: There is also topic:, subtopic: subsubtopic: ←
20:34:31 <Harold> Creates indentation in toc.
Harold Boley: Creates indentation in toc. ←
20:42:25 <Blaz> Blaz has joined #rif
(No events recorded for 7 minutes)
Blaz Novak: Blaz has joined #rif ←
20:58:12 <AdrianP> AdrianP has joined #rif
(No events recorded for 15 minutes)
Adrian Paschke: AdrianP has joined #rif ←
20:58:29 <sandro> chrisw: how close are we to next WD of PRD?
Chris Welty: how close are we to next WD of PRD? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
20:58:38 <AdrianP> scribenick AdrianP
Adrian Paschke: scribenick AdrianP ←
20:58:38 <Sandro> topic: Work Planning
20:58:48 <sandro> csma: we have three items we're working on.....
Christian de Sainte Marie: we have three items we're working on..... [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
20:59:16 <AdrianP> Christian: close on the action side as next step
Christian de Sainte Marie: close on the action side as next step [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
20:59:30 <AdrianP> reasonable close on the semantics
Adrian Paschke: reasonable close on the semantics ←
21:01:17 <AdrianP> csma: conflict resolution progress in next 2 weeks
Christian de Sainte Marie: conflict resolution progress in next 2 weeks [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:01:43 <AdrianP> csma: frozen version of PRD by October 28th
Christian de Sainte Marie: frozen version of PRD by October 28th [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:02:41 <AdrianP> csma: review two weeks after in Nov.
Christian de Sainte Marie: review two weeks after in Nov. [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:03:01 <AdrianP> axel: same schedule for DTB
Axel Polleres: same schedule for DTB [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:04:32 <AdrianP> adrian: action was to add the test cases to working draft
Adrian Paschke: action was to add the test cases to working draft [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:04:42 <AdrianP> stella: need some feedback from the grouü
Stella Mitchell: need some feedback from the grouü [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:04:54 <AdrianP> s/grouü/group
Adrian Paschke: s/grouü/group ←
21:05:25 <AdrianP> adrian same schedule for Test Cases; in two weeks
Adrian Paschke: adrian same schedule for Test Cases; in two weeks ←
21:05:34 <AdrianP> chrisw: two weeks from now we freeze
Chris Welty: two weeks from now we freeze [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:07:16 <AdrianP> michael: FLD open issues are aggregates, modules, ..
Michael Kifer: FLD open issues are aggregates, modules, .. [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:07:59 <AdrianP> michael: October, 28th for frozen version
Michael Kifer: October, 28th for frozen version [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:09:00 <AdrianP> chrisw: any open issues for BLD?
Chris Welty: any open issues for BLD? [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:09:49 <AdrianP> chrisw: nothing changes; some clarifications wrt entailment
Chris Welty: nothing changes; some clarifications wrt entailment [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:10:03 <AdrianP> michael: have to fix defitions
Michael Kifer: have to fix defitions [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:10:16 <AdrianP> josb: how are changes documented?
Jos De Bruijn: how are changes documented? [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:11:15 <AdrianP> harold: could we point to the diff from WIKI?
Harold Boley: could we point to the diff from WIKI? [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:12:05 <sandro> ACTION: MichaelKifer add "Changes Since Last Call" section to BLD
ACTION: MichaelKifer add "Changes Since Last Call" section to BLD ←
21:12:05 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - MichaelKifer
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - MichaelKifer ←
21:12:12 <sandro> ACTION: Kifer add "Changes Since Last Call" section to BLD
ACTION: Kifer add "Changes Since Last Call" section to BLD ←
21:12:12 <trackbot> Created ACTION-606 - Add \"Changes Since Last Call\" section to BLD [on Michael Kifer - due 2008-10-04].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-606 - Add \"Changes Since Last Call\" section to BLD [on Michael Kifer - due 2008-10-04]. ←
21:12:46 <sandro> chrisw: pure grammar/spelling changes + clarificaitons + more detailed bugfix change.
Chris Welty: pure grammar/spelling changes + clarificaitons + more detailed bugfix change. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:14:32 <AdrianP> sandro: new section "change log"
Sandro Hawke: new section "change log" [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:14:51 <Harold> After: 10 Appendix: RIF Media Type Registration
Harold Boley: After: 10 Appendix: RIF Media Type Registration ←
21:15:07 <Harold> 10 Appendix: change log
Harold Boley: 10 Appendix: change log ←
21:15:08 <AdrianP> jos: SWC; fixed an error
Jos De Bruijn: SWC; fixed an error [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:15:10 <sandro> ACTION: Jos to add change log to SWC
ACTION: Jos to add change log to SWC ←
21:15:10 <trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Jos
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Jos ←
21:15:10 <trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jdebruij2, jderoo)
Trackbot IRC Bot: Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jdebruij2, jderoo) ←
21:15:16 <sandro> ACTION: Josb to add change log to SWC
ACTION: Josb to add change log to SWC ←
21:15:16 <trackbot> Created ACTION-607 - Add change log to SWC [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2008-10-04].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-607 - Add change log to SWC [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2008-10-04]. ←
21:15:27 <AdrianP> jos: end of October as deadline for SWC
Jos De Bruijn: end of October as deadline for SWC [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:15:40 <Harold> 11 Appendix: Changes since Last Call
Harold Boley: 11 Appendix: Changes since Last Call ←
21:16:17 <sandro> Chrisw: CR?
Chris Welty: CR? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:17:00 <AdrianP> chrisw: candidate recommendation Nov. 14th
Chris Welty: candidate recommendation Nov. 14th [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:20:07 <AdrianP> Sandro: DTB has to CR at the same time
Sandro Hawke: DTB has to CR at the same time [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:20:19 <AxelPolleres> negative guards were introduced for modeling if-then-else behavior in terms of "type-checking", which you can no longer do really if you restrict the domain for negative guards.
Axel Polleres: negative guards were introduced for modeling if-then-else behavior in terms of "type-checking", which you can no longer do really if you restrict the domain for negative guards. ←
21:20:50 <AdrianP> Sandro: we need to get DTB to last call before BLD CR
Sandro Hawke: we need to get DTB to last call before BLD CR [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:21:03 <AxelPolleres> ... so, basically, before restricting the intended domain for neg guards, I'd rather drop them entirely.
Axel Polleres: ... so, basically, before restricting the intended domain for neg guards, I'd rather drop them entirely. ←
21:21:31 <AdrianP> Sandro: ... maybe "ongoing last call for DTB" will work
Sandro Hawke: ... maybe "ongoing last call for DTB" will work [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:21:58 <AdrianP> Chrisw: Core?
Chris Welty: Core? [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:22:13 <DaveReynolds> Axel - an example would be the OWL RL rules, for literal values need type checking rules which need to negative guards but only over primitive datatypes
Axel - an example would be the OWL RL rules, for literal values need type checking rules which need to negative guards but only over primitive datatypes ←
21:23:12 <AxelPolleres> Dave - you don't need "real" negation semantics there is what you say?
Axel Polleres: Dave - you don't need "real" negation semantics there is what you say? ←
21:23:18 <josb> Also the embedding of OWL DLP combinations requires the negative guards with the current semantics
Jos De Bruijn: Also the embedding of OWL DLP combinations requires the negative guards with the current semantics ←
21:23:19 <AdrianP> Chrisw: UCR?
Chris Welty: UCR? [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:23:20 <josb> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#Embedding_OWL_DLP_into_RIF_BLD
Jos De Bruijn: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#Embedding_OWL_DLP_into_RIF_BLD ←
21:23:31 <AdrianP> Chrisw: Same schedule for UCR as for other documents
Chris Welty: Same schedule for UCR as for other documents [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:23:42 <AdrianP> Chrisw: next f2f
Chris Welty: next f2f [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:23:53 <AdrianP> csma: December in Portland?
Christian de Sainte Marie: December in Portland? [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:24:08 <josb> w/o "real" negative guards, I don't think OWL DLP combinations can be embedded
Jos De Bruijn: w/o "real" negative guards, I don't think OWL DLP combinations can be embedded ←
21:24:34 <AdrianP> chrisw: January Portland?
Chris Welty: January Portland? [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:25:34 <sandro> ACTION: Gary to tell Sandro what dates work for F2F12.
ACTION: Gary to tell Sandro what dates work for F2F12. ←
21:25:34 <trackbot> Created ACTION-608 - Tell Sandro what dates work for F2F12. [on Gary Hallmark - due 2008-10-04].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-608 - Tell Sandro what dates work for F2F12. [on Gary Hallmark - due 2008-10-04]. ←
21:25:36 <AdrianP> Gary: will send possible dates
Gary Hallmark: will send possible dates [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:25:46 <AdrianP> Chrisw: Core?
Chris Welty: Core? [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:25:54 <AxelPolleres> ... yup jos, what I tried to say was: restricting the domain doesn't seem to let us end up in something very useful, does it?
Axel Polleres: ... yup jos, what I tried to say was: restricting the domain doesn't seem to let us end up in something very useful, does it? ←
21:25:57 <Harold> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Sep/0151.html
Harold Boley: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Sep/0151.html ←
21:25:58 <sandro> topic: Core
21:25:59 <AdrianP> Harold: sent extract from Monday telecon
Harold Boley: sent extract from Monday telecon [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:26:11 <josb> not so useful, it seems
Jos De Bruijn: not so useful, it seems ←
21:27:36 <AdrianP> Harold: discussions from this telecon need to be discussed furhter
Harold Boley: discussions from this telecon need to be discussed furhter [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:29:02 <AdrianP> Chrisw: Can we close issues?
Chris Welty: Can we close issues? [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:29:39 <AdrianP> mk: equality can not be on data types
Michael Kifer: equality can not be on data types [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:31:59 <AdrianP> christian: does unrestricted equality make sense in PRD?
Christian de Sainte Marie: does unrestricted equality make sense in PRD? [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:32:38 <AdrianP> ´PROPOSED: Core should keep unrestricted equality and external function and predicate calls in rule bodies and keep external functions calls in rule heads.
Adrian Paschke: ´PROPOSED: Core should keep unrestricted equality and external function and predicate calls in rule bodies and keep external functions calls in rule heads. ←
21:33:35 <sandro> PROPOSED: Core should keep unrestricted equality and external function and predicate calls in rule conditions and keep external functions calls in rule conclusions
PROPOSED: Core should keep unrestricted equality and external function and predicate calls in rule conditions and keep external functions calls in rule conclusions ←
21:33:53 <sandro> csma: +0
Christian de Sainte Marie: +0 [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:34:16 <sandro> RESOLVED: Core should keep unrestricted equality and external function and predicate calls in rule conditions and keep external functions calls in rule conclusions
RESOLVED: Core should keep unrestricted equality and external function and predicate calls in rule conditions and keep external functions calls in rule conclusions ←
21:34:42 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/71
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/71 ←
21:35:36 <csma> My question was whether we will still want unrestricted equality in conditions in PRD, if we are allowed externally specified equality...
Christian de Sainte Marie: My question was whether we will still want unrestricted equality in conditions in PRD, if we are allowed externally specified equality... ←
21:35:57 <sandro> (That closes issue-76, Equality in Core)
Sandro Hawke: (That closes ISSUE-76, Equality in Core) ←
21:36:20 <sandro> ACTION: Chris to close issue-76
ACTION: Chris to close ISSUE-76 ←
21:36:20 <trackbot> Created ACTION-609 - Close issue-76 [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-10-04].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-609 - Close ISSUE-76 [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-10-04]. ←
21:36:49 <sandro> PROPOSED: close issue-71, given we're retaining equality in conditions in core
PROPOSED: close ISSUE-71, given we're retaining equality in conditions in core ←
21:37:00 <sandro> RESOLVED: close issue-71, given we're retaining equality in conditions in core
RESOLVED: close ISSUE-71, given we're retaining equality in conditions in core ←
21:37:03 <AdrianP> chrisw: closed issue 71 and 76
Chris Welty: closed ISSUE-71 and 76 [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:37:04 <sandro> ACTION: Chris to close issue-71
ACTION: Chris to close ISSUE-71 ←
21:37:04 <trackbot> Created ACTION-610 - Close issue-71 [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-10-04].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-610 - Close ISSUE-71 [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-10-04]. ←
21:38:13 <Zakim> -BobMoore
Zakim IRC Bot: -BobMoore ←
21:38:28 <AdrianP> PROPOSED: Core should keep both frames/objects and (positional-argument) predicates/relations.
PROPOSED: Core should keep both frames/objects and (positional-argument) predicates/relations. ←
21:39:34 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-74, saying Core will have both Predicates (with positional arguments) and Frames (no comment on having membership)
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-74, saying Core will have both Predicates (with positional arguments) and Frames (no comment on having membership) ←
21:39:43 <sandro> RESOLVED: Close issue-74, saying Core will have both Predicates (with positional arguments) and Frames (no comment on having membership)
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-74, saying Core will have both Predicates (with positional arguments) and Frames (no comment on having membership) ←
21:40:04 <sandro> action: chris closs issue-74
ACTION: chris closs ISSUE-74 ←
21:40:04 <trackbot> Created ACTION-611 - Closs issue-74 [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-10-04].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-611 - Closs ISSUE-74 [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-10-04]. ←
21:40:31 <AdrianP> PROPOSED: Core should keep disjunction in rule bodies, only if this is permitted by the solution to issue-70.
PROPOSED: Core should keep disjunction in rule bodies, only if this is permitted by the solution to ISSUE-70. ←
21:40:35 <AdrianP> Jos: Why?
Jos De Bruijn: Why? [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:40:56 <sandro> Jos: Why have disjunction in rule bodies?
Jos De Bruijn: Why have disjunction in rule bodies? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:41:00 <AdrianP> Gary: disj. often used in business rules
Gary Hallmark: disj. often used in business rules [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:41:07 <sandro> Gary: It's frequently used in real rules.
Gary Hallmark: It's frequently used in real rules. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:41:41 <AdrianP> Gary: counterproposal is two write a huge number of rules
Gary Hallmark: counterproposal is two write a huge number of rules [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:42:01 <AdrianP> Jos: now you put the burden on rule engine vendors without disjunction
Jos De Bruijn: now you put the burden on rule engine vendors without disjunction [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:42:25 <AdrianP> csma: question is should Core be the largest common subset between PR and logic languages
Christian de Sainte Marie: question is should Core be the largest common subset between PR and logic languages [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:42:38 <AdrianP> dave: we agreed smaller then that
Dave Reynolds: we agreed smaller then that [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:43:11 <AdrianP> csma: burden is always somewhere
Christian de Sainte Marie: burden is always somewhere [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:43:33 <AdrianP> csma: nothing changes for PRD
Christian de Sainte Marie: nothing changes for PRD [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:43:58 <AdrianP> Gary: can interchange between logic and production language using Core
Gary Hallmark: can interchange between logic and production language using Core [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:45:04 <AxelPolleres> I reckon there is not necesarily a blowup, you can introduce new symbols in the rewriting of discjuntions, the rewriting would not be exponential.
Axel Polleres: I reckon there is not necesarily a blowup, you can introduce new symbols in the rewriting of discjuntions, the rewriting would not be exponential. ←
21:45:11 <AdrianP> Sandro: you don't want to send out a huge RIF document if you can avoid it
Sandro Hawke: you don't want to send out a huge RIF document if you can avoid it [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:45:20 <AxelPolleres> Agreed?
Axel Polleres: Agreed? ←
21:45:43 <AdrianP> Paul: whole idea is interchange
Paul Vincent: whole idea is interchange [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:46:02 <AdrianP> csma: I do not go through Core, but use directly PRD
Christian de Sainte Marie: I do not go through Core, but use directly PRD [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:46:14 <AdrianP> csma: question is are there users which make use of Core
Christian de Sainte Marie: question is are there users which make use of Core [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:46:48 <AdrianP> gary: would like to represent rules in smallest possible dialect
Gary Hallmark: would like to represent rules in smallest possible dialect [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:47:01 <AdrianP> chrisw: sounds like we can not close issue today
Chris Welty: sounds like we can not close issue today [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:47:23 <AdrianP> harold: was consensus in the task force
Harold Boley: was consensus in the task force [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:48:04 <AdrianP> gary: my system can handle disjunctions with bound variables
Gary Hallmark: my system can handle disjunctions with bound variables [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:48:26 <AdrianP> axel: some people need to rewrite in non disjunctive rules
Axel Polleres: some people need to rewrite in non disjunctive rules [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:49:43 <AdrianP> jos: the way it is phrased there are no restrictions on the disjunction
Jos De Bruijn: the way it is phrased there are no restrictions on the disjunction [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:49:55 <AdrianP> csma: it's related to issue 70
Christian de Sainte Marie: it's related to ISSUE-70 [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:50:45 <AdrianP> jos: nesting of disjunction is the problem
Jos De Bruijn: nesting of disjunction is the problem [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:51:01 <AdrianP> michael: you either get it or have to explode by your self
Michael Kifer: you either get it or have to explode by your self [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:51:19 <AdrianP> gary: better in the translator than having large rule sets
Gary Hallmark: better in the translator than having large rule sets [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:51:29 <AdrianP> chrisw: postpone it to next telecon
Chris Welty: postpone it to next telecon [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:52:34 <AdrianP> chrisw: other business?
Chris Welty: other business? [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:52:38 <Harold> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWLRL
Harold Boley: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWLRL ←
21:52:47 <AdrianP> dave: take a look at OWL RL
Dave Reynolds: take a look at OWL RL [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:53:15 <AdrianP> axel: have to look into our guard solutions
Axel Polleres: have to look into our guard solutions [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:55:01 <AdrianP> dave: translate into RIF Core rules, we support different datatypes,
Dave Reynolds: translate into RIF Core rules, we support different datatypes, [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:56:27 <AdrianP> dave: we can implement translator from OWL RL into RIF
Dave Reynolds: we can implement translator from OWL RL into RIF [ Scribe Assist by Adrian Paschke ] ←
21:56:56 <sandro> ADJOURN
Sandro Hawke: ADJOURN ←
This revision (#5) generated 2008-09-30 16:13:37 UTC by 'sandro', comments: 'included breakouts'