00:00:00 <sandro> PRESENT: csma, gary, adrian, harold, kifer, jos, sandro, paul, changhai
00:00:00 <sandro> REMOTE: chrisw, dave, stella, leora, axel
09:20:38 <apaschke> scribernick apaschke
Adrian Paschke: scribernick apaschke ←
09:20:50 <apaschke> scribenick apaschke
Adrian Paschke: scribenick apaschke ←
09:21:00 <apaschke> Zakim, who is on the phone?
Adrian Paschke: Zakim, who is on the phone? ←
09:21:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see Mike_Dean, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), RIF_Meeting_Room
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Mike_Dean, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), RIF_Meeting_Room ←
09:21:27 <sandro> scribenick: apaschke
(Scribe set to Adrian Paschke)
09:21:30 <apaschke> scribenick: apaschke
09:22:16 <apaschke> csma: concerns about alignment between Core and PRD
Christian de Sainte Marie: concerns about alignment between Core and PRD ←
09:22:31 <apaschke> Harold: safeness is important
Harold Boley: safeness is important ←
09:24:02 <apaschke> csma: problem was raised by example of Gary about backward chaining
Christian de Sainte Marie: problem was raised by example of Gary about backward chaining ←
09:24:23 <Zakim> +DaveReynolds
Zakim IRC Bot: +DaveReynolds ←
09:25:04 <apaschke> Harold: in analogy to DL we have defined safeness for external calls
Harold Boley: in analogy to DL we have defined safeness for external calls ←
09:25:40 <apaschke> Sandro: are there useful rules which do not fulfil safeness
Sandro Hawke: are there useful rules which do not fulfil safeness ←
09:25:49 <DaveReynolds> Yes
Dave Reynolds: Yes ←
09:26:02 <DaveReynolds> But safeness is not defined yet - we have an open issue
Dave Reynolds: But safeness is not defined yet - we have an open issue ←
09:26:54 <apaschke> csma: Forall ?x if a(?x+1) then a(?x) is unsafe
Christian de Sainte Marie: Forall ?x if a(?x+1) then a(?x) is unsafe ←
09:27:23 <sandro> yeah, this requires backward chaining, or ...
Sandro Hawke: yeah, this requires backward chaining, or ... ←
09:27:34 <apaschke> Gary: you need constraint solving
Gary Hallmark: you need constraint solving ←
09:27:56 <sandro> csma: if you had constraint solving, then you could do this.
Christian de Sainte Marie: if you had constraint solving, then you could do this. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:29:01 <apaschke> Gary: in RIF we only have built-in functions
Gary Hallmark: in RIF we only have built-in functions ←
09:29:44 <DaveReynolds> q+
Dave Reynolds: q+ ←
09:29:53 <apaschke> Gary: in the defintion it is too restrictive that there can't be disjunction
Gary Hallmark: in the defintion it is too restrictive that there can't be disjunction ←
09:30:19 <apaschke> Sandro: why don't we say Core and safe Core
Sandro Hawke: why don't we say Core and safe Core ←
09:30:28 <csma> ack dave
Christian de Sainte Marie: ack dave ←
09:30:53 <apaschke> Dave: there is just Core
Dave Reynolds: there is just Core ←
09:31:03 <sandro> DaveReynolds: core isn't split (core and safe-core), but we're only requiring conformance to safe-core.
Dave Reynolds: core isn't split (core and safe-core), but we're only requiring conformance to safe-core. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:31:19 <DaveReynolds> ex:A(?x) :- ex:A(?y), ?x = ?y + 1, ?x < 10
Dave Reynolds: ex:A(?x) :- ex:A(?y), ?x = ?y + 1, ?x < 10 ←
09:32:10 <apaschke> Dave: safeness equals finiteness is over conversative
Dave Reynolds: safeness equals finiteness is over conversative ←
09:32:34 <sandro> DaveReynolds: conservative approach would be safeness=finiteness. that's what Axel's asking for, but given Halting, that's too restrictive.
Dave Reynolds: conservative approach would be safeness=finiteness. that's what Axel's asking for, but given Halting, that's too restrictive. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:32:55 <apaschke> Dave: constraints on variables so that you can not call built-ins with free variables
Dave Reynolds: constraints on variables so that you can not call built-ins with free variables ←
09:33:11 <sandro> DaveReynolds: But Gary and I just want safeness= forward chaining is admissible strategy. if it terminates, then fixed point would be model-theoretic answer.
Dave Reynolds: But Gary and I just want safeness= forward chaining is admissible strategy. if it terminates, then fixed point would be model-theoretic answer. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:33:23 <apaschke> Dave: if rules a finite the fixpoint is for forward chaining is similar as for the model theory
Dave Reynolds: if rules a finite the fixpoint is for forward chaining is similar as for the model theory ←
09:34:09 <apaschke> Sandro: Core authoring systems have to have in mind if they write rules for Core or safe core
Sandro Hawke: Core authoring systems have to have in mind if they write rules for Core or safe core ←
09:34:25 <apaschke> Sandro: this is market confusing
Sandro Hawke: this is market confusing ←
09:34:59 <apaschke> csma: two question: How to align PRD and Core
Christian de Sainte Marie: two question: How to align PRD and Core ←
09:35:02 <sandro> sandro: it's equivalent to have two core dialects, as far as I can tell.
Sandro Hawke: it's equivalent to have two core dialects, as far as I can tell. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:35:39 <sandro> csma: let's first discuss what constitutes safeness.
Christian de Sainte Marie: let's first discuss what constitutes safeness. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:35:41 <apaschke> csma: how do we restrict Core once we have aligned PRD and Core
Christian de Sainte Marie: how do we restrict Core once we have aligned PRD and Core ←
09:36:23 <apaschke> Dave: there is a bug in the current definition if we allow nested functions
Dave Reynolds: there is a bug in the current definition if we allow nested functions ←
09:36:47 <apaschke> csma: PRD as an extension of Core
Christian de Sainte Marie: PRD as an extension of Core ←
09:37:15 <sandro> DaveReynolds: Axel's datalog engines have the finiteness constraint.
Dave Reynolds: Axel's datalog engines have the finiteness constraint. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:38:11 <apaschke> Dave: fraction of RIF to exchange RDF rules in Core
Dave Reynolds: fraction of RIF to exchange RDF rules in Core ←
09:38:31 <sandro> DaveReynolds: I'm fine with non-terminating rule sets.
Dave Reynolds: I'm fine with non-terminating rule sets. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:39:02 <Harold> Did PRD initially want only range restricted rules, i.e. each variable in the conclusion of a rule must also appear in a not negated clause in the premise of this rule?
Harold Boley: Did PRD initially want only range restricted rules, i.e. each variable in the conclusion of a rule must also appear in a not negated clause in the premise of this rule? ←
09:39:02 <apaschke> Dave: pure Datalog is alsway finite
Dave Reynolds: pure Datalog is alsway finite ←
09:39:29 <josb> fixpoints are not necessarily finite
Jos De Bruijn: fixpoints are not necessarily finite ←
09:39:44 <apaschke> Dave: it is not unusal that Datalog engines have built-ins restricted to strict safeness
Dave Reynolds: it is not unusal that Datalog engines have built-ins restricted to strict safeness ←
09:39:46 <DaveReynolds> jos - true
Dave Reynolds: jos - true ←
09:40:40 <apaschke> Harold: PRD never want to conclude non-ground rules
Harold Boley: PRD never want to conclude non-ground rules ←
09:40:45 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean
Zakim IRC Bot: -Mike_Dean ←
09:41:06 <apaschke> cke: variables alway need to be initialized
Changhai Ke: variables alway need to be initialized ←
09:41:49 <apaschke> csma: would range restricted rules guaranty finiteness
Christian de Sainte Marie: would range restricted rules guaranty finiteness ←
09:42:15 <apaschke> Harold: each variable in the head also needs to appear in the body
Harold Boley: each variable in the head also needs to appear in the body ←
09:43:11 <apaschke> Sandro: disjunction is syntactic sugar so it should not change the definition
Sandro Hawke: disjunction is syntactic sugar so it should not change the definition ←
09:43:32 <apaschke> Jos: the current definition can be fixed to have disjunction
Jos De Bruijn: the current definition can be fixed to have disjunction ←
09:43:48 <apaschke> csma: we need to define finite safeness or forward-chaining safeness
Christian de Sainte Marie: we need to define finite safeness or forward-chaining safeness ←
09:45:09 <sandro> Changhai: we just say "variable must be initialized"
Changhai Ke: we just say "variable must be initialized" [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:45:12 <apaschke> ke: in production rules variables always need to be initialized
Changhai Ke: in production rules variables always need to be initialized ←
09:46:07 <apaschke> Sandro: do you allow reordering
Sandro Hawke: do you allow reordering ←
09:46:25 <apaschke> Changhai: this can be syntactic sugar
Changhai Ke: this can be syntactic sugar ←
09:46:44 <sandro> Sandro: So you'd be okay with having the system do reordering.
Sandro Hawke: So you'd be okay with having the system do reordering. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:47:27 <DaveReynolds> But we should pick one for now, even if it is at risk
Dave Reynolds: But we should pick one for now, even if it is at risk ←
09:47:28 <apaschke> Sandro: we need feedback from implementors to know what we need
Sandro Hawke: we need feedback from implementors to know what we need ←
09:47:33 <sandro> Sandro: This finiteness question seems like an At-Risk subject, to base on implementors.
Sandro Hawke: This finiteness question seems like an At-Risk subject, to base on implementors. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:48:43 <apaschke> ke: finiteness depends on the domain
Changhai Ke: finiteness depends on the domain ←
09:49:18 <apaschke> csma: as Dave said finiteness is not required for the interchange. It is the problem of the consumer to take care of it
Christian de Sainte Marie: as Dave said finiteness is not required for the interchange. It is the problem of the consumer to take care of it ←
09:49:56 <sandro> issue-82?
09:49:56 <trackbot> ISSUE-82 -- Finalize Core/PRD alignement -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-82 -- Finalize Core/PRD alignement -- OPEN ←
09:49:56 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/82
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/82 ←
09:49:59 <apaschke> jos: the current definition is not clear
Jos De Bruijn: the current definition is not clear ←
09:50:27 <apaschke> Gary: we should allow a limited form of disjunction
Gary Hallmark: we should allow a limited form of disjunction ←
09:51:15 <sandro> csma: so you don't want if p(X) or q(Y) then .... those should be separate rules.
Christian de Sainte Marie: so you don't want if p(X) or q(Y) then .... those should be separate rules. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:51:30 <apaschke> Gary: e.g. if color is green or red should be one disjunctive rule
Gary Hallmark: e.g. if color is green or red should be one disjunctive rule ←
09:52:04 <apaschke> Gary: or test should be allowd
Gary Hallmark: or test should be allowd ←
09:52:07 <sandro> gary: or-in-test (okay) vs or-in-pattern (dangerous)
Gary Hallmark: or-in-test (okay) vs or-in-pattern (dangerous) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:52:58 <DaveReynolds> q+
Dave Reynolds: q+ ←
09:53:40 <apaschke> Changhai: the customers should take care to write disjunctive rules correct
Changhai Ke: the customers should take care to write disjunctive rules correct ←
09:53:50 <sandro> Changhai: jrules does not allow it... (disjunctive patterns)
Changhai Ke: jrules does not allow it... (disjunctive patterns) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:53:57 <apaschke> Changhai: we don't allow disjunctive aptters
Changhai Ke: we don't allow disjunctive aptters ←
09:54:01 <apaschke> Gary: we allow it
Gary Hallmark: we allow it ←
09:54:12 <sandro> ack DaveReynolds
Sandro Hawke: ack DaveReynolds ←
09:54:13 <csma> ack dave
Christian de Sainte Marie: ack dave ←
09:54:14 <apaschke> Paul: we allow disjunctive patterns too
Paul Vincent: we allow disjunctive patterns too ←
09:55:07 <apaschke> Dave: the alternative was to have a disjunctive built-in test
Dave Reynolds: the alternative was to have a disjunctive built-in test ←
09:55:24 <sandro> GaryHallmark: builtin for "value is one of a set of values" --- a disjunctive test, but no disjunction in rule.
Gary Hallmark: builtin for "value is one of a set of values" --- a disjunctive test, but no disjunction in rule. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
09:55:41 <sandro> (or, that's what Dave said Gary said)
Sandro Hawke: (or, that's what Dave said Gary said) ←
09:55:46 <josb> +1 to Dave
Jos De Bruijn: +1 to Dave ←
09:55:55 <josb> either have disjunction or not
Jos De Bruijn: either have disjunction or not ←
09:56:28 <apaschke> csma: p(?X) or q(?X) is ok but not p(?X) or q(?Y)
Christian de Sainte Marie: p(?X) or q(?X) is ok but not p(?X) or q(?Y) ←
09:57:56 <apaschke> csma: leave full disjunctive in Core and PRD and leave it to the consumer
Christian de Sainte Marie: leave full disjunctive in Core and PRD and leave it to the consumer ←
09:58:14 <apaschke> Sandro: a conformate consumer would need to handle all of them
Sandro Hawke: a conformate consumer would need to handle all of them ←
09:58:23 <apaschke> Paul: you would rewrite it
Paul Vincent: you would rewrite it ←
09:58:50 <sandro> csma: If you do not have disjunction in your language, then it will have to do the splitting.
Christian de Sainte Marie: If you do not have disjunction in your language, then it will have to do the splitting. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:00:11 <apaschke> csma: proposal is leave disjunction in COre and PRD. If a consumer does not have disjunction he needs to split the rules
Christian de Sainte Marie: proposal is leave disjunction in COre and PRD. If a consumer does not have disjunction he needs to split the rules ←
10:01:24 <sandro> PROPOSED: Core (and thus PRD) will have unrestricted disjunction in the conditions. Consumers with engines not handling disjunction can do the rewriting to eliminate disjunction by splitting into multiple rules.
PROPOSED: Core (and thus PRD) will have unrestricted disjunction in the conditions. Consumers with engines not handling disjunction can do the rewriting to eliminate disjunction by splitting into multiple rules. ←
10:02:51 <sandro> PROPOSED: Core (and thus PRD) will have unrestricted disjunction in the conditions. Consumers with engines not handling disjunction can do the rewriting to eliminate disjunction by splitting into multiple rules.
PROPOSED: Core (and thus PRD) will have unrestricted disjunction in the conditions. Consumers with engines not handling disjunction can do the rewriting to eliminate disjunction by splitting into multiple rules. ←
10:03:05 <apaschke> Sandro: disjunction is only syntactic sugar
Sandro Hawke: disjunction is only syntactic sugar ←
10:04:19 <apaschke> csma: if p(?a) or q(?Y) then ac(?x ?y) is not safe
Christian de Sainte Marie: if p(?a) or q(?Y) then ac(?x ?y) is not safe ←
10:04:35 <sandro> csma: IF P(?X) or Q(?Y) then ACT(?x ?y) splits into if p(?x) then act(?x ?y) and if q(?y) then act(?x ?y)
Christian de Sainte Marie: IF P(?X) or Q(?Y) then ACT(?x ?y) splits into if p(?x) then act(?x ?y) and if q(?y) then act(?x ?y) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:05:07 <josb> PROPOSED: suspend the safeness discussion until we have a decent deifnition of safeness
PROPOSED: suspend the safeness discussion until we have a decent deifnition of safeness ←
10:05:22 <josb> s/deifnition/definition /
Jos De Bruijn: s/deifnition/definition / ←
10:06:17 <sandro> PROPOSED: Core (and thus PRD) will have unrestricted disjunction in the conditions. (Of course disjunction interacts with safeness, where there probably will be restriction.) Consumers with engines not handling disjunction can do the rewriting to eliminate disjunction by splitting into multiple rules.
PROPOSED: Core (and thus PRD) will have unrestricted disjunction in the conditions. (Of course disjunction interacts with safeness, where there probably will be restriction.) Consumers with engines not handling disjunction can do the rewriting to eliminate disjunction by splitting into multiple rules. ←
10:08:51 <sandro> PROPOSED: Core (and thus PRD) will allow disjunction in the conditions.
PROPOSED: Core (and thus PRD) will allow disjunction in the conditions. ←
10:10:05 <DaveReynolds> See (closed) http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/75
Dave Reynolds: See (closed) http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/75 ←
10:10:17 <apaschke> csma: if PRD does not allow an unbound variable in the head what does this mean for the restrictions on Core?
Christian de Sainte Marie: if PRD does not allow an unbound variable in the head what does this mean for the restrictions on Core? ←
10:11:14 <sandro> thanks, DaveReynolds :-)
Sandro Hawke: thanks, DaveReynolds :-) ←
10:11:41 <sandro> quoting= 2008-11-04 18:48:50: At the Oct 21 2008 telecon the WG resolved to close this issue and decided that Core should keep safe disjunction in rule bodies. Implementations can be direct or use a well-known preprocessing step. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Oct/att-0088/2008-10-21-rif-minutes.html [Christopher Welty]
Sandro Hawke: quoting= 2008-11-04 18:48:50: At the Oct 21 2008 telecon the WG resolved to close this issue and decided that Core should keep safe disjunction in rule bodies. Implementations can be direct or use a well-known preprocessing step. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Oct/att-0088/2008-10-21-rif-minutes.html [Christopher Welty] ←
10:12:15 <apaschke> Michael: disallow unbound variables which are potentially infinite
Michael Kifer: disallow unbound variables which are potentially infinite ←
10:12:19 <sandro> mk: disallow unbound variables in predicates that are potentially infinite, like equality.
Michael Kifer: disallow unbound variables in predicates that are potentially infinite, like equality. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:12:32 <apaschke> Michael: such as equal, built-in predicates
Michael Kifer: such as equal, built-in predicates ←
10:13:48 <apaschke> Michael: condition that disallows unbound variables in the head and in potentially infinite predicates
Michael Kifer: condition that disallows unbound variables in the head and in potentially infinite predicates ←
10:17:13 <sandro> ACTION: josb to write a proposed new definition of the safeness restriction
ACTION: josb to write a proposed new definition of the safeness restriction ←
10:17:13 <trackbot> Created ACTION-687 - Write a proposed new definition of the safeness restriction [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2009-01-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-687 - Write a proposed new definition of the safeness restriction [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2009-01-22]. ←
10:18:21 <sandro> csma: keep issue-82 open until we have safeness happily defined.
Christian de Sainte Marie: keep ISSUE-82 open until we have safeness happily defined. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:18:21 <josb> ACTION: josb to write some safeness test cases
ACTION: josb to write some safeness test cases ←
10:18:22 <trackbot> Created ACTION-688 - Write some safeness test cases [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2009-01-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-688 - Write some safeness test cases [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2009-01-22]. ←
10:18:42 <apaschke> csma: PRD will be a superset of safe core
Christian de Sainte Marie: PRD will be a superset of safe core ←
10:18:51 <apaschke> Sandro: I need to know what safe core is
Sandro Hawke: I need to know what safe core is ←
10:19:18 <sandro> sandro: it's understood that PRD is a syntactic superset of Core? gary/csma: yes.
Sandro Hawke: it's understood that PRD is a syntactic superset of Core? gary/csma: yes. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:19:54 <sandro> csma: Does SWC work with Core?
Christian de Sainte Marie: Does SWC work with Core? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:20:01 <sandro> Jos: Yes, of course. It does.
Jos De Bruijn: Yes, of course. It does. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:20:21 <apaschke> Jos: Core is a subset of BLD and has the same model theory
Jos De Bruijn: Core is a subset of BLD and has the same model theory ←
10:20:29 <apaschke> csma: what is the impact on PRD?
Christian de Sainte Marie: what is the impact on PRD? ←
10:20:41 <apaschke> jos: equality in the head to check constraints
Jos De Bruijn: equality in the head to check constraints ←
10:20:59 <apaschke> jos: there is one unsafe rule. But you can get arround that
Jos De Bruijn: there is one unsafe rule. But you can get arround that ←
10:21:21 <sandro> csma: would safeness impact SWC?
Christian de Sainte Marie: would safeness impact SWC? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:21:27 <apaschke> csma: Would the safeness restriction impact SWC?
Christian de Sainte Marie: Would the safeness restriction impact SWC? ←
10:21:59 <sandro> jos: not from a def'n point of view. the embedding has one unsafe rule, but I *think* that can be remedied.
Jos De Bruijn: not from a def'n point of view. the embedding has one unsafe rule, but I *think* that can be remedied. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:22:01 <apaschke> Jos: there is one rule which can be replaced by two safe rules
Jos De Bruijn: there is one rule which can be replaced by two safe rules ←
10:24:02 <apaschke> Changhai: can you give examples of Core rules handling RDF?
Changhai Ke: can you give examples of Core rules handling RDF? ←
10:24:39 <apaschke> Sandro: the test cases which we went through yesterday
Sandro Hawke: the test cases which we went through yesterday ←
10:25:05 <apaschke> Jos: OWL RL embending - we need equality in the head for this
Jos De Bruijn: OWL RL embending - we need equality in the head for this ←
10:25:41 <apaschke> Jos: so you can not have OWL RL embeding in Core
Jos De Bruijn: so you can not have OWL RL embeding in Core ←
10:25:58 <apaschke> Sandro: can't you axiomatize equality for that
Sandro Hawke: can't you axiomatize equality for that ←
10:27:11 <sandro> sandro: Ah, I see. Yes, OWL provides equality. So if you want to use it with RIF, you have to use it with a RIF dialect that provides equality.
Sandro Hawke: Ah, I see. Yes, OWL provides equality. So if you want to use it with RIF, you have to use it with a RIF dialect that provides equality. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:27:33 <DaveReynolds> Jos - could you explain where in OWL RL you need equality in head?
Dave Reynolds: Jos - could you explain where in OWL RL you need equality in head? ←
10:27:37 <cke> r/changai/changhai/a
Changhai Ke: r/changai/changhai/a ←
10:28:02 <sandro> Jos: sameAs and keys
Jos De Bruijn: sameAs and keys [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:28:04 <apaschke> Jos: sameas statements and keyeys
Jos De Bruijn: sameas statements and keyeys ←
10:28:19 <sandro> presumably you can get there with cardinality as well.
Sandro Hawke: presumably you can get there with cardinality as well. ←
10:28:49 <josb> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/#Axioms_3
Jos De Bruijn: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/#Axioms_3 ←
10:28:54 <josb> HasKey
Jos De Bruijn: HasKey ←
10:29:19 <josb> Yes, MaxCardinality as well
Jos De Bruijn: Yes, MaxCardinality as well ←
10:29:54 <apaschke> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/UCR#Publishing_Rules_for_Interlinked_Metadata
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/UCR#Publishing_Rules_for_Interlinked_Metadata ←
10:31:14 <apaschke> Jos: you would restrict to the part of safe core in SWC
Jos De Bruijn: you would restrict to the part of safe core in SWC ←
10:32:42 <apaschke> Jos: there is no semantics for what the implementation will do
Jos De Bruijn: there is no semantics for what the implementation will do ←
10:33:56 <apaschke> Jos: in practice if you have priorities etc. order matters
Jos De Bruijn: in practice if you have priorities etc. order matters ←
10:34:04 <sandro> jos: for instance, in the presence of Retract, it would matter how you prioritized your RDF/OWL-implementation-rules.
Jos De Bruijn: for instance, in the presence of Retract, it would matter how you prioritized your RDF/OWL-implementation-rules. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:37:36 <sandro> Sandro: I'll agree with Jos that there may be nasty bits un unspecified-ness
Sandro Hawke: I'll agree with Jos that there may be nasty bits un unspecified-ness [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:37:42 <sandro> csma: but those are not RIF's problem.
Christian de Sainte Marie: but those are not RIF's problem. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:38:34 <apaschke> csma: interoperability of RDF and OWL is through the safe core of RIF
Christian de Sainte Marie: interoperability of RDF and OWL is through the safe core of RIF ←
10:38:55 <apaschke> csma: PRD interoperability
Christian de Sainte Marie: PRD interoperability ←
10:39:55 <sandro> csma: I want readers to know http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/ applies to Core and (in a sense) to PRD.
Christian de Sainte Marie: I want readers to know http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/ applies to Core and (in a sense) to PRD. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:40:59 <sandro> sandro: Some of embeddings (eg equality) cannot be done in Core, of course.
Sandro Hawke: Some of embeddings (eg equality) cannot be done in Core, of course. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:41:47 <sandro> jos: rdfs embeddings can probably be fixed.
Jos De Bruijn: rdfs embeddings can probably be fixed. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:42:14 <josb> ACTION: josb to coreify SWC
ACTION: josb to coreify SWC ←
10:42:14 <trackbot> Created ACTION-689 - Coreify SWC [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2009-01-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-689 - Coreify SWC [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2009-01-22]. ←
10:43:36 <sandro> PROPOSED: PRD will not address interop with RDF and OWL directly -- there is no work to do there. SWC will instead be updated to be phrased in terms of Core, so it can be (in most ways) inherited for PRD.
PROPOSED: PRD will not address interop with RDF and OWL directly -- there is no work to do there. SWC will instead be updated to be phrased in terms of Core, so it can be (in most ways) inherited for PRD. ←
10:44:12 <sandro> PROPOSED: PRD will not address interop with RDF and OWL directly -- there is no work to do there. SWC will instead be updated to be phrased in terms of [safe] Core, so it can be (in most ways) inherited for PRD.
PROPOSED: PRD will not address interop with RDF and OWL directly -- there is no work to do there. SWC will instead be updated to be phrased in terms of [safe] Core, so it can be (in most ways) inherited for PRD. ←
10:44:26 <sandro> sandro: I strongly object to ever hearing the term "safe core" again. :-(
Sandro Hawke: I strongly object to ever hearing the term "safe core" again. :-( [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:44:30 <cke> +1
Changhai Ke: +1 ←
10:44:33 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
10:44:40 <apaschke> +1
+1 ←
10:45:12 <josb> +1
Jos De Bruijn: +1 ←
10:45:15 <Zakim> -Hassan_Ait-Kaci
Zakim IRC Bot: -Hassan_Ait-Kaci ←
10:45:40 <sandro> RESOLVED: PRD will not address interop with RDF and OWL directly -- there is no work to do there. SWC will instead be updated to be phrased in terms of [safe] Core, so it can be (in most ways) inherited for PRD.
RESOLVED: PRD will not address interop with RDF and OWL directly -- there is no work to do there. SWC will instead be updated to be phrased in terms of [safe] Core, so it can be (in most ways) inherited for PRD. ←
10:45:50 <pvincent> +0
Paul Vincent: +0 ←
10:46:00 <Harold> +1
Harold Boley: +1 ←
10:46:11 <sandro> action-686?
10:46:11 <trackbot> ACTION-686 -- Jos de Bruijn to remind Sandro that 'josb' works in assigning actions. -- due 2009-01-21 -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-686 -- Jos de Bruijn to remind Sandro that 'josb' works in assigning actions. -- due 2009-01-21 -- OPEN ←
10:46:11 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/686
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/686 ←
10:46:53 <sandro> action-686 done
Sandro Hawke: ACTION-686 done ←
10:46:58 <sandro> action-686 closed
Sandro Hawke: ACTION-686 closed ←
10:46:58 <trackbot> ACTION-686 Remind Sandro that 'josb' works in assigning actions. closed
Trackbot IRC Bot: ACTION-686 Remind Sandro that 'josb' works in assigning actions. closed ←
10:47:17 <sandro> csma: Do we have two levels in core>
Christian de Sainte Marie: Do we have two levels in core> [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:47:25 <apaschke> csma: two levels of Core?
Christian de Sainte Marie: two levels of Core? ←
10:47:38 <sandro> DaveReynolds?
Sandro Hawke: DaveReynolds? ←
10:47:42 <sandro> zakim, who is here?
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is here? ←
10:47:42 <csma> ack dave
Christian de Sainte Marie: ack dave ←
10:47:43 <Zakim> On the phone I see RIF_Meeting_Room, DaveReynolds
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see RIF_Meeting_Room, DaveReynolds ←
10:47:45 <Zakim> On IRC I see pvincent, DaveReynolds, StellaMitchell, apaschke, sandro, Harold, csma, GaryHallmark, cke, josb, MoZ, Hassan, mdean, trackbot, Zakim
Zakim IRC Bot: On IRC I see pvincent, DaveReynolds, StellaMitchell, apaschke, sandro, Harold, csma, GaryHallmark, cke, josb, MoZ, Hassan, mdean, trackbot, Zakim ←
10:47:54 <sandro> PROPOSED: Core == Safe Core
PROPOSED: Core == Safe Core ←
10:48:42 <apaschke> Dave: some wanted Core to be restricted to only Datalog
Dave Reynolds: some wanted Core to be restricted to only Datalog ←
10:49:03 <sandro> DaveReynolds: If safeness==finiteness, if "safe core" is datalog, then that rules out stuff I want, interop between PRD and BLD.
Dave Reynolds: If safeness==finiteness, if "safe core" is datalog, then that rules out stuff I want, interop between PRD and BLD. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:49:08 <apaschke> Dave: others want Core to the maximum interestion of PRD and BLD
Dave Reynolds: others want Core to the maximum interestion of PRD and BLD ←
10:50:11 <apaschke> Dave: if we end up with a definition of forward chaining safeness (as discussed before) that would be fine from my point of view
Dave Reynolds: if we end up with a definition of forward chaining safeness (as discussed before) that would be fine from my point of view ←
10:50:32 <apaschke> Dave: if we have a much more restricted safeness condition we will have a problem
Dave Reynolds: if we have a much more restricted safeness condition we will have a problem ←
10:51:08 <sandro> Dave: If we have a very-strict notion of safeness, then yeah we need two cores.
Dave Reynolds: If we have a very-strict notion of safeness, then yeah we need two cores. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:52:05 <apaschke> Sandro: it is finite core vs. Core (intersection of PRD /BLD)
Sandro Hawke: it is finite core vs. Core (intersection of PRD /BLD) ←
10:52:21 <sandro> sandro: so the smaller core is "finite core" or "terminating core". "safe core" is actually the bigger one.
Sandro Hawke: so the smaller core is "finite core" or "terminating core". "safe core" is actually the bigger one. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:52:52 <josb> The definition I have in mind is a standard Datalog one
Jos De Bruijn: The definition I have in mind is a standard Datalog one ←
10:53:24 <josb> It is not going to be finite; I would allow a(x+1) :- a(x). a(1).
Jos De Bruijn: It is not going to be finite; I would allow a(x+1) :- a(x). a(1). ←
10:53:28 <josb> This does not terminate
Jos De Bruijn: This does not terminate ←
10:53:31 <sandro> dave: let's do one core, with safeness restriction. but if safeness is too restrictive, then we might re-examine.
Dave Reynolds: let's do one core, with safeness restriction. but if safeness is too restrictive, then we might re-examine. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:54:11 <sandro> DaveReynolds: remove weasely conformance, one core...
Dave Reynolds: remove weasely conformance, one core... [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
10:56:41 <apaschke> Sandro: let's first do the definition of safeness and then see if we need two cores?
Sandro Hawke: let's first do the definition of safeness and then see if we need two cores? ←
10:56:53 <apaschke> Dave: yes, we will mark it at risk
Dave Reynolds: yes, we will mark it at risk ←
10:56:58 <sandro> so we'll procede with one (larger but safe) core, and maybe have a smaller (terminating) core, AT RISK.
Sandro Hawke: so we'll procede with one (larger but safe) core, and maybe have a smaller (terminating) core, AT RISK. ←
11:00:30 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-82, given understandings in discussion so far today. Core as specialization of PRD is just work to do. Yes, safeness restriction will resolve backware chaining problem (action on Jos). Does Core compatibiliy with RDF+OWL extend PRD - yes.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-82, given understandings in discussion so far today. Core as specialization of PRD is just work to do. Yes, safeness restriction will resolve backware chaining problem (action on Jos). Does Core compatibiliy with RDF+OWL extend PRD - yes. ←
11:01:12 <cke> +1
Changhai Ke: +1 ←
11:01:18 <csma> action: gary to specify core as a specialisation of PRD
ACTION: gary to specify core as a specialisation of PRD ←
11:01:18 <trackbot> Created ACTION-690 - Specify core as a specialisation of PRD [on Gary Hallmark - due 2009-01-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-690 - Specify core as a specialisation of PRD [on Gary Hallmark - due 2009-01-22]. ←
11:01:22 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
11:01:50 <DaveReynolds> +1
Dave Reynolds: +1 ←
11:02:37 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-82, given understandings in discussion so far today. Core as specialization of PRD is just work to do. Yes, safeness restriction will resolve backware chaining problem (action on Jos). Does Core compatibiliy with RDF+OWL extend to PRD? only to the extend that's automatic through Core
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-82, given understandings in discussion so far today. Core as specialization of PRD is just work to do. Yes, safeness restriction will resolve backware chaining problem (action on Jos). Does Core compatibiliy with RDF+OWL extend to PRD? only to the extend that's automatic through Core ←
11:02:47 <DaveReynolds> +1
Dave Reynolds: +1 ←
11:02:47 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
11:02:49 <josb> s/extend/extent/
Jos De Bruijn: s/extend/extent/ ←
11:02:51 <josb> +1
Jos De Bruijn: +1 ←
11:02:53 <cke> +1
Changhai Ke: +1 ←
11:02:55 <apaschke> ++1
++1 ←
11:02:58 <Harold> +1
Harold Boley: +1 ←
11:03:00 <apaschke> +1
+1 ←
11:03:08 <Michael_Kifer> +1
Michael Kifer: +1 ←
11:03:42 <Zakim> -DaveReynolds
Zakim IRC Bot: -DaveReynolds ←
11:03:52 <sandro> RESOLVED: Close issue-82, given understandings in discussion so far today. Core as specialization of PRD is just work to do. Yes, safeness restriction will resolve backward chaining problem (action on Jos). Does Core compatibility with RDF+OWL extend to PRD? only to the extend that's automatic through Core
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-82, given understandings in discussion so far today. Core as specialization of PRD is just work to do. Yes, safeness restriction will resolve backward chaining problem (action on Jos). Does Core compatibility with RDF+OWL extend to PRD? only to the extend that's automatic through Core ←
11:03:59 <josb> s/extend/extent/
Jos De Bruijn: s/extend/extent/ ←
11:04:16 <sandro> issue-39?
11:04:17 <trackbot> ISSUE-39 -- RIF should support import or inclusion of rulesets [NOT CP] -- CLOSED
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-39 -- RIF should support import or inclusion of rulesets [NOT CP] -- CLOSED ←
11:04:17 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/39
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/39 ←
11:04:45 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-rif-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-rif-irc ←
11:04:54 <sandro> RRSAgent, make minutes
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, make minutes ←
11:04:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-rif-minutes.html sandro
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-rif-minutes.html sandro ←
11:05:33 <sandro> pointer?
Sandro Hawke: pointer? ←
11:05:37 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
11:05:37 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-rif-irc#T19-05-47
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-rif-irc#T19-05-47 ←
11:34:16 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
(No events recorded for 28 minutes)
Sandro Hawke: zakim, who is on the call? ←
11:34:16 <Zakim> On the phone I see RIF_Meeting_Room
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see RIF_Meeting_Room ←
11:34:24 <sandro> RESTARTING
Sandro Hawke: RESTARTING ←
11:35:48 <sandro> scribenick: cke
(Scribe set to Changhai Ke)
11:36:03 <sandro> issue-48?
11:36:03 <trackbot> ISSUE-48 -- Classification constructs in Core [NOT CP] -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-48 -- Classification constructs in Core [NOT CP] -- OPEN ←
11:36:03 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/48
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/48 ←
11:39:06 <Zakim> +DaveReynolds
Zakim IRC Bot: +DaveReynolds ←
11:39:14 <cke> Membership means: object # classname, where classname is a name of a class (correction of yesterday)
Membership means: object # classname, where classname is a name of a class (correction of yesterday) ←
11:42:18 <sandro> PROPOSED: Have # and ## in Conditions and Facts in Core.
PROPOSED: Have # and ## in Conditions and Facts in Core. ←
11:43:03 <DaveReynolds> -1
Dave Reynolds: -1 ←
11:43:10 <josb> -1
Jos De Bruijn: -1 ←
11:43:16 <GaryHallmark> +1
Gary Hallmark: +1 ←
11:43:22 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
11:43:39 <sandro> DaveReynolds: I have two problems with these
Dave Reynolds: I have two problems with these [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
11:44:02 <sandro> DaveReynolds: I'd like to be able to assert these as well -- the restrictions are awkward.
Dave Reynolds: I'd like to be able to assert these as well -- the restrictions are awkward. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
11:44:50 <sandro> DaveReynolds: ## is a problem because it's different from rdfs:subClassOf. I didn't object when ## went into BLD like this, because it was said it wouldn't be in core.
Dave Reynolds: ## is a problem because it's different from rdfs:subClassOf. I didn't object when ## went into BLD like this, because it was said it wouldn't be in core. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
11:45:15 <pvincent> +1 to Dave as subclass tests not that interesting to PR engines...
Paul Vincent: +1 to Dave as subclass tests not that interesting to PR engines... ←
11:45:30 <sandro> DaveReynolds: I could live with # in Conditions and Facts in Core. (we already decided this.)
Dave Reynolds: I could live with # in Conditions and Facts in Core. (we already decided this.) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
11:46:15 <sandro> mk: What does PRD do about an rdfs:subClassOf appearing in the head of a rule?
Michael Kifer: What does PRD do about an rdfs:subClassOf appearing in the head of a rule? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
11:47:01 <sandro> Jos: as we said earlier, there's no interop between PRD and RDFS.
Jos De Bruijn: as we said earlier, there's no interop between PRD and RDFS. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
11:49:04 <sandro> sandro: PRD's notion of classes and RDF's notion of classes will just be independent. Oh well, that's how it is.
Sandro Hawke: PRD's notion of classes and RDF's notion of classes will just be independent. Oh well, that's how it is. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
11:51:16 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-48. membership (#) in Core facts and conditions. subclass (##) not in Core.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-48. membership (#) in Core facts and conditions. subclass (##) not in Core. ←
11:51:36 <sandro> Jos: Take # out of core because it's redundant with rdf:type
Jos De Bruijn: Take # out of core because it's redundant with rdf:type [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
11:52:44 <DaveReynolds> Jos - could you talk closer to a mike?
Dave Reynolds: Jos - could you talk closer to a mike? ←
11:53:07 <cke> Jos: agree with Dave that subclass is not the same as in RDFS
Jos De Bruijn: agree with Dave that subclass is not the same as in RDFS ←
11:55:01 <sandro> Sandro: I'd like # and ## in core, with ## fixed to align with rdfs:subClassOf.
Sandro Hawke: I'd like # and ## in core, with ## fixed to align with rdfs:subClassOf. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
11:55:47 <sandro> ## == subclassof and not equivalent class
Sandro Hawke: ## == subclassof and not equivalent class ←
11:55:54 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-48. membership (#) in Core facts and conditions. subclass (##) not in Core.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-48. membership (#) in Core facts and conditions. subclass (##) not in Core. ←
11:56:01 <sandro> +0
Sandro Hawke: +0 ←
11:56:04 <josb> 0
Jos De Bruijn: 0 ←
11:56:07 <cke> +1
+1 ←
11:56:11 <pvincent> +1
Paul Vincent: +1 ←
11:56:11 <apaschke> +1
Adrian Paschke: +1 ←
11:56:12 <Harold> +1
Harold Boley: +1 ←
11:56:17 <DaveReynolds> 0
Dave Reynolds: 0 ←
11:56:24 <GaryHallmark> 0
Gary Hallmark: 0 ←
11:56:43 <Zakim> +??P1
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P1 ←
11:56:45 <Michael_Kifer> 0
Michael Kifer: 0 ←
11:57:46 <Zakim> -??P1
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P1 ←
11:57:50 <sandro> RESOLVED: Close issue-48. membership (#) in Core facts and conditions. subclass (##) not in Core.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-48. membership (#) in Core facts and conditions. subclass (##) not in Core. ←
11:57:56 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
11:57:56 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-rif-irc#T19-58-06
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-rif-irc#T19-58-06 ←
11:58:31 <sandro> issue-68?
11:58:31 <trackbot> ISSUE-68 -- Named argument UNITERM in CORE? -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-68 -- Named argument UNITERM in CORE? -- OPEN ←
11:58:31 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/68
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/68 ←
11:59:35 <sandro> PROPOSED: close issue-68 with no Named-Argument Uniterms (NAU) in Core or PRD.
PROPOSED: close ISSUE-68 with no Named-Argument Uniterms (NAU) in Core or PRD. ←
11:59:43 <josb> +1
Jos De Bruijn: +1 ←
11:59:47 <DaveReynolds> +1
Dave Reynolds: +1 ←
11:59:53 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
11:59:56 <Harold> 0
Harold Boley: 0 ←
12:01:46 <sandro> I'd like to put this on the list of things to take out of BLD.
Sandro Hawke: I'd like to put this on the list of things to take out of BLD. ←
12:02:17 <pvincent> +1
Paul Vincent: +1 ←
12:02:18 <GaryHallmark> 0
Gary Hallmark: 0 ←
12:03:18 <Michael_Kifer> 0
Michael Kifer: 0 ←
12:03:28 <cke> 0
0 ←
12:03:29 <sandro> RESOLVED: close issue-68 with no Named-Argument Uniterms (NAU) in Core or PRD.
RESOLVED: close ISSUE-68 with no Named-Argument Uniterms (NAU) in Core or PRD. ←
12:03:31 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
12:03:31 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-rif-irc#T20-03-41
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-rif-irc#T20-03-41 ←
12:03:40 <sandro> action: csma remove NAU from PRD
ACTION: csma remove NAU from PRD ←
12:03:40 <trackbot> Created ACTION-691 - Remove NAU from PRD [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-01-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-691 - Remove NAU from PRD [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-01-22]. ←
12:03:59 <sandro> issue-72?
12:03:59 <trackbot> ISSUE-72 -- Should Core support some approximation to skolem functions? -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-72 -- Should Core support some approximation to skolem functions? -- OPEN ←
12:03:59 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/72
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/72 ←
12:04:12 <Harold> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Jun/0245.html
Harold Boley: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Jun/0245.html ←
12:04:28 <Harold> (above link shows CLIPS example with NAU)
Harold Boley: (above link shows CLIPS example with NAU) ←
12:06:03 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-72 saying "No". (Nothing like skolem functions in Core.)
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-72 saying "No". (Nothing like skolem functions in Core.) ←
12:06:34 <sandro> DaveReynolds: not happy, but I wouldnt object.
Dave Reynolds: not happy, but I wouldnt object. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:08:28 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-72 saying "No". (Nothing like skolem functions in Core.) We regret we were unable to find a good design to address this need.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-72 saying "No". (Nothing like skolem functions in Core.) We regret we were unable to find a good design to address this need. ←
12:09:23 <sandro> gary: challenges with making it deterministic -- eg two new objects when rule fires twice.
Gary Hallmark: challenges with making it deterministic -- eg two new objects when rule fires twice. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:09:49 <sandro> gary: it didn't seem possible to solve in the general PRD case.
Gary Hallmark: it didn't seem possible to solve in the general PRD case. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:10:04 <cke> +0
+0 ←
12:10:09 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-72 saying "No" (Option D). (Nothing like skolem functions in Core.) We regret we were unable to find a good design to address this need.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-72 saying "No" (Option D). (Nothing like skolem functions in Core.) We regret we were unable to find a good design to address this need. ←
12:10:10 <DaveReynolds> 0
Dave Reynolds: 0 ←
12:10:17 <GaryHallmark> 0
Gary Hallmark: 0 ←
12:10:19 <sandro> 0
Sandro Hawke: 0 ←
12:10:22 <cke> 0
0 ←
12:10:23 <Harold> 1
Harold Boley: 1 ←
12:10:25 <josb> +1
Jos De Bruijn: +1 ←
12:10:29 <pvincent> +0
Paul Vincent: +0 ←
12:10:29 <Michael_Kifer> 1
Michael Kifer: 1 ←
12:10:33 <apaschke> 0
Adrian Paschke: 0 ←
12:10:41 <sandro> RESOLVED: Close issue-72 saying "No" (Option D). (Nothing like skolem functions in Core.) We regret we were unable to find a good design to address this need.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-72 saying "No" (Option D). (Nothing like skolem functions in Core.) We regret we were unable to find a good design to address this need. ←
12:10:45 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
12:10:45 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-rif-irc#T20-10-55
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-rif-irc#T20-10-55 ←
12:11:19 <sandro> issue-33?
12:11:20 <trackbot> ISSUE-33 -- Specification of data sources in RIF [NOT CP] -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-33 -- Specification of data sources in RIF [NOT CP] -- OPEN ←
12:11:20 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/33
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/33 ←
12:11:24 <apaschke> with respect to named arguments in PRD, CLIPS has named arguments. Did we check with all the decendants of CLIPS, e.g. ECLiPSe, Haley Eclipse, FuzzyCLIPS, Jess, DR-Device, ...
Adrian Paschke: with respect to named arguments in PRD, CLIPS has named arguments. Did we check with all the decendants of CLIPS, e.g. ECLiPSe, Haley Eclipse, FuzzyCLIPS, Jess, DR-Device, ... ←
12:12:51 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-33 with the understand that our mechanisms for accessing RDF and XML data sources will be sufficient.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-33 with the understand that our mechanisms for accessing RDF and XML data sources will be sufficient. ←
12:13:22 <josb> +1
Jos De Bruijn: +1 ←
12:13:23 <pvincent> +1
Paul Vincent: +1 ←
12:13:24 <DaveReynolds> Harold, Adrian - the CLIPS facts are not NAUs normally, you can pattern match on a subset of the arguments
Dave Reynolds: Harold, Adrian - the CLIPS facts are not NAUs normally, you can pattern match on a subset of the arguments ←
12:13:36 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-33 with the understand that our mechanisms for accessing RDF and XML data sources, and using external builtins, will be sufficient.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-33 with the understand that our mechanisms for accessing RDF and XML data sources, and using external builtins, will be sufficient. ←
12:13:45 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
12:13:52 <cke> +1
+1 ←
12:13:57 <Michael_Kifer> 1
Michael Kifer: 1 ←
12:13:59 <DaveReynolds> +1
Dave Reynolds: +1 ←
12:14:03 <apaschke> 0
Adrian Paschke: 0 ←
12:14:08 <pvincent> +1
Paul Vincent: +1 ←
12:14:17 <Harold> +1
Harold Boley: +1 ←
12:14:28 <sandro> RESOLVED: Close issue-33 with the understand that our mechanisms for accessing RDF and XML data sources, and using externals, will be sufficient.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-33 with the understand that our mechanisms for accessing RDF and XML data sources, and using externals, will be sufficient. ←
12:14:31 <GaryHallmark> +1
Gary Hallmark: +1 ←
12:14:32 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
12:14:32 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-rif-irc#T20-14-41-1
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-rif-irc#T20-14-41-1 ←
12:15:03 <sandro> issue-78?
12:15:03 <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 ←
12:15:03 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/78
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/78 ←
12:16:14 <josb> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#Formulas
Jos De Bruijn: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#Formulas ←
12:16:38 <sandro> csma: currently -- BLD externals can be position or na term, or a frame. later (frame) at risk.
Christian de Sainte Marie: currently -- BLD externals can be position or na term, or a frame. later (frame) at risk. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:16:55 <sandro> csma: issue was raised because I didn;t know what an external frame was.
Christian de Sainte Marie: issue was raised because I didn;t know what an external frame was. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:17:38 <sandro> sandro: example?
Sandro Hawke: example? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:19:46 <sandro> sandro: (with help from jos) if you think of frames as a single ternary predicate, external frames are just consulting a single external ternary predicate (not related to normal frames).
Sandro Hawke: (with help from jos) if you think of frames as a single ternary predicate, external frames are just consulting a single external ternary predicate (not related to normal frames). [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:20:09 <sandro> csma: any frame can be external
Christian de Sainte Marie: any frame can be external [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:20:26 <sandro> mk: yes. it was just an oversight. #, ##, and = should be external-able.
Michael Kifer: yes. it was just an oversight. #, ##, and = should be external-able. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:20:46 <sandro> mk: some kinds of = are builtin.
Michael Kifer: some kinds of = are builtin. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:20:46 <DaveReynolds> The problem is that the current external mechanism doesn't have a way to communicate which external source to consult. Especially for frames this is a problem.
Dave Reynolds: The problem is that the current external mechanism doesn't have a way to communicate which external source to consult. Especially for frames this is a problem. ←
12:21:25 <sandro> mk: another oversight -- there should be an IRI provided for the external from, to identify the source. we don't have any place to give that.
Michael Kifer: another oversight -- there should be an IRI provided for the external from, to identify the source. we don't have any place to give that. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:21:34 <sandro> csma: that's in the defn't of the external.
Christian de Sainte Marie: that's in the defn't of the external. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:22:49 <sandro> mk: when you get an RIF document, with an external frame, there should be some IRI identifying which source for external frames.
Michael Kifer: when you get an RIF document, with an external frame, there should be some IRI identifying which source for external frames. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:24:54 <sandro> sandro: don't have anything external except for predicates and functions. If you want your own #, then give it your own URI name.
Sandro Hawke: don't have anything external except for predicates and functions. If you want your own #, then give it your own URI name. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
12:26:25 <sandro> PROPOSED: The only Externals in BLD will be Predicates and Functions. No external frames, no external equality, etc.
PROPOSED: The only Externals in BLD will be Predicates and Functions. No external frames, no external equality, etc. ←
12:26:58 <sandro> PROPOSED: The only Externals in BLD (and Core, and PRD) will be Predicates and Functions. No external frames, no external equality, etc.
PROPOSED: The only Externals in BLD (and Core, and PRD) will be Predicates and Functions. No external frames, no external equality, etc. ←
12:27:02 <josb> +1
Jos De Bruijn: +1 ←
12:27:08 <DaveReynolds> +1
Dave Reynolds: +1 ←
12:27:22 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-78. The only Externals in BLD (and Core, and PRD) will be Predicates and Functions. No external frames, no external equality, etc.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-78. The only Externals in BLD (and Core, and PRD) will be Predicates and Functions. No external frames, no external equality, etc. ←
12:27:31 <cke> +1
+1 ←
12:27:37 <Harold> 0
Harold Boley: 0 ←
12:27:37 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
12:27:48 <Michael_Kifer> 0
Michael Kifer: 0 ←
12:28:16 <sandro> RESOLVED: Close issue-78. The only Externals in BLD (and Core, and PRD) will be Predicates and Functions. No external frames, no external equality, etc.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-78. The only Externals in BLD (and Core, and PRD) will be Predicates and Functions. No external frames, no external equality, etc. ←
12:28:20 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
12:28:20 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-rif-irc#T20-28-29
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-rif-irc#T20-28-29 ←
12:29:19 <sandro> BREAK FOR LUNCH
Sandro Hawke: BREAK FOR LUNCH ←
12:29:23 <sandro> issue-48?
12:29:25 <trackbot> ISSUE-48 -- Classification constructs in Core [NOT CP] -- CLOSED
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-48 -- Classification constructs in Core [NOT CP] -- CLOSED ←
12:29:25 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/48
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/48 ←
12:29:30 <sandro> issue-68?
12:29:31 <trackbot> ISSUE-68 -- Named argument UNITERM in CORE? -- CLOSED
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-68 -- Named argument UNITERM in CORE? -- CLOSED ←
12:29:31 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/68
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/68 ←
12:29:35 <Zakim> -DaveReynolds
Zakim IRC Bot: -DaveReynolds ←
12:29:42 <sandro> issue-72?
12:29:42 <trackbot> ISSUE-72 -- Should Core support some approximation to skolem functions? -- CLOSED
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-72 -- Should Core support some approximation to skolem functions? -- CLOSED ←
12:29:42 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/72
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/72 ←
12:29:46 <sandro> issue-33?
12:29:47 <trackbot> ISSUE-33 -- Specification of data sources in RIF [NOT CP] -- CLOSED
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-33 -- Specification of data sources in RIF [NOT CP] -- CLOSED ←
12:29:47 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/33
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/33 ←
12:29:51 <sandro> issue-78?
12:29:52 <trackbot> ISSUE-78 -- Which to make external: ATOMIC, ATOM, or ATOM|FRAME -- CLOSED
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-78 -- Which to make external: ATOMIC, ATOM, or ATOM|FRAME -- CLOSED ←
12:29:54 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/78
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/78 ←
12:30:11 <cke> We restart at 13:30.
We restart at 13:30. ←
12:32:00 <sandro> issue-46?
12:32:00 <trackbot> ISSUE-46 -- Modules in RIF [NOT CP] -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-46 -- Modules in RIF [NOT CP] -- OPEN ←
12:32:00 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/46
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/46 ←
13:37:51 <Harold> http://www.econ.kuleuven.be/eng/fetew/medewerker/Userpage.aspx?PID=271
(No events recorded for 65 minutes)
Harold Boley: http://www.econ.kuleuven.be/eng/fetew/medewerker/Userpage.aspx?PID=271 ←
13:41:46 <sandro> issue-69?
13:41:47 <trackbot> ISSUE-69 -- Should there be a Core schema incldued in BLD and PRD schemata? -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-69 -- Should there be a Core schema incldued in BLD and PRD schemata? -- OPEN ←
13:41:47 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/69
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/69 ←
13:42:08 <sandro> scribenick: gary
(Scribe set to Gary Hallmark)
13:42:25 <Zakim> +DaveReynolds
Zakim IRC Bot: +DaveReynolds ←
13:42:28 <Zakim> -RIF_Meeting_Room
Zakim IRC Bot: -RIF_Meeting_Room ←
13:42:30 <Zakim> +RIF_Meeting_Room
Zakim IRC Bot: +RIF_Meeting_Room ←
13:43:15 <GaryHallmark> harold: specialize bld schema to arrive at core schema
Harold Boley: specialize bld schema to arrive at core schema ←
13:43:28 <GaryHallmark> ... should look at how to inherit core into bld
... should look at how to inherit core into bld ←
13:43:58 <sandro> harold: easiest thing to do is copy BLD schema for Core, then edit it to constrain it more. then maybe look at where we can use include.
Harold Boley: easiest thing to do is copy BLD schema for Core, then edit it to constrain it more. then maybe look at where we can use include. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
13:44:08 <GaryHallmark> ... inherit means xml include
... inherit means xml include ←
13:45:01 <GaryHallmark> sandro: include is just an editorial change
Sandro Hawke: include is just an editorial change ←
13:46:25 <GaryHallmark> sandro: who will do the modularization exercise?
Sandro Hawke: who will do the modularization exercise? ←
13:46:49 <GaryHallmark> harold: will help changhai
Harold Boley: will help changhai ←
13:46:58 <sandro> ACTION: changhai to draft modularized Core and PRD schema, coordinating with Harold on BLD Schema
ACTION: changhai to draft modularized Core and PRD schema, coordinating with Harold on BLD Schema ←
13:46:58 <trackbot> Created ACTION-692 - Draft modularized Core and PRD schema, coordinating with Harold on BLD Schema [on Changhai Ke - due 2009-01-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-692 - Draft modularized Core and PRD schema, coordinating with Harold on BLD Schema [on Changhai Ke - due 2009-01-22]. ←
13:48:41 <Harold> In http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#Rule_Language we have <xs:include schemaLocation="BLDCond.xsd"/>.
Harold Boley: In http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#Rule_Language we have <xs:include schemaLocation="BLDCond.xsd"/>. ←
13:49:08 <GaryHallmark> changhai: work toward a core schema and BLD and PRD schemas that include the core schema
Changhai Ke: work toward a core schema and BLD and PRD schemas that include the core schema ←
13:49:15 <DaveReynolds> Harold - is the Core schema online or on the wiki somewhere?
Dave Reynolds: Harold - is the Core schema online or on the wiki somewhere? ←
13:49:37 <Harold> A Core schema doesn't exist yet.
Harold Boley: A Core schema doesn't exist yet. ←
13:49:43 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-69; there will be a Core schema, included in BLD and PRD schemas. see ACTION-692.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-69; there will be a Core schema, included in BLD and PRD schemas. see ACTION-692. ←
13:49:50 <DaveReynolds> Sorry misheard, your audio is very quiet
Dave Reynolds: Sorry misheard, your audio is very quiet ←
13:50:00 <csma> zakim, who is on the phone?
Christian de Sainte Marie: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
13:50:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see RIF_Meeting_Room, DaveReynolds
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see RIF_Meeting_Room, DaveReynolds ←
13:50:26 <DaveReynolds> :-)
Dave Reynolds: :-) ←
13:50:34 <sandro> proooooojeeeeeect
Sandro Hawke: proooooojeeeeeect ←
13:50:59 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-69; there will be a Core schema, included in BLD and PRD schemas. see ACTION-692.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-69; there will be a Core schema, included in BLD and PRD schemas. see ACTION-692. ←
13:51:15 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
13:51:27 <AdrianP> +1
Adrian Paschke: +1 ←
13:51:27 <chke> +1
Changhai Ke: +1 ←
13:51:28 <josb> +1
Jos De Bruijn: +1 ←
13:51:30 <DaveReynolds> +1
Dave Reynolds: +1 ←
13:51:50 <Harold> +1
Harold Boley: +1 ←
13:51:53 <Michael_Kifer> 1
Michael Kifer: 1 ←
13:51:56 <GaryHallmark> +1
+1 ←
13:52:01 <sandro> RESOLVED: Close issue-69; there will be a Core schema, included in BLD and PRD schemas. see ACTION-692.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-69; there will be a Core schema, included in BLD and PRD schemas. see ACTION-692. ←
13:52:20 <sandro> rrsagent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: rrsagent, pointer? ←
13:52:20 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-rif-irc#T21-52-29
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-rif-irc#T21-52-29 ←
13:54:14 <sandro> issue-46?
13:54:14 <trackbot> ISSUE-46 -- Modules in RIF [NOT CP] -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-46 -- Modules in RIF [NOT CP] -- OPEN ←
13:54:14 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/46
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/46 ←
13:55:43 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-46; no decision to make at this time. If someone produces a proposal for modules, we may consider it.
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-46; no decision to make at this time. If someone produces a proposal for modules, we may consider it. ←
13:56:00 <chke> +1
Changhai Ke: +1 ←
13:56:11 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
13:56:11 <DaveReynolds> +1
Dave Reynolds: +1 ←
13:56:16 <AdrianP> +1
Adrian Paschke: +1 ←
13:56:18 <Harold> +1
Harold Boley: +1 ←
13:56:24 <GaryHallmark> +1
+1 ←
13:56:28 <josb> +1
Jos De Bruijn: +1 ←
13:56:31 <sandro> RESOLVED: Close issue-46; no decision to make at this time. If someone produces a proposal for modules, we may consider it.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-46; no decision to make at this time. If someone produces a proposal for modules, we may consider it. ←
13:56:35 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
13:56:35 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-rif-irc#T21-56-45
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2009/01/15-rif-irc#T21-56-45 ←
13:57:33 <sandro> issue-50?
13:57:33 <trackbot> ISSUE-50 -- Semantic metadata -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-50 -- Semantic metadata -- OPEN ←
13:57:33 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/50
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/50 ←
13:57:54 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: +[IPcaller] ←
13:58:31 <sandro> issue-80?
13:58:31 <trackbot> ISSUE-80 -- Shoudl we extend DTB to include more general builtins -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-80 -- Shoudl we extend DTB to include more general builtins -- OPEN ←
13:58:31 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/80
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/80 ←
13:59:32 <sandro> Axel: unfort. my keyboard is broken. so I cannot type on IRC. :-(
Axel Polleres: unfort. my keyboard is broken. so I cannot type on IRC. :-( [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
13:59:59 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
Zakim IRC Bot: -[IPcaller] ←
14:00:52 <sandro> <csma> RESOLVED: add isLiteralOfType and isLiteralNotOfType (Changing guards to return true only for literals that are/are not of the type, false for non-literals) and remove specific type-named guards (e.g. isInteger, isNotInteger). Closing ISSUE-79 and the membership/non-membership part of ISSUE-80.
Sandro Hawke: <csma> RESOLVED: add isLiteralOfType and isLiteralNotOfType (Changing guards to return true only for literals that are/are not of the type, false for non-literals) and remove specific type-named guards (e.g. isInteger, isNotInteger). Closing ISSUE-79 and the membership/non-membership part of ISSUE-80. ←
14:04:22 <Zakim> +??P4
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P4 ←
14:04:42 <sandro> Gary: can we just have a "type" for everything that's not a literal?
Gary Hallmark: can we just have a "type" for everything that's not a literal? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:05:56 <josb> Sandro, Gary, negation would become a problem, i.e., isNotObject is a problem; isObject would not be a problem, I think
Jos De Bruijn: Sandro, Gary, negation would become a problem, i.e., isNotObject is a problem; isObject would not be a problem, I think ←
14:07:06 <josb> isNotObject=isLiteral, so should actually not be a problem
Jos De Bruijn: isNotObject=isLiteral, so should actually not be a problem ←
14:07:09 <sandro> jos: maybe yes we could do "isObject".
Jos De Bruijn: maybe yes we could do "isObject". [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:07:26 <Zakim> -??P4
Zakim IRC Bot: -??P4 ←
14:07:43 <AdrianP> something like isType(?X, Object)
Adrian Paschke: something like isType(?X, Object) ←
14:07:58 <AdrianP> isType(?X, Integer)
Adrian Paschke: isType(?X, Integer) ←
14:08:39 <sandro> Jos: "object" in owl is owl:Thiing
Jos De Bruijn: "object" in owl is owl:Thiing [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:09:27 <sandro> sandro: obviously isLiteralofTtyype, etc, are clumsy and something more elegant would be great.
Sandro Hawke: obviously isLiteralofTtyype, etc, are clumsy and something more elegant would be great. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:09:56 <GaryHallmark> sandro: what about isObject, isLiteral
Sandro Hawke: what about isObject, isLiteral ←
14:10:21 <GaryHallmark> jos: isLiteral
Jos De Bruijn: isLiteral ←
14:10:29 <DaveReynolds> We put the isLiteral part in notType as part of resolving the negative guards, the isLiteral part of ofType is just there for symmetry
Dave Reynolds: We put the isLiteral part in notType as part of resolving the negative guards, the isLiteral part of ofType is just there for symmetry ←
14:11:04 <GaryHallmark> sandro: need to cover unknown datatypes
Sandro Hawke: need to cover unknown datatypes ←
14:11:37 <GaryHallmark> dave: needed neg guards for owl RL
Dave Reynolds: needed neg guards for owl RL ←
14:12:21 <josb> isLiteralNotInteger(x) :- isLiteral and (isDouble and isFloat ....)
Jos De Bruijn: isLiteralNotInteger(x) :- isLiteral and (isDouble and isFloat ....) ←
14:12:27 <josb> isLiteralNotInteger(x) :- isLiteral and (isDouble or isFloat ....)
Jos De Bruijn: isLiteralNotInteger(x) :- isLiteral and (isDouble or isFloat ....) ←
14:12:37 <GaryHallmark> jos: instead of neg guards, enumerate, e.g. isNotInt == isDouble or isString or ...
Jos De Bruijn: instead of neg guards, enumerate, e.g. isNotInt == isDouble or isString or ... ←
14:13:09 <GaryHallmark> ... can't cover because value spaces not disjoint
... can't cover because value spaces not disjoint ←
14:14:17 <sandro> issue-81?
14:14:17 <trackbot> ISSUE-81 -- Support for additional OWL-RL datatype -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-81 -- Support for additional OWL-RL datatype -- OPEN ←
14:14:17 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/81
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/81 ←
14:15:43 <GaryHallmark> sandro: separate owl: and xsd: types
Sandro Hawke: separate owl: and xsd: types ←
14:16:49 <GaryHallmark> ... rationale for xsd: is completeness. for owl:, ability to use RIF to implement owl RL
... rationale for xsd: is completeness. for owl:, ability to use RIF to implement owl RL ←
14:17:41 <GaryHallmark> jos: possible issue with lex spaces not disjoint
Jos De Bruijn: possible issue with lex spaces not disjoint ←
14:18:47 <sandro> DaveReynolds: problem with binary types is: what builtins should we have? some work there?
Dave Reynolds: problem with binary types is: what builtins should we have? some work there? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:19:47 <josb> the set of additional XPath functions is small: http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/
Jos De Bruijn: the set of additional XPath functions is small: http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/ ←
14:20:42 <DaveReynolds> If you are talking about numerics now then see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Jan/0017.html
Dave Reynolds: If you are talking about numerics now then see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Jan/0017.html ←
14:20:56 <sandro> sandro: I expect users are going to want promotion
Sandro Hawke: I expect users are going to want promotion [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:26:08 <josb> what if we do type promotion, even with non-disjoint value spaces?
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Jos De Bruijn: what if we do type promotion, even with non-disjoint value spaces? ←
14:27:51 <GaryHallmark> dave: if value space is not disjoint, then you can't dispatch on the type of the inputs to builtins (like numeric-add) so it makes type promotion tricky (roughly paraphrased by scribe)
Dave Reynolds: if value space is not disjoint, then you can't dispatch on the type of the inputs to builtins (like numeric-add) so it makes type promotion tricky (roughly paraphrased by scribe) ←
14:30:20 <DaveReynolds> dave: (adding to Gary's paraphrase) further in XPath you would promote to double, whereas for the OWL approach you would promote to BigDecimal and so do arbitrary precision arithmetic a lot of the time
Dave Reynolds: (adding to Gary's paraphrase) further in XPath you would promote to double, whereas for the OWL approach you would promote to BigDecimal and so do arbitrary precision arithmetic a lot of the time [ Scribe Assist by Dave Reynolds ] ←
14:32:19 <GaryHallmark> jos: will try to convince owl that disjointness is a good thing
Jos De Bruijn: will try to convince owl that disjointness is a good thing ←
14:32:44 <Zakim> +LeoraMorgenstern
Zakim IRC Bot: +LeoraMorgenstern ←
14:32:52 <GaryHallmark> dave: owl has no builtins, so they don't have our motivation
Dave Reynolds: owl has no builtins, so they don't have our motivation ←
14:33:18 <GaryHallmark> sandro: may need formal objection
Sandro Hawke: may need formal objection ←
14:33:19 <josb> our main argument we can give OWL is extensibility
Jos De Bruijn: our main argument we can give OWL is extensibility ←
14:37:56 <sandro> sandro: XSD is so broken. :-) hexBinary and base64Binary both have identically described value spaces, but they are also defined as being disjoint.
Sandro Hawke: XSD is so broken. :-) hexBinary and base64Binary both have identically described value spaces, but they are also defined as being disjoint. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:38:45 <josb> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#order
Jos De Bruijn: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#order ←
14:38:54 <josb> "For purposes of this specification, the value spaces of primitive datatypes are disjoint, even in cases where the abstractions they represent might be thought of as having values in common."
Jos De Bruijn: "For purposes of this specification, the value spaces of primitive datatypes are disjoint, even in cases where the abstractions they represent might be thought of as having values in common." ←
14:39:19 <josb> Sandro, I agree; the spec is broken
Jos De Bruijn: Sandro, I agree; the spec is broken ←
14:40:22 <josb> also: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#equal
Jos De Bruijn: also: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#equal ←
14:40:28 <josb> "# the ·value space·s of all ·primitive· datatypes are disjoint (they do not share any values) "
Jos De Bruijn: "# the ·value space·s of all ·primitive· datatypes are disjoint (they do not share any values) " ←
14:43:54 <sandro> Changhai: use case for xsd:hasBinary is including an encrypted password.
Changhai Ke: use case for xsd:hasBinary is including an encrypted password. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:44:02 <sandro> s/has/hex/
Sandro Hawke: s/has/hex/ ←
14:45:17 <chke> base64binary looks like to be the way to convert binary information into printable characters. This is required for storing passwords, for example.
Changhai Ke: base64binary looks like to be the way to convert binary information into printable characters. This is required for storing passwords, for example. ←
14:45:18 <sandro> PROPOSED: Include all the xsd:* datatypes used by OWL RL and listed in issue-81. The owl:* types will be decided separately.
PROPOSED: Include all the xsd:* datatypes used by OWL RL and listed in ISSUE-81. The owl:* types will be decided separately. ←
14:45:37 <sandro> PROPOSED: Include in RIF Core all the xsd:* datatypes used by OWL RL and listed in issue-81. The owl:* types will be decided separately.
PROPOSED: Include in RIF Core all the xsd:* datatypes used by OWL RL and listed in ISSUE-81. The owl:* types will be decided separately. ←
14:45:46 <DaveReynolds> Does that include the string subtypes?
Dave Reynolds: Does that include the string subtypes? ←
14:46:05 <sandro> PROPOSED: Include in RIF Core all the xsd:* datatypes used by OWL RL and listed in issue-81. The owl:* types will be decided separately. Value spaces of Binaries will be decided separately.
PROPOSED: Include in RIF Core all the xsd:* datatypes used by OWL RL and listed in ISSUE-81. The owl:* types will be decided separately. Value spaces of Binaries will be decided separately. ←
14:47:05 <sandro> PROPOSED: Include in RIF Core all the xsd:* datatypes used by OWL RL and listed in issue-81. In RIF, the xsd numeric types will have disjoint value spaces -- we'll push for OWL to change. The owl:* types will be decided separately. Value spaces of Binaries will be decided separately.
PROPOSED: Include in RIF Core all the xsd:* datatypes used by OWL RL and listed in ISSUE-81. In RIF, the xsd numeric types will have disjoint value spaces -- we'll push for OWL to change. The owl:* types will be decided separately. Value spaces of Binaries will be decided separately. ←
14:47:18 <DaveReynolds> Does that include the string subtypes?
Dave Reynolds: Does that include the string subtypes? ←
14:47:41 <sandro> yes (as written)
Sandro Hawke: yes (as written) ←
14:47:42 <GaryHallmark> subtypes are not disjoint
subtypes are not disjoint ←
14:48:10 <sandro> PROPOSED: Include in RIF Core all the xsd:* datatypes used by OWL RL and listed in issue-81. In RIF, the xsd numeric types will have disjoint value spaces (as in XSD1.1, unlike current OWL 2 drafts)-- we'll push for OWL to change. The owl:* types will be decided separately. Value spaces of Binaries will be decided separately.
PROPOSED: Include in RIF Core all the xsd:* datatypes used by OWL RL and listed in ISSUE-81. In RIF, the xsd numeric types will have disjoint value spaces (as in XSD1.1, unlike current OWL 2 drafts)-- we'll push for OWL to change. The owl:* types will be decided separately. Value spaces of Binaries will be decided separately. ←
14:48:38 <DaveReynolds> I would vote -0.1 against include the string subtypes - they are pointless
Dave Reynolds: I would vote -0.1 against include the string subtypes - they are pointless ←
14:49:10 <sandro> PROPOSED: Include in RIF Core all the xsd:* datatypes used by OWL RL and listed in issue-81. In RIF, the xsd numeric types will have disjoint value spaces (as in XSD1.1, unlike current OWL 2 drafts)-- we'll push for OWL to change and assume they will. The owl:* types will be decided separately. Value spaces of Binaries will be decided separately.
PROPOSED: Include in RIF Core all the xsd:* datatypes used by OWL RL and listed in ISSUE-81. In RIF, the xsd numeric types will have disjoint value spaces (as in XSD1.1, unlike current OWL 2 drafts)-- we'll push for OWL to change and assume they will. The owl:* types will be decided separately. Value spaces of Binaries will be decided separately. ←
14:52:51 <sandro> PROPOSED: Add xsd:nonNegativeInteger, xsd:anyURI, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary to RIF Core.
PROPOSED: Add xsd:nonNegativeInteger, xsd:anyURI, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary to RIF Core. ←
14:52:52 <GaryHallmark> dave: anyURI is only useful string subtype
Dave Reynolds: anyURI is only useful string subtype ←
14:53:14 <sandro> jos: anyURI is NOT a subtype of string -- it's a separate data type.
Jos De Bruijn: anyURI is NOT a subtype of string -- it's a separate data type. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:53:16 <GaryHallmark> jos: actually, anyURI is primitive
Jos De Bruijn: actually, anyURI is primitive ←
14:54:05 <sandro> PROPOSED: Add xsd:nonNegativeInteger, xsd:anyURI, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary to RIF Core.
PROPOSED: Add xsd:nonNegativeInteger, xsd:anyURI, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary to RIF Core. ←
14:54:21 <GaryHallmark> note that xsd:anyURI is a datatype whereas rif:iri is only a symbol space
note that xsd:anyURI is a datatype whereas rif:iri is only a symbol space ←
14:54:41 <sandro> PROPOSED: Add xsd:nonNegativeInteger, xsd:anyURI, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary to RIF Core. In RIF, the xsd numeric types will have disjoint value spaces (as in XSD1.1, unlike current OWL 2 drafts)-- we'll push for OWL to change and assume they will. The owl:* types will be decided separately. Value spaces of Binaries will be decided separately.
PROPOSED: Add xsd:nonNegativeInteger, xsd:anyURI, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary to RIF Core. In RIF, the xsd numeric types will have disjoint value spaces (as in XSD1.1, unlike current OWL 2 drafts)-- we'll push for OWL to change and assume they will. The owl:* types will be decided separately. Value spaces of Binaries will be decided separately. ←
14:55:48 <sandro> ACTION: josb to push back on OWL-WG about disjoint value spaces
ACTION: josb to push back on OWL-WG about disjoint value spaces ←
14:55:48 <trackbot> Created ACTION-693 - Push back on OWL-WG about disjoint value spaces [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2009-01-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-693 - Push back on OWL-WG about disjoint value spaces [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2009-01-22]. ←
14:57:05 <sandro> PROPOSED: Add xsd:nonNegativeInteger, xsd:anyURI, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary to RIF Core. In RIF, the xsd numeric types will have disjoint value spaces (as in XSD1.1, unlike current OWL 2 drafts)-- we'll push for OWL to change and assume they will. [The owl:* types will be decided separately. Value spaces of Binaries will be decided separately. When those are decided, it will close issue-81]
PROPOSED: Add xsd:nonNegativeInteger, xsd:anyURI, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary to RIF Core. In RIF, the xsd numeric types will have disjoint value spaces (as in XSD1.1, unlike current OWL 2 drafts)-- we'll push for OWL to change and assume they will. [The owl:* types will be decided separately. Value spaces of Binaries will be decided separately. When those are decided, it will close ISSUE-81] ←
14:57:28 <josb> +1
Jos De Bruijn: +1 ←
14:57:29 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
14:57:31 <DaveReynolds> +1
Dave Reynolds: +1 ←
14:57:36 <chke> +1
Changhai Ke: +1 ←
14:57:39 <Harold> +1
Harold Boley: +1 ←
14:57:43 <LeoraMorgenstern> 0
14:57:44 <AdrianP> +1
Adrian Paschke: +1 ←
14:57:46 <GaryHallmark> +1
+1 ←
14:57:48 <Michael_Kifer> 1
Michael Kifer: 1 ←
14:57:56 <sandro> RESOLVED: Add xsd:nonNegativeInteger, xsd:anyURI, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary to RIF Core. In RIF, the xsd numeric types will have disjoint value spaces (as in XSD1.1, unlike current OWL 2 drafts)-- we'll push for OWL to change and assume they will. [The owl:* types will be decided separately. Value spaces of Binaries will be decided separately. When those are decided, it will close issue-81]
RESOLVED: Add xsd:nonNegativeInteger, xsd:anyURI, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary to RIF Core. In RIF, the xsd numeric types will have disjoint value spaces (as in XSD1.1, unlike current OWL 2 drafts)-- we'll push for OWL to change and assume they will. [The owl:* types will be decided separately. Value spaces of Binaries will be decided separately. When those are decided, it will close ISSUE-81] ←
14:57:56 <pvincent> =0
Paul Vincent: =0 ←
14:58:30 <sandro> clarifying -- we're NOT adding the listed subtypes of String
Sandro Hawke: clarifying -- we're NOT adding the listed subtypes of String ←
14:58:51 <DaveReynolds> I don't care either
Dave Reynolds: I don't care either ←
14:59:17 <sandro> sandro: do we push on OWL about subtype of string? -- no one cares.
Sandro Hawke: do we push on OWL about subtype of string? -- no one cares. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:00:19 <sandro> DaveReynolds: owl:real only makes sense when the value spaces for numerics overlap. So it makes no sense for us.
Dave Reynolds: owl:real only makes sense when the value spaces for numerics overlap. So it makes no sense for us. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:00:50 <sandro> jos: owl:real would still be a way to test if it's a numeric.
Jos De Bruijn: owl:real would still be a way to test if it's a numeric. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:01:10 <sandro> DaveReynolds: I wouldn't object to owl:real, but it seems unnecessary.
Dave Reynolds: I wouldn't object to owl:real, but it seems unnecessary. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:01:50 <sandro> jos: no pred:isNumeric
Jos De Bruijn: no pred:isNumeric [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:01:57 <sandro> DaveReynolds: that's a problem.
Dave Reynolds: that's a problem. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:02:13 <sandro> jos: So let's use isLiteralOfType(...., owl:real)
Jos De Bruijn: So let's use isLiteralOfType(...., owl:real) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:03:42 <sandro> sandro: so owl:real is just a union type of all the numeric xsd types.
Sandro Hawke: so owl:real is just a union type of all the numeric xsd types. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:03:47 <DaveReynolds> +q
Dave Reynolds: +q ←
15:04:30 <DaveReynolds> q-
Dave Reynolds: q- ←
15:05:25 <sandro> DaveReynolds: I agree with Jos, except we should use owl:realPlus. Also NaN, -0, +inf, -inf. Since those are part of the double valuespace.
Dave Reynolds: I agree with Jos, except we should use owl:realPlus. Also NaN, -0, +inf, -inf. Since those are part of the double valuespace. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:06:02 <josb> I agree w. Dave, since we indeed have double
Jos De Bruijn: I agree w. Dave, since we indeed have double ←
15:06:13 <sandro> DaveReynolds: but OWL RL has owl:Real to avoid reasoning-by-cases.
Dave Reynolds: but OWL RL has owl:Real to avoid reasoning-by-cases. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:07:23 <sandro> sandro: rofl that NaN will pass the "numeric" test we're talking about.
Sandro Hawke: rofl that NaN will pass the "numeric" test we're talking about. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:07:38 <josb> would could take both owl:real and owl:realPlus
Jos De Bruijn: would could take both owl:real and owl:realPlus ←
15:08:28 <sandro> +1 to both.
Sandro Hawke: +1 to both. ←
15:08:55 <josb> dave, is owl:datetime a subset of xsd:dateTime?
Jos De Bruijn: dave, is owl:datetime a subset of xsd:dateTime? ←
15:09:10 <DaveReynolds> can't remember, just trying to find def
Dave Reynolds: can't remember, just trying to find def ←
15:11:04 <DaveReynolds> They actually call it xsd:dateTimeStamp
Dave Reynolds: They actually call it xsd:dateTimeStamp ←
15:11:41 <DaveReynolds> "Feature At Risk #3: owl:dateTime name
Dave Reynolds: "Feature At Risk #3: owl:dateTime name ←
15:11:42 <DaveReynolds> The name datatype owl:dateTime was previously used as a placeholder. XML Schema 1.1 Working Group has introduced a datatype for date-time with required timezone. The datatype owl:dateTime was thus changed to the new datatype, xsd:dateTimeStamp. which is described here in a way compatible with its expected definition in XML Schema. If the XML Schema WG proceeds as expected, this section may...
Dave Reynolds: The name datatype owl:dateTime was previously used as a placeholder. XML Schema 1.1 Working Group has introduced a datatype for date-time with required timezone. The datatype owl:dateTime was thus changed to the new datatype, xsd:dateTimeStamp. which is described here in a way compatible with its expected definition in XML Schema. If the XML Schema WG proceeds as expected, this section may... ←
15:11:44 <DaveReynolds> ...be removed in favour of a pointer to the XML Schema documents."
Dave Reynolds: ...be removed in favour of a pointer to the XML Schema documents." ←
15:12:29 <sandro> PROPOSED: Add owl:dateTime (with the same AT RISK caveats as in the current OWL drafts, ie xsd:dateTimeStamp), owl:real, owl:realPlus to Core, PRD, BLD. Not owl:rational. This will replace xs:dateTime (currently in DTB).
PROPOSED: Add owl:dateTime (with the same AT RISK caveats as in the current OWL drafts, ie xsd:dateTimeStamp), owl:real, owl:realPlus to Core, PRD, BLD. Not owl:rational. This will replace xs:dateTime (currently in DTB). ←
15:18:02 <sandro> PROPOSED: Add owl:dateTime (with the same AT RISK caveats as in the current OWL drafts, ie xsd:dateTimeStamp), owl:real, owl:realPlus to Core, PRD, BLD. Not owl:rational. This will replace NOT xs:dateTime which has no real time semantics but is still present in real data, so implementations should make their best guess.
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
PROPOSED: Add owl:dateTime (with the same AT RISK caveats as in the current OWL drafts, ie xsd:dateTimeStamp), owl:real, owl:realPlus to Core, PRD, BLD. Not owl:rational. This will replace NOT xs:dateTime which has no real time semantics but is still present in real data, so implementations should make their best guess. ←
15:18:14 <DaveReynolds> -1 is SHOULD replace xs:dateTime
Dave Reynolds: -1 is SHOULD replace xs:dateTime ←
15:18:23 <DaveReynolds> s/is/it/
Dave Reynolds: s/is/it/ ←
15:19:15 <sandro> DaveReynolds: Any processor getting xs:dateTime data can map it to xs:dateTimeStamp.
Dave Reynolds: Any processor getting xs:dateTime data can map it to xs:dateTimeStamp. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:19:57 <sandro> csma:what about existing schemas using xs:dataTime?
Christian de Sainte Marie: what about existing schemas using xs:dataTime? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:21:19 <sandro> DaveReynolds: as part of the mapping for XML data to RIF, you do the conversion from xs:dateTime to xs:dateTimeStamp.
Dave Reynolds: as part of the mapping for XML data to RIF, you do the conversion from xs:dateTime to xs:dateTimeStamp. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:21:51 <sandro> csma: does this change the semantics of the rule?
Christian de Sainte Marie: does this change the semantics of the rule? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:22:05 <sandro> DaveReynolds: No more than the error already there in the missing timezone.
Dave Reynolds: No more than the error already there in the missing timezone. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:22:40 <sandro> DaveReynolds: Danger is you don't round trip. The data would go back out as xs:dateTimeStamp.
Dave Reynolds: Danger is you don't round trip. The data would go back out as xs:dateTimeStamp. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:23:07 <sandro> GaryHallmark: I can imagine rules that rely on local time zone.
Gary Hallmark: I can imagine rules that rely on local time zone. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:23:48 <sandro> DaveReynolds: in the XML schema mapping, we COULD say, the default assumption SHOULD BE local timezone.
Dave Reynolds: in the XML schema mapping, we COULD say, the default assumption SHOULD BE local timezone. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:24:21 <josb> PS I just realized that in this case, our equality (which is identity) is different from dateTime-equal
Jos De Bruijn: PS I just realized that in this case, our equality (which is identity) is different from dateTime-equal ←
15:25:13 <josb> actually it is not
Jos De Bruijn: actually it is not ←
15:25:53 <josb> in XSD, equality between non-timezoned datetimes can be determined
Jos De Bruijn: in XSD, equality between non-timezoned datetimes can be determined ←
15:26:19 <josb> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime-order
Jos De Bruijn: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime-order ←
15:29:09 <sandro> PROPOSED: We'll add xs:dateTimeStamp (assuming it matures to replace owl:dateTime). We'll remove support for xs:dateTime, but require systems to accept it, and when getting dateTimes without a timezone, they SHOULD use the local timezone and SHOULD give a warning in doing so.
PROPOSED: We'll add xs:dateTimeStamp (assuming it matures to replace owl:dateTime). We'll remove support for xs:dateTime, but require systems to accept it, and when getting dateTimes without a timezone, they SHOULD use the local timezone and SHOULD give a warning in doing so. ←
15:29:31 <josb> if both datetimes either do or do not have a timezone, comparison works as you expect
Jos De Bruijn: if both datetimes either do or do not have a timezone, comparison works as you expect ←
15:29:55 <josb> if one does and one does not have a timezone, it becomes tricky
Jos De Bruijn: if one does and one does not have a timezone, it becomes tricky ←
15:30:39 <DaveReynolds> Suggest replacing first SHOULD with MAY
Dave Reynolds: Suggest replacing first SHOULD with MAY ←
15:30:42 <sandro> PROPOSED: We'll add xs:dateTimeStamp (assuming it matures to replace owl:dateTime). We'll remove support for xs:dateTime, but require systems to accept it, and when getting dateTimes without a timezone, they SHOULD use the local timezone and SHOULD give a warning in doing so.
PROPOSED: We'll add xs:dateTimeStamp (assuming it matures to replace owl:dateTime). We'll remove support for xs:dateTime, but require systems to accept it, and when getting dateTimes without a timezone, they SHOULD use the local timezone and SHOULD give a warning in doing so. ←
15:30:53 <sandro> PROPOSED: We'll add xs:dateTimeStamp (assuming it matures to replace owl:dateTime). We'll remove support for xs:dateTime, but require systems to accept it, and when getting dateTimes without a timezone, they MAY use the local timezone and SHOULD give a warning in doing so.
PROPOSED: We'll add xs:dateTimeStamp (assuming it matures to replace owl:dateTime). We'll remove support for xs:dateTime, but require systems to accept it, and when getting dateTimes without a timezone, they MAY use the local timezone and SHOULD give a warning in doing so. ←
15:32:49 <DaveReynolds> PROPOSED: We'll add xs:dateTimeStamp (assuming it matures to replace owl:dateTime). We'll remove support for xs:dateTime. We anticipate that our XML Schema to RIF mapping will specify mapping xs:dateTimes to xs:dateTimeStamp, such a mapping MAY use the local timezone but SHOULD give a warning in doing so.
PROPOSED: We'll add xs:dateTimeStamp (assuming it matures to replace owl:dateTime). We'll remove support for xs:dateTime. We anticipate that our XML Schema to RIF mapping will specify mapping xs:dateTimes to xs:dateTimeStamp, such a mapping MAY use the local timezone but SHOULD give a warning in doing so. ←
15:33:06 <josb> +1
Jos De Bruijn: +1 ←
15:33:15 <sandro> PROPOSED: We'll add xs:dateTimeStamp (assuming it matures to replace owl:dateTime). xs:dateTime will no longer be supported by RIF. On receipt of xs:dateTime data without a timeZone (ie not an xs:dateTimeStamp), systems MAY use the local timezone and SHOULD give a warning in doing so.
PROPOSED: We'll add xs:dateTimeStamp (assuming it matures to replace owl:dateTime). xs:dateTime will no longer be supported by RIF. On receipt of xs:dateTime data without a timeZone (ie not an xs:dateTimeStamp), systems MAY use the local timezone and SHOULD give a warning in doing so. ←
15:33:18 <AdrianP> DateTime is well known in many programming languages
Adrian Paschke: DateTime is well known in many programming languages ←
15:33:31 <AdrianP> it can be transformed into the Epoch value
Adrian Paschke: it can be transformed into the Epoch value ←
15:33:40 <sandro> sorry -- Dave, is mine the same?
Sandro Hawke: sorry -- Dave, is mine the same? ←
15:34:56 <sandro> Proposed: Add xs:dateTimeStamp (assuming it matures to replace owl:dateTime). Keep xs:dateTime as at Risk.
PROPOSED: Add xs:dateTimeStamp (assuming it matures to replace owl:dateTime). Keep xs:dateTime as at Risk. ←
15:35:40 <sandro> csma: I expect implementors of RIF to handle them both, by mapping them both to stuff in their local system.
Christian de Sainte Marie: I expect implementors of RIF to handle them both, by mapping them both to stuff in their local system. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:35:59 <josb> why have both?
Jos De Bruijn: why have both? ←
15:36:15 <sandro> DaveReynolds: We'll have BOTH in DTB, with BOTH having comparion operators, and comparisons between the two?
Dave Reynolds: We'll have BOTH in DTB, with BOTH having comparion operators, and comparisons between the two? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:37:49 <josb> I will object to having both
Jos De Bruijn: I will object to having both ←
15:37:49 <sandro> jos: it's horrible.
Jos De Bruijn: it's horrible. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:38:01 <DaveReynolds> Succinctly put :-)
Dave Reynolds: Succinctly put :-) ←
15:38:53 <sandro> csma: seems like we have to table this issue
Christian de Sainte Marie: seems like we have to table this issue [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:39:08 <sandro> gary: yeah, it's broken -- I just don't know how much we depend on the way it's broken.
Gary Hallmark: yeah, it's broken -- I just don't know how much we depend on the way it's broken. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:41:55 <sandro> sandro: (with jos) the bad situation is that you cannot compare two times when one has a time zone and one doesn't, and they're within 14 hours of each other. the comparison is not defined.
Sandro Hawke: (with jos) the bad situation is that you cannot compare two times when one has a time zone and one doesn't, and they're within 14 hours of each other. the comparison is not defined. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:43:01 <AdrianP> the timezone is simply an extra agrument in adition to the DateTime value
Adrian Paschke: the timezone is simply an extra agrument in adition to the DateTime value ←
15:43:44 <sandro> gary: might get timezone added by the translator, instead of the system doing the rule execution.
Gary Hallmark: might get timezone added by the translator, instead of the system doing the rule execution. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:44:00 <DaveReynolds> q+
Dave Reynolds: q+ ←
15:44:10 <sandro> ack DaveReynolds
Sandro Hawke: ack DaveReynolds ←
15:44:12 <csma> ack dave
Christian de Sainte Marie: ack dave ←
15:45:14 <sandro> DaveReynolds: if you want local time zone semantics, then let's have a built-in "compare in local time zone".
Dave Reynolds: if you want local time zone semantics, then let's have a built-in "compare in local time zone". [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:46:25 <sandro> Sandro: If Gary is relying on local-time-zone semantics, then yes, he should xlate his rules to use that built-in.
Sandro Hawke: If Gary is relying on local-time-zone semantics, then yes, he should xlate his rules to use that built-in. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:47:15 <sandro> action: Gary to investigate what sort of local time zone semantics (ie java.Calendar semantics) his rulesets need.
ACTION: Gary to investigate what sort of local time zone semantics (ie java.Calendar semantics) his rulesets need. ←
15:47:16 <trackbot> Created ACTION-694 - Investigate what sort of local time zone semantics (ie java.Calendar semantics) his rulesets need. [on Gary Hallmark - due 2009-01-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-694 - Investigate what sort of local time zone semantics (ie java.Calendar semantics) his rulesets need. [on Gary Hallmark - due 2009-01-22]. ←
15:48:31 <sandro> csma: It seems very risky to fix this bug, because people are relying on this broken behavior
Christian de Sainte Marie: It seems very risky to fix this bug, because people are relying on this broken behavior [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:48:58 <sandro> csma: or people MIGHT be relying on it
Christian de Sainte Marie: or people MIGHT be relying on it [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:49:31 <sandro> DaveReynolds: But that behavior, being undefined, is not interoperable.
Dave Reynolds: But that behavior, being undefined, is not interoperable. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:53:13 <josb> equality is not a problem
Jos De Bruijn: equality is not a problem ←
15:54:24 <sandro> sandro: this will manifest on date-less-then being undefined sometimes (when one tz is missing)
Sandro Hawke: this will manifest on date-less-then being undefined sometimes (when one tz is missing) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:55:08 <sandro> sandro: I strongly expect most rule engines do not do this kind of datetime comparison.
Sandro Hawke: I strongly expect most rule engines do not do this kind of datetime comparison. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:57:13 <DaveReynolds> +q
Dave Reynolds: +q ←
15:57:58 <csma> ack dave
Christian de Sainte Marie: ack dave ←
15:58:03 <sandro> we have three options: (1) xs:dateTime, (2) xs:dateTimeStamp, (3) try to document java semantics.
Sandro Hawke: we have three options: (1) xs:dateTime, (2) xs:dateTimeStamp, (3) try to document java semantics. ←
15:59:41 <sandro> DaveReynolds: Gary's customers are probably assuming the dt semantics Gary has implemented. So when Gary translates to/from RIF, he needs to map to/from those semantics.
Dave Reynolds: Gary's customers are probably assuming the dt semantics Gary has implemented. So when Gary translates to/from RIF, he needs to map to/from those semantics. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:04:12 <sandro> PROPOSED: We'll use xs:dateTimeStamp (or owl:datetime if xs:dateTimeStamp isn't mature in time -- xs:dateTime with required timeZone and timeline semantics), and not xs:dateTime. We recognize the mapping this to/from what rule engines do may be challenging, but we see no easy solution.
PROPOSED: We'll use xs:dateTimeStamp (or owl:datetime if xs:dateTimeStamp isn't mature in time -- xs:dateTime with required timeZone and timeline semantics), and not xs:dateTime. We recognize the mapping this to/from what rule engines do may be challenging, but we see no easy solution. ←
16:04:51 <DaveReynolds> We may need additional builtins to enable that mapping in an inteoperable way.
Dave Reynolds: We may need additional builtins to enable that mapping in an inteoperable way. ←
16:04:52 <sandro> PROPOSED: We'll use xs:dateTimeStamp (or owl:datetime if xs:dateTimeStamp isn't mature in time -- xs:dateTime with required timeZone and timeline semantics), and not xs:dateTime. We recognize the mapping of this to/from what rule engines do may be challenging, but we see no approach that makes this mapping easier.
PROPOSED: We'll use xs:dateTimeStamp (or owl:datetime if xs:dateTimeStamp isn't mature in time -- xs:dateTime with required timeZone and timeline semantics), and not xs:dateTime. We recognize the mapping of this to/from what rule engines do may be challenging, but we see no approach that makes this mapping easier. ←
16:05:38 <chke> -1
Changhai Ke: -1 ←
16:05:50 <josb> +1
Jos De Bruijn: +1 ←
16:05:54 <Michael_Kifer> 0
Michael Kifer: 0 ←
16:06:01 <AdrianP> 0
Adrian Paschke: 0 ←
16:06:06 <DaveReynolds> +1 (with note that additional builtins may be needed to enable the mapping)
Dave Reynolds: +1 (with note that additional builtins may be needed to enable the mapping) ←
16:06:06 <GaryHallmark> 0
0 ←
16:06:07 <sandro> (chke needs more time -- will have concrete answer in two weeks)
Sandro Hawke: (chke needs more time -- will have concrete answer in two weeks) ←
16:06:09 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
16:06:24 <AdrianP> we probably need a much richer time onology
Adrian Paschke: we probably need a much richer time onology ←
16:06:29 <Harold> +1
Harold Boley: +1 ←
16:06:31 <sandro> NOT RESOLVED.
Sandro Hawke: NOT RESOLVED. ←
16:06:32 <pvincent> +0
Paul Vincent: +0 ←
16:07:25 <csma> action: to christian to add the issue on the agenda for RIF telecon Jan 29
ACTION: to christian to add the issue on the agenda for RIF telecon Jan 29 ←
16:07:25 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - to
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - to ←
16:07:33 <sandro> ACTION: changhai to agree with xs:dateTimeStamp proposal or send us arguments against it.
ACTION: changhai to agree with xs:dateTimeStamp proposal or send us arguments against it. ←
16:07:33 <trackbot> Created ACTION-695 - Agree with xs:dateTimeStamp proposal or send us arguments against it. [on Changhai Ke - due 2009-01-23].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-695 - Agree with xs:dateTimeStamp proposal or send us arguments against it. [on Changhai Ke - due 2009-01-23]. ←
16:08:19 <sandro> PROPOSED: Add owl:real and owl:realPlus to RIF Core, BLD, PRD.
PROPOSED: Add owl:real and owl:realPlus to RIF Core, BLD, PRD. ←
16:08:22 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
16:08:44 <sandro> csma: reminder -- these are union types of the numeric types.
Christian de Sainte Marie: reminder -- these are union types of the numeric types. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:08:45 <josb> +1
Jos De Bruijn: +1 ←
16:08:46 <DaveReynolds> +1
Dave Reynolds: +1 ←
16:08:50 <AdrianP> 0
Adrian Paschke: 0 ←
16:08:52 <sandro> RESOLVED: Add owl:real and owl:realPlus to RIF Core, BLD, PRD.
RESOLVED: Add owl:real and owl:realPlus to RIF Core, BLD, PRD. ←
16:08:57 <Harold> 0
Harold Boley: 0 ←
16:08:58 <GaryHallmark> +1 (for use as isNumeric() only)
+1 (for use as isNumeric() only) ←
16:09:33 <sandro> table owl:rational
Sandro Hawke: table owl:rational ←
16:09:46 <DaveReynolds> Ah. If OWL doesn't change the disjointness we will need to revisit this because we'll have to write our own defns of them
Dave Reynolds: Ah. If OWL doesn't change the disjointness we will need to revisit this because we'll have to write our own defns of them ←
16:10:56 <sandro> sandro: yeah, this assumes that OWL will change the disjointness part.
Sandro Hawke: yeah, this assumes that OWL will change the disjointness part. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:11:29 <Zakim> -DaveReynolds
Zakim IRC Bot: -DaveReynolds ←
16:11:32 <sandro> thanks for all your help, DaveReynolds
Sandro Hawke: thanks for all your help, DaveReynolds ←
16:11:35 <sandro> BREAK
Sandro Hawke: BREAK ←
16:11:42 <Zakim> -LeoraMorgenstern
Zakim IRC Bot: -LeoraMorgenstern ←
16:27:23 <josb> PROPOSED: have dinner at Typhoon at 20:00
(No events recorded for 15 minutes)
PROPOSED: have dinner at Typhoon at 20:00 ←
16:27:45 <josb> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=typhoon,+portland&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.352165,58.886719&ie=UTF8&ll=45.523307,-122.678103&spn=0.014402,0.028753&z=15&iwloc=A
Jos De Bruijn: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=typhoon,+portland&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.352165,58.886719&ie=UTF8&ll=45.523307,-122.678103&spn=0.014402,0.028753&z=15&iwloc=A ←
16:27:53 <josb> Who will join?
Jos De Bruijn: Who will join? ←
16:28:41 <josb> (it's Thai food)
Jos De Bruijn: (it's Thai food) ←
16:29:05 <Harold> +1
Harold Boley: +1 ←
16:34:21 <AdrianP> +1
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Adrian Paschke: +1 ←
16:41:35 <sandro> -1 (conflicts with flight)
(No events recorded for 7 minutes)
Sandro Hawke: -1 (conflicts with flight) ←
16:45:41 <josb> RESOLVED: have dinner at Typhoon at 20:00 without Sandro ;)
RESOLVED: have dinner at Typhoon at 20:00 without Sandro ;) ←
16:46:41 <GaryHallmark> whitepaper on Oracle Business Rules is at http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/ias/business_rules/files/smart_business_processes_using_oracle_business.pdf
whitepaper on Oracle Business Rules is at http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/ias/business_rules/files/smart_business_processes_using_oracle_business.pdf ←
16:47:14 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close RIF. Burn all the evidence.
PROPOSED: Close RIF. Burn all the evidence. ←
16:47:42 <csma> PROPOSED: PRD extends frames with some new syntax for attributes which are single-valued and have replacement semantics (matching OO object attributes). This doesn't make sense for Core or BLD.
PROPOSED: PRD extends frames with some new syntax for attributes which are single-valued and have replacement semantics (matching OO object attributes). This doesn't make sense for Core or BLD. ←
16:49:05 <cke> +1
Changhai Ke: +1 ←
16:50:16 <sandro> gary: we said you don't need the equals in conditions.
Gary Hallmark: we said you don't need the equals in conditions. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:53:29 <sandro> sandro: if you're going to use java type information, then you don't need RIF to tell you which properties are multivalued vs single valued.
Sandro Hawke: if you're going to use java type information, then you don't need RIF to tell you which properties are multivalued vs single valued. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:54:25 <sandro> sandro: (you need multi/single info to know which kinds of java to write, but sure you can get it from Java.)
Sandro Hawke: (you need multi/single info to know which kinds of java to write, but sure you can get it from Java.) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:58:23 <sandro> gary: sometimes you have to generate the java -- java wont tell you the type. But you can infer that it's replacement semantics because somewhere in the ruleset there's an UPDATE action on it.
Gary Hallmark: sometimes you have to generate the java -- java wont tell you the type. But you can infer that it's replacement semantics because somewhere in the ruleset there's an UPDATE action on it. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:58:51 <sandro> cke: No, facts might provide multiple values.
Changhai Ke: No, facts might provide multiple values. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:59:04 <sandro> gary: You just look to see if there's more than one fact.
Gary Hallmark: You just look to see if there's more than one fact. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
16:59:32 <sandro> cke: That's a very weak interpretation. You add another fact and then a single-valued attribute becomes multi-valued?! I don't like that.
Changhai Ke: That's a very weak interpretation. You add another fact and then a single-valued attribute becomes multi-valued?! I don't like that. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:01:02 <sandro> csma: I had one use case, but I don't know if it matters. I send you a ruleset and you run it to get some more data. YOu figure out whether you need a list or not. Then then NEXT ruleset I send you catches you on that.
Christian de Sainte Marie: I had one use case, but I don't know if it matters. I send you a ruleset and you run it to get some more data. YOu figure out whether you need a list or not. Then then NEXT ruleset I send you catches you on that. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:01:16 <sandro> gary: That's multiple-rulesets-over-time is out of scope.
Gary Hallmark: That's multiple-rulesets-over-time is out of scope. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:01:41 <sandro> gary: I assume you get the all the ruleset & data at once, and can analyze it all at once.
Gary Hallmark: I assume you get the all the ruleset & data at once, and can analyze it all at once. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:04:34 <sandro> gary: I'm afraid most PRD rulesets will be outside Core, because the single-valued-case is the common one.
Gary Hallmark: I'm afraid most PRD rulesets will be outside Core, because the single-valued-case is the common one. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:05:43 <sandro> csma: Even if PRD uses single-valued properites, it can ...... something
Christian de Sainte Marie: Even if PRD uses single-valued properites, it can ...... something [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:05:54 <Zakim> +LeoraMorgenstern
Zakim IRC Bot: +LeoraMorgenstern ←
17:06:47 <AdrianP> example if ?c#eg:Customer and ?c[eg:name->?n1 eg:name->?n2] and not(?n1 = ?n2) then do (?x new(?x)) (?x#rif:ClassException ?x[rif:class->eg:Customer rif:cardinalityViolation->eg:name])
Adrian Paschke: example if ?c#eg:Customer and ?c[eg:name->?n1 eg:name->?n2] and not(?n1 = ?n2) then do (?x new(?x)) (?x#rif:ClassException ?x[rif:class->eg:Customer rif:cardinalityViolation->eg:name]) ←
17:06:57 <sandro> Harold: singleton (one multievalue) vs single-valued-property.
Harold Boley: singleton (one multievalue) vs single-valued-property. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:06:58 <AdrianP> from http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/PRD_Ruleset_Example
Adrian Paschke: from http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/PRD_Ruleset_Example ←
17:08:21 <sandro> Changhai: I reject anything requiring us to analyze the whole document to figure out maxCard
Changhai Ke: I reject anything requiring us to analyze the whole document to figure out maxCard [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:11:07 <josb> +1 to proposal Sandro
Jos De Bruijn: +1 to proposal Sandro ←
17:12:26 <sandro> sandro: let's say everything is multivalued, but there is an UPDATE action which wipes out all the values before setting one (or more) new ones. If you can implement without lsits, more power to you.
Sandro Hawke: let's say everything is multivalued, but there is an UPDATE action which wipes out all the values before setting one (or more) new ones. If you can implement without lsits, more power to you. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:13:07 <Harold> Yes, PRD could then still optionally use OWL 2 for expressing cardinality constraints such card=1, card>0, and 2 < card < 7.
Harold Boley: Yes, PRD could then still optionally use OWL 2 for expressing cardinality constraints such card=1, card>0, and 2 < card < 7. ←
17:13:17 <sandro> right, Harold
Sandro Hawke: right, Harold ←
17:13:58 <csma> s/lsists/lists/
Christian de Sainte Marie: s/lsists/lists/ ←
17:14:22 <Harold> s/such/such as/
Harold Boley: s/such/such as/ ←
17:16:05 <sandro> sandro: you don't need complete analysis -- or any at all really -- it's just a performance trick to notice when you'll only have singletons.
Sandro Hawke: you don't need complete analysis -- or any at all really -- it's just a performance trick to notice when you'll only have singletons. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:17:11 <sandro> gary: during the translation, you look at the rulesets, look for asserts vs updates for a frame, if it's all updates (not asserts) then it's singletons.
Gary Hallmark: during the translation, you look at the rulesets, look for asserts vs updates for a frame, if it's all updates (not asserts) then it's singletons. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:17:57 <sandro> gary: So you can't use assert to set a first value.
Gary Hallmark: So you can't use assert to set a first value. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:19:07 <sandro> cke: why not just indicate when properties are single values?
Changhai Ke: why not just indicate when properties are single values? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:19:20 <sandro> sandro: because that syntax would be rejected by Core.
Sandro Hawke: because that syntax would be rejected by Core. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:22:30 <sandro> csma: if ?x # Car ?c [ color -> Red ] then MODIFY ?c [color -> Blue ]
Christian de Sainte Marie: if ?x # Car ?c [ color -> Red ] then MODIFY ?c [color -> Blue ] [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:23:56 <sandro> csma: if ?x # Car ?c [ color -> Red ] then ?c[color -> Blue ] MEANS 'color' is multivalued.
Christian de Sainte Marie: if ?x # Car ?c [ color -> Red ] then ?c[color -> Blue ] MEANS 'color' is multivalued. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:29:40 <sandro> PROPOSED: action Modify on frames removes previous values, then does assert. Implementations can use the fact that a ruleset has ONLY modifies on some property to implement it as as single-valued.
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
PROPOSED: action Modify on frames removes previous values, then does assert. Implementations can use the fact that a ruleset has ONLY modifies on some property to implement it as as single-valued. ←
17:32:15 <sandro> PROPOSED: PRD will have have "Modify" action which removes all previous values for the given properties, then sets one new value as given. Implementations can be use the fact that values for a given property are only provided via MODIFY (never ASSERT), then it can be implemented as single-valued.
PROPOSED: PRD will have have "Modify" action which removes all previous values for the given properties, then sets one new value as given. Implementations can be use the fact that values for a given property are only provided via MODIFY (never ASSERT), then it can be implemented as single-valued. ←
17:32:19 <cke> -1
Changhai Ke: -1 ←
17:32:30 <GaryHallmark> +1
+1 ←
17:32:44 <Harold> +1
Harold Boley: +1 ←
17:33:09 <sandro> cke: I'm against looking at the actions like this. I'm also opposed to pushing implementation to use lists so much.
Changhai Ke: I'm against looking at the actions like this. I'm also opposed to pushing implementation to use lists so much. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:33:55 <sandro> Gary, the problem with this is that I think most PRD rulesets will be all MODIFYs, so they wont work in Core. Alas.
Sandro Hawke: Gary, the problem with this is that I think most PRD rulesets will be all MODIFYs, so they wont work in Core. Alas. ←
17:34:11 <sandro> (but I doubt we can do better than that.)
Sandro Hawke: (but I doubt we can do better than that.) ←
17:35:06 <sandro> cke: I receive a document containing rules and facts, with no schema....
Changhai Ke: I receive a document containing rules and facts, with no schema.... [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:35:21 <sandro> gary: I don't know how you can do anything with that without analysis
Gary Hallmark: I don't know how you can do anything with that without analysis [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:35:55 <AdrianP> the problem is that you might want to use modify to modify a complete list, e.g. an oder with several products which should be modified with a collection of several new products
Adrian Paschke: the problem is that you might want to use modify to modify a complete list, e.g. an oder with several products which should be modified with a collection of several new products ←
17:37:04 <GaryHallmark> Sandro, I imagine a translator switch that will "gently force" into C
Sandro, I imagine a translator switch that will "gently force" into C ←
17:37:28 <GaryHallmark> ... into Core, including using assert instead of modify and hoping it all works out
... into Core, including using assert instead of modify and hoping it all works out ←
17:38:01 <GaryHallmark> ... basically, make the user swear that the asserts are "single assignment"
... basically, make the user swear that the asserts are "single assignment" ←
17:40:29 <Harold> Next f2f and future of WG:
Harold Boley: Next f2f and future of WG: ←
17:41:53 <Harold> Sandro: We need to work hard to get specs to their next levels (within two months), then accommodate comments.
Sandro Hawke: We need to work hard to get specs to their next levels (within two months), then accommodate comments. [ Scribe Assist by Harold Boley ] ←
17:52:20 <sandro> Plan is to meet approx in April, and at that meeting to resolve to publish all documents as Last Call. (maybe BLD as CR).
(No events recorded for 10 minutes)
Sandro Hawke: Plan is to meet approx in April, and at that meeting to resolve to publish all documents as Last Call. (maybe BLD as CR). ←
17:52:29 <sandro> (maybe test, ucr not.)
Sandro Hawke: (maybe test, ucr not.) ←
17:54:50 <sandro> csma: I like apr 14-24. range.
Christian de Sainte Marie: I like apr 14-24. range. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:55:33 <sandro> csma: maybe 3 days; 3rd day for editors.
Christian de Sainte Marie: maybe 3 days; 3rd day for editors. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:55:56 <sandro> csma: other offers that Boston.
Christian de Sainte Marie: other offers that Boston. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:56:43 <sandro> paul: I could maybe do TIBCO in West London.
Paul Vincent: I could maybe do TIBCO in West London. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:01:22 <sandro> Week of April 13th, Boston. After Easter, Before www2009.
Sandro Hawke: Week of April 13th, Boston. After Easter, Before www2009. ←
18:04:38 <sandro> ACTION: sandro start survey, including question about objecting to having it in north america again.
ACTION: sandro start survey, including question about objecting to having it in north america again. ←
18:04:39 <trackbot> Created ACTION-696 - Start survey, including question about objecting to having it in north america again. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-01-23].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-696 - Start survey, including question about objecting to having it in north america again. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-01-23]. ←
18:05:00 <sandro> (survey of dates in that week, and maybe nearby weeks.)
Sandro Hawke: (survey of dates in that week, and maybe nearby weeks.) ←
18:06:12 <sandro> ADJOURNED.
Sandro Hawke: ADJOURNED. ←
This revision (#1) generated 2009-01-16 19:10:31 UTC by 'unknown', comments: 'basic, with scribe errors fixed'