<sandro> PRESENT: adrian, axel, changhai, csma, welty, reynolds, gary, harold, john_hall, jos, kifer, sandro
12:33:12 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc
RRSAgent IRC Bot: logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc ←
12:33:30 <ChrisW> Meeting: RIF F2F13
12:39:55 <ChrisW> Chair: welty, csma
12:40:47 <ChrisW> Meeting: RIF F2f13 15-Apr-09
12:54:47 <ChrisW> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F13
12:55:00 <ChrisW> rrsagent, make minutes
(No events recorded for 21 minutes)
Christopher Welty: rrsagent, make minutes ←
12:55:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-minutes.html ChrisW ←
12:55:55 <ChrisW> rrsagent, make logs public
Christopher Welty: rrsagent, make logs public ←
12:57:46 <ChrisW> ChrisW has changed the topic to: RIF 13th F2F Meeting, Cambridge MA, Agenda http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F13
Christopher Welty: ChrisW has changed the topic to: RIF 13th F2F Meeting, Cambridge MA, Agenda http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F13 ←
13:04:15 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
(No events recorded for 6 minutes)
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
13:04:15 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc#T13-04-15
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc#T13-04-15 ←
13:04:23 <sandro> scribe: harold
(Scribe set to Harold Boley)
13:05:27 <ChrisW> zakim, list conferences
Christopher Welty: zakim, list conferences ←
13:05:27 <Zakim> I see T&S_EGOV()9:00AM, Team_W3M()8:00AM, SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM active
Zakim IRC Bot: I see T&S_EGOV()9:00AM, Team_W3M()8:00AM, SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM active ←
13:05:30 <Zakim> also scheduled at this time are WAI_ERTWG()8:30AM, DIG_WSRI()8:00AM
Zakim IRC Bot: also scheduled at this time are WAI_ERTWG()8:30AM, DIG_WSRI()8:00AM ←
13:05:34 <ChrisW> zakim, this is rif
Christopher Welty: zakim, this is rif ←
13:05:35 <Zakim> ok, ChrisW; that matches SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ChrisW; that matches SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM ←
13:05:41 <ChrisW> zakim, who is on the phone?
Christopher Welty: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
13:05:41 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P12, W3C
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see ??P12, W3C ←
13:05:53 <ChrisW> zakim, W3C is temporarily Meeting_Room
Christopher Welty: zakim, W3C is temporarily Meeting_Room ←
13:05:53 <Zakim> +Meeting_Room; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +Meeting_Room; got it ←
13:08:52 <ChrisW> zakim, Meeting_Room contains csma, josb, MichaelKifer, AxelPolleres, cke, johnHall, AdrianP, Harold, Gary, sandro, ChrisW
Christopher Welty: zakim, Meeting_Room contains csma, josb, MichaelKifer, AxelPolleres, cke, johnHall, AdrianP, Harold, Gary, sandro, ChrisW ←
13:08:52 <Zakim> +csma, josb, MichaelKifer, AxelPolleres, cke, johnHall, AdrianP, Harold, Gary, sandro, ChrisW; got it
Zakim IRC Bot: +csma, josb, MichaelKifer, AxelPolleres, cke, johnHall, AdrianP, Harold, Gary, sandro, ChrisW; got it ←
13:10:01 <Harold> Swap April 15/16 Agenda items: Tonight XML Schemas, Tomorrow Issue-93
Swap April 15/16 Agenda items: Tonight XML Schemas, Tomorrow ISSUE-93 ←
13:11:25 <Harold> On April 17 we have to finish at 4PM.
On April 17 we have to finish at 4PM. ←
13:12:24 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
13:12:24 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc#T13-12-24
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc#T13-12-24 ←
13:13:51 <csma> http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-rif-minutes.html
Christian de Sainte Marie: http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-rif-minutes.html ←
13:13:51 <ChrisW> TOPIC: rdf:text
13:14:54 <csma> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-86 and ISSUE-87, addressed by the current text of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-86 and ISSUE-87, addressed by the current text of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec ←
13:15:43 <josb> +1
Jos de Bruijn: +1 ←
13:15:46 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
13:17:34 <josb> The text: Despite the semantic equivalence between typed rdf:text literals and plain literals, the presence of typed rdf:text literals in an RDF graph might cause interoperability problems between RDF tools, as not all RDF tools will support rdf:text. Therefore, before exchanging an RDF graph with other RDF tools, an RDF tool that suports rdf:text MUST replace in the graph each typed...
Jos de Bruijn: The text: Despite the semantic equivalence between typed rdf:text literals and plain literals, the presence of typed rdf:text literals in an RDF graph might cause interoperability problems between RDF tools, as not all RDF tools will support rdf:text. Therefore, before exchanging an RDF graph with other RDF tools, an RDF tool that suports rdf:text MUST replace in the graph each typed... ←
13:17:36 <josb> ...rdf:text literal with the corresponding plain literal. The notion of graph exchange includes, but is not limited to, the process of serializing an RDF graph using any (normative or nonnormative) RDF syntax.
Jos de Bruijn: ...rdf:text literal with the corresponding plain literal. The notion of graph exchange includes, but is not limited to, the process of serializing an RDF graph using any (normative or nonnormative) RDF syntax. ←
13:17:43 <DaveReynolds> +1
Dave Reynolds: +1 ←
13:17:46 <josb> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec#Relationship_with_Plain_Literals_and_xs:string
Jos de Bruijn: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec#Relationship_with_Plain_Literals_and_xs:string ←
13:17:47 <Harold> Harold: +1
Harold Boley: +1 ←
13:18:01 <ChrisW> +1
Christopher Welty: +1 ←
13:18:03 <AdrianP> +1
Adrian Paschke: +1 ←
13:18:22 <AxelPolleres> +1
Axel Polleres: +1 ←
13:18:24 <csma> RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-86 and ISSUE-87, addressed by the current text of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-86 and ISSUE-87, addressed by the current text of http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/InternationalizedStringSpec ←
13:18:39 <ChrisW> action: chris to close issue-86 issue-87
ACTION: chris to close ISSUE-86 ISSUE-87 ←
13:18:39 <trackbot> Created ACTION-732 - Close issue-86 issue-87 [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-04-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-732 - Close ISSUE-86 ISSUE-87 [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-04-22]. ←
13:19:12 <DaveReynolds> Before or after SPARQL group review?
Dave Reynolds: Before or after SPARQL group review? ←
13:19:18 <csma> PROPOSED: publish rdf:text as a LC
PROPOSED: publish rdf:text as a LC ←
13:19:21 <josb> +!
Jos de Bruijn: +! ←
13:19:23 <josb> +1
Jos de Bruijn: +1 ←
13:19:26 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
13:19:29 <AxelPolleres> +1
Axel Polleres: +1 ←
13:19:31 <Harold> Harold: +1
Harold Boley: +1 ←
13:19:36 <GaryHallmark> +1
Gary Hallmark: +1 ←
13:19:45 <AdrianP> +1
Adrian Paschke: +1 ←
13:19:46 <ChrisW> +1
Christopher Welty: +1 ←
13:19:56 <DaveReynolds> 0
Dave Reynolds: 0 ←
13:20:06 <MichaelKifer> +1
Michael Kifer: +1 ←
13:20:56 <ChrisW> DaveR: Abstain - Would have preferred to get feedback from SparQL first
Dave Reynolds: Abstain - Would have preferred to get feedback from SparQL first [ Scribe Assist by Christopher Welty ] ←
13:21:06 <csma> RESOLVED: publish rdf:text as a LC
RESOLVED: publish rdf:text as a LC ←
13:21:30 <ChrisW> rrsagent, pointer?
Christopher Welty: rrsagent, pointer? ←
13:21:30 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc#T13-21-30
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc#T13-21-30 ←
13:22:16 <AxelPolleres> I understand that I can ask SPARQL WG to review next week already?
Axel Polleres: I understand that I can ask SPARQL WG to review next week already? ←
13:22:57 <sandro> AxelPolleres, you should probably wait until it's actually published, but... sure, whatever.
Sandro Hawke: AxelPolleres, you should probably wait until it's actually published, but... sure, whatever. ←
13:23:00 <Harold> Jos: Could we put a possible change from XML Schema 1.0 to XML Schema 1.1 on the agenda?
Jos de Bruijn: Could we put a possible change from XML Schema 1.0 to XML Schema 1.1 on the agenda? ←
13:23:54 <Harold> Sandro: The only reason not to go to XML Schema 1.1 would be that they are in LC (since January).
Sandro Hawke: The only reason not to go to XML Schema 1.1 would be that they are in LC (since January). ←
13:24:15 <Harold> Jos: Still better than referring to 'broken' one in XML Schema 1.0.
Jos de Bruijn: Still better than referring to 'broken' one in XML Schema 1.0. ←
13:24:38 <Harold> ... Talking about XML Schema DATATYPES.
... Talking about XML Schema DATATYPES. ←
13:25:29 <sandro> PROPOSED: We'll use XML Schema Datatypes 1.1 (not XML Schema Datatyoes 1.0) in our specs.
PROPOSED: We'll use XML Schema Datatypes 1.1 (not XML Schema Datatyoes 1.0) in our specs. ←
13:25:43 <josb> +1
Jos de Bruijn: +1 ←
13:25:49 <sandro> Jos: It makes lots of things well defined that are not currently well defined.
Jos de Bruijn: It makes lots of things well defined that are not currently well defined. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
13:25:54 <DaveReynolds> +1
Dave Reynolds: +1 ←
13:26:09 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
13:28:16 <Harold> Harold: What about the W3C XML Schema validator XSV? When will it be upgraded?
Harold Boley: What about the W3C XML Schema validator XSV? When will it be upgraded? ←
13:29:40 <Harold> Sandro: Has been maintained by Henry Thompson.
Sandro Hawke: Has been maintained by Henry Thompson. ←
13:30:39 <Harold> Harold: XSV is also 'responsible' for validating Datatypes at the 'leaf' level of XML instance trees.
Harold Boley: XSV is also 'responsible' for validating Datatypes at the 'leaf' level of XML instance trees. ←
13:31:03 <ChrisW> ISSUE: Update all specs to reference XML Schema datatypes 1.1
ISSUE: Update all specs to reference XML Schema datatypes 1.1 ←
13:31:03 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-98 - Update all specs to reference XML Schema datatypes 1.1 ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/98/edit .
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-98 - Update all specs to reference XML Schema datatypes 1.1 ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/98/edit . ←
13:31:27 <ChrisW> topic: ISSUE-95 (List Datatype)
13:37:06 <AxelPolleres> q+ to ask about connection to rdf:List and accessor built-ins
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Axel Polleres: q+ to ask about connection to rdf:List and accessor built-ins ←
13:38:58 <DaveReynolds> q+ to ask about Core
Dave Reynolds: q+ to ask about Core ←
13:40:04 <Harold> Axel: How are 'Seq lists' related to RDF lists?
Axel Polleres: How are 'Seq lists' related to RDF lists? ←
13:40:30 <Harold> ... awkward to have 3 different kinds of lists.
... awkward to have 3 different kinds of lists. ←
13:40:42 <Harold> Jos: Lists in RDF have no semantics.
Jos de Bruijn: Lists in RDF have no semantics. ←
13:41:12 <Harold> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Lists#Semantics
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Lists#Semantics ←
13:44:31 <Harold> Christian: Content of an XML list cannot be complex.
Christian de Sainte Marie: Content of an XML list cannot be complex. ←
13:45:18 <AxelPolleres> If we doe the semantics purely in terms of pairs, then it would be closer to RDF lists.
Axel Polleres: If we doe the semantics purely in terms of pairs, then it would be closer to RDF lists. ←
13:45:22 <Harold> ... Non-ground lists would not be allowed in PRD.
... Non-ground lists would not be allowed in PRD. ←
13:45:36 <AxelPolleres> ... Harold, you confirmed this (?)
Axel Polleres: ... Harold, you confirmed this (?) ←
13:46:40 <Harold> I think, yes.
I think, yes. ←
13:46:53 <josb> eeeeeh RDF lists dont have semantics, so how can our semantics be close to that?
Jos de Bruijn: eeeeeh RDF lists dont have semantics, so how can our semantics be close to that? ←
13:48:01 <Harold> Christian: What about Forall ?x IF p(Seq(a ?x c)) THEN ...
Christian de Sainte Marie: What about Forall ?x IF p(Seq(a ?x c)) THEN ... ←
13:48:43 <AxelPolleres> jos, it would be nice to be able to - at least - convert between well-formed RDF lsits and RIF lists, that might be possible with a bunch of RIF rules... like constructing lists in Prolog.
Axel Polleres: jos, it would be nice to be able to - at least - convert between well-formed RDF lsits and RIF lists, that might be possible with a bunch of RIF rules... like constructing lists in Prolog. ←
13:49:55 <GaryHallmark> PRD should have no problem with vars in lists provided the rule is safe
Gary Hallmark: PRD should have no problem with vars in lists provided the rule is safe ←
13:50:50 <Harold> Harold: Only difference is if the above ?x is universal (as above) or existential.
Harold Boley: Only difference is if the above ?x is universal (as above) or existential. ←
13:50:56 <sandro> PRD will not actually handle unbound variables stored in a list.
Sandro Hawke: PRD will not actually handle unbound variables stored in a list. ←
13:51:13 <sandro> cke: List contain concrete values
Changhai Ke: List contain concrete values [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
13:51:23 <GaryHallmark> ... begging the question, what are the safe binding patterns for List
Gary Hallmark: ... begging the question, what are the safe binding patterns for List ←
13:51:45 <Harold> Harold: Existential in queries.
Harold Boley: Existential in queries. ←
13:52:38 <DaveReynolds> q+
Dave Reynolds: q+ ←
13:53:09 <Harold> Christian: What about Forall ?x IF Seq(a ?x c) = Seq(?y c b) THEN ...
Christian de Sainte Marie: What about Forall ?x IF Seq(a ?x c) = Seq(?y c b) THEN ... ←
13:54:23 <Harold> Harold: ?y is existential here.
Harold Boley: ?y is existential here. ←
13:54:58 <ChrisW> ack axel
Christopher Welty: ack axel ←
13:54:58 <Zakim> AxelPolleres, you wanted to ask about connection to rdf:List and accessor built-ins
Zakim IRC Bot: AxelPolleres, you wanted to ask about connection to rdf:List and accessor built-ins ←
13:55:00 <ChrisW> ack dave
Christopher Welty: ack dave ←
13:55:00 <Zakim> DaveReynolds, you wanted to ask about Core and to
Zakim IRC Bot: DaveReynolds, you wanted to ask about Core and to ←
13:55:42 <Harold> Dave: What does this mean for safeness?
Dave Reynolds: What does this mean for safeness? ←
13:55:59 <Harold> Michael: We have to extend the safeness condition for lists.
Michael Kifer: We have to extend the safeness condition for lists. ←
13:56:25 <Harold> Dave: Disguised function symbols in Core.
Dave Reynolds: Disguised function symbols in Core. ←
13:56:26 <josb> Dave, we would not allow variables in lists in the head
Jos de Bruijn: Dave, we would not allow variables in lists in the head ←
13:56:32 <josb> and perhaps also not in the body
Jos de Bruijn: and perhaps also not in the body ←
13:57:01 <josb> (in Core)
Jos de Bruijn: (in Core) ←
13:58:24 <Harold> Harold: Dave is saying you can encode functions using lists, eg the first element of a list could be the function symbol, the remaining ones its arguments.
Harold Boley: Dave is saying you can encode functions using lists, eg the first element of a list could be the function symbol, the remaining ones its arguments. ←
13:59:25 <Harold> Michael: Need to think more about it. Still, we could extend the safeness condition to lists.
Michael Kifer: Need to think more about it. Still, we could extend the safeness condition to lists. ←
13:59:52 <Harold> Christian: How implemented in JRules etc.?
Christian de Sainte Marie: How implemented in JRules etc.? ←
14:00:08 <DaveReynolds> It seems to me if you can't construct new lists they are pointless, if you can that you can have non-terminating generation of recursive datastructures. That would preclude datalog engines and the notion of strong safety. OK by me but seems like a bit change.
Dave Reynolds: It seems to me if you can't construct new lists they are pointless, if you can that you can have non-terminating generation of recursive datastructures. That would preclude datalog engines and the notion of strong safety. OK by me but seems like a bit change. ←
14:00:24 <DaveReynolds> s/bit/big/
Dave Reynolds: s/bit/big/ ←
14:01:04 <Harold> Changhai: Yes, can be implemented.
Changhai Ke: Yes, can be implemented. ←
14:02:40 <Harold> Michael: If we don't allow open lists in the head, and are always smaller than in the body, then it could be in Core.
Michael Kifer: If we don't allow open lists in the head, and are always smaller than in the body, then it could be in Core. ←
14:03:29 <Harold> Jos: Better: no lists in Core.
Jos de Bruijn: Better: no lists in Core. ←
14:04:13 <Harold> Axel/Sandro/Gary: Emulate lists with built-ins.
Axel/Sandro/Gary: Emulate lists with built-ins. ←
14:04:15 <sandro> sandro: This is just another builtin.
Sandro Hawke: This is just another builtin. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:04:27 <sandro> sandro: (as far as Datalog/Core is concerned.)
Sandro Hawke: (as far as Datalog/Core is concerned.) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:04:36 <Harold> s/can be implemented/can be implemented, but would be rather advanced/
s/can be implemented/can be implemented, but would be rather advanced/ ←
14:05:08 <Harold> Axel: Do we really need (these 'amputated') lists in Core?
Axel Polleres: Do we really need (these 'amputated') lists in Core? ←
14:05:46 <Harold> ... Cause we could have the distinguished function Pair symbol.
... Cause we could have the distinguished function Pair symbol. ←
14:06:04 <Harold> Changhai: What about disjunctions?
Changhai Ke: What about disjunctions? ←
14:06:17 <Harold> ... Lists that mostly would be constant.
... Lists that mostly would be constant. ←
14:07:37 <Harold> Christian: For all customers, if ?x is the bank account list and length of ?x is greater than 3 ....
Christian de Sainte Marie: For all customers, if ?x is the bank account list and length of ?x is greater than 3 .... ←
14:07:59 <Harold> ... You still need some kind of list type.
... You still need some kind of list type. ←
14:08:32 <Harold> ... To check that there is this (finite) list of the customers' bank account.
... To check that there is this (finite) list of the customers' bank account. ←
14:09:29 <Harold> ... Would it be advisable to have some list processing operators in Core, and then have list terms in BLD and (slightly different) in Core?
... Would it be advisable to have some list processing operators in Core, and then have list terms in BLD and (slightly different) in Core? ←
14:09:56 <Harold> Jos: Will lead to discrepancy with BLD.
Jos de Bruijn: Will lead to discrepancy with BLD. ←
14:10:15 <Harold> Sandro: Data could come from RDF.
Sandro Hawke: Data could come from RDF. ←
14:10:28 <Harold> ... List operators would be in Core.
... List operators would be in Core. ←
14:11:50 <Harold> Christian: You could write Forall ?x ?y IF ?x{Att->?y] AND func:length(?y) < 3
Christian de Sainte Marie: You could write Forall ?x ?y IF ?x{Att->?y] AND func:length(?y) < 3 ←
14:12:30 <Harold> ... without needing to completely define what the list ?y actually is.
... without needing to completely define what the list ?y actually is. ←
14:12:42 <Harold> Michael: Semantics would still be provided.
Michael Kifer: Semantics would still be provided. ←
14:13:13 <Harold> Christian/Sandro: Would not need to defined in Core, only in BLD and PRD.
Christian/Sandro: Would not need to defined in Core, only in BLD and PRD. ←
14:13:30 <Harold> Gary: May make sense.
Gary Hallmark: May make sense. ←
14:13:47 <Harold> Christian: In DTB.
Christian de Sainte Marie: In DTB. ←
14:14:12 <Harold> Gary: You have to say it's a list, just as it could be an integer etc.
Gary Hallmark: You have to say it's a list, just as it could be an integer etc. ←
14:14:31 <Harold> ... (but not give details)
... (but not give details) ←
14:14:54 <Harold> Sandro: Confused why you cannot construct lists in Core.
Sandro Hawke: Confused why you cannot construct lists in Core. ←
14:15:58 <Harold> Jos: Christian proposes special lists in Core.
Jos de Bruijn: Christian proposes special lists in Core. ←
14:16:16 <Harold> Michael: You can allow ground lists in Core.
Michael Kifer: You can allow ground lists in Core. ←
14:16:39 <Harold> Chrisw: Head and body?
Christopher Welty: Head and body? ←
14:16:46 <Harold> Michael: Yes.
Michael Kifer: Yes. ←
14:17:07 <Harold> Gary: But it should be something useful.
Gary Hallmark: But it should be something useful. ←
14:17:38 <Harold> Chrisw: No variables inside lists.
Christopher Welty: No variables inside lists. ←
14:19:36 <Harold> Christian: Forall ?x ?y IF Seq(a b c) = ?y would be allowed?
Christian de Sainte Marie: Forall ?x ?y IF Seq(a b c) = ?y would be allowed? ←
14:19:40 <Harold> Michael: Yes.
Michael Kifer: Yes. ←
14:21:13 <Harold> Harold: OK, let's introduce Core ground lists plus their built-ins.
Harold Boley: OK, let's introduce Core ground lists plus their built-ins. ←
14:21:14 <DaveReynolds> Gary - we don't non-termination, that's the whole E-S strong safety!
Dave Reynolds: Gary - we don't non-termination, that's the whole E-S strong safety! ←
14:22:17 <GaryHallmark> dave, is E-S harder to spec with lists than with e.g. numeric-add?
Gary Hallmark: dave, is E-S harder to spec with lists than with e.g. numeric-add? ←
14:22:48 <DaveReynolds> Gary - the point is that E-S eliminates all useful constructions of lists.
Dave Reynolds: Gary - the point is that E-S eliminates all useful constructions of lists. ←
14:23:15 <Harold> Christian: Forall ?x ?y IF Seq(a ?x c) = ?y AND ?x =b
Christian de Sainte Marie: Forall ?x ?y IF Seq(a ?x c) = ?y AND ?x =b ←
14:23:35 <DaveReynolds> Gary - If you want useful list construction just have Jos' safety construction and drop the goal of allowing datalog engines.
Dave Reynolds: Gary - If you want useful list construction just have Jos' safety construction and drop the goal of allowing datalog engines. ←
14:23:53 <Harold> ... Groundability could be handled like the safeness condition.
... Groundability could be handled like the safeness condition. ←
14:24:59 <ChrisW> q?
Christopher Welty: q? ←
14:25:45 <Harold> Harold: 'Save groundability' notion could be introduced, even if 'conservative' (not catching all groundable cases): Better than only 'plain' ground lists.
Harold Boley: 'Save groundability' notion could be introduced, even if 'conservative' (not catching all groundable cases): Better than only 'plain' ground lists. ←
14:27:16 <DaveReynolds> Could the list of options go in the minutes?
Dave Reynolds: Could the list of options go in the minutes? ←
14:27:28 <Harold> Christian: Three options on whiteboard: One is a short version of the above.
Christian de Sainte Marie: Three options on whiteboard: One is a short version of the above. ←
14:27:53 <Harold> 12 mins break now.
12 mins break now. ←
14:28:21 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
Sandro Hawke: RRSAgent, pointer? ←
14:28:21 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc#T14-28-21
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc#T14-28-21 ←
14:28:44 <GaryHallmark> I sense one problem is that I would like to see Core grow to the intersection of PRD/BLD and others would like ot see it shrink to finite models only...
Gary Hallmark: I sense one problem is that I would like to see Core grow to the intersection of PRD/BLD and others would like ot see it shrink to finite models only... ←
14:28:57 <GaryHallmark> s/ot/to
Gary Hallmark: s/ot/to ←
14:28:59 <Harold> Christian's three options:
Christian's three options: ←
14:29:18 <Harold> 1) Ground lists + builtins in Core
1) Ground lists + builtins in Core ←
14:30:15 <DaveReynolds> Gary - agreed. That was the whole debate over this E-S strong safety notion. I'd be happy to have a non-termination in Core and have usable lists.
Dave Reynolds: Gary - agreed. That was the whole debate over this E-S strong safety notion. I'd be happy to have a non-termination in Core and have usable lists. ←
14:33:26 <AxelPolleres> FYI: The reference to XML Schema DT 1.1 in rdf:text has been fixed
Axel Polleres: FYI: The reference to XML Schema DT 1.1 in rdf:text has been fixed ←
14:33:36 <Harold> 2) Safe lists (no unbound var inside lists) + builtins in Core
2) Safe lists (no unbound var inside lists) + builtins in Core ←
14:34:16 <Harold> 3) Same as 2) but PRD (no lists in Core)
3) Same as 2) but PRD (no lists in Core) ←
14:35:02 <Zakim> -DaveReynolds
Zakim IRC Bot: -DaveReynolds ←
14:36:47 <Zakim> +??P4
Zakim IRC Bot: +??P4 ←
14:36:50 <Zakim> -Meeting_Room
Zakim IRC Bot: -Meeting_Room ←
14:36:51 <Zakim> +Meeting_Room
Zakim IRC Bot: +Meeting_Room ←
14:37:15 <Harold> Harold: Christian's option 2) corresponds to above 'safe groundability'.
Harold Boley: Christian's option 2) corresponds to above 'safe groundability'. ←
14:42:30 <ChrisW> scribe: AdrianP
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
(Scribe set to Adrian Paschke)
14:42:43 <ChrisW> TOPIC: Issue-94 (Objects)
14:43:02 <ChrisW> zakim, who is on the phone?
Christopher Welty: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
14:43:02 <Zakim> On the phone I see Meeting_Room, DaveReynolds
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see Meeting_Room, DaveReynolds ←
14:43:03 <Zakim> Meeting_Room has csma, josb, MichaelKifer, AxelPolleres, cke, johnHall, AdrianP, Harold, Gary, sandro, ChrisW
Zakim IRC Bot: Meeting_Room has csma, josb, MichaelKifer, AxelPolleres, cke, johnHall, AdrianP, Harold, Gary, sandro, ChrisW ←
14:43:05 <AdrianP> csma: sent slides
Christian de Sainte Marie: sent slides ←
14:45:23 <AdrianP> Harold: we discussed a year ago that OWL cardinality constraints can be used
Harold Boley: we discussed a year ago that OWL cardinality constraints can be used ←
14:46:32 <AdrianP> Harold: not defined in RIF, delegate to OWL, for instance
Harold Boley: not defined in RIF, delegate to OWL, for instance ←
14:47:13 <AdrianP> csma: in PRD the is action modify which has semantics of assert with replacement semantics
Christian de Sainte Marie: in PRD the is action modify which has semantics of assert with replacement semantics ←
14:47:14 <sandro> csma: action MODIFY is like assert, but with replacement semantics.
Christian de Sainte Marie: action MODIFY is like assert, but with replacement semantics. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:49:04 <AdrianP> csma: modify = replace all the values and assert new ones
Christian de Sainte Marie: modify = replace all the values and assert new ones ←
14:49:12 <sandro> new ONE
Sandro Hawke: new ONE ←
14:50:40 <AdrianP> cke: object model can be changed in option 4
Changhai Ke: object model can be changed in option 4 ←
14:51:20 <AdrianP> csma: interchange object model can be outside of RIF, e.g. in UML or XML Schema
Christian de Sainte Marie: interchange object model can be outside of RIF, e.g. in UML or XML Schema ←
14:52:21 <AdrianP> Gary: frames are general; need to be mapped into a concrete data model;
Gary Hallmark: frames are general; need to be mapped into a concrete data model; ←
14:52:48 <AdrianP> Gary: do some analysis and figure out the implied data model
Gary Hallmark: do some analysis and figure out the implied data model ←
14:53:57 <AdrianP> Gary: declare the data types and constraints - then you don't need the complex analysis
Gary Hallmark: declare the data types and constraints - then you don't need the complex analysis ←
14:54:06 <AdrianP> Sandro: why not option 5
Sandro Hawke: why not option 5 ←
14:54:38 <AdrianP> Gary: option 5 does not ensure interoperability
Gary Hallmark: option 5 does not ensure interoperability ←
14:55:10 <sandro> csma: Option 5.5 -- have a standard metadata field for linking to an XML Schema
Christian de Sainte Marie: Option 5.5 -- have a standard metadata field for linking to an XML Schema [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
14:55:25 <AdrianP> Gary: data model might not be XML schema
Gary Hallmark: data model might not be XML schema ←
14:55:48 <AdrianP> Chrisw: option 6 you would need to duplicate the data model in RIF
Christopher Welty: option 6 you would need to duplicate the data model in RIF ←
14:56:27 <AdrianP> Michael: agree with Gary- if something is specified out of RIF but affects the semantics
Michael Kifer: agree with Gary- if something is specified out of RIF but affects the semantics ←
14:56:56 <AdrianP> Gary: like to have syntax where you know the semantics
Gary Hallmark: like to have syntax where you know the semantics ←
14:57:30 <AdrianP> Gary: like to explicitly know how to translate it into the specific execution data model
Gary Hallmark: like to explicitly know how to translate it into the specific execution data model ←
14:58:47 <AdrianP> Harold: multi-valued treated like a set
Harold Boley: multi-valued treated like a set ←
14:58:56 <AdrianP> Harold: replace the whole set with a new one
Harold Boley: replace the whole set with a new one ←
14:59:11 <AdrianP> Harold: single-valued is a special case
Harold Boley: single-valued is a special case ←
14:59:34 <AdrianP> Harold: like in F-Logic
Harold Boley: like in F-Logic ←
14:59:55 <AdrianP> Michael: in F-Logic you have types which indicate that
Michael Kifer: in F-Logic you have types which indicate that ←
15:00:51 <AdrianP> Sandro: seems to be reasonable that type information is additionally provided
Sandro Hawke: seems to be reasonable that type information is additionally provided ←
15:01:02 <sandro> Gary: I'm not saying type infpormation should be mandatory, just that it should be possible to supply.
Gary Hallmark: I'm not saying type infpormation should be mandatory, just that it should be possible to supply. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:01:29 <AdrianP> csma: why not using existing syntax for describing the data model?
Christian de Sainte Marie: why not using existing syntax for describing the data model? ←
15:01:51 <AdrianP> Gary: should be specified in the language we are using, i.e. RIF
Gary Hallmark: should be specified in the language we are using, i.e. RIF ←
15:01:58 <sandro> Gary: I want to specified my RIF data model using RIF constructs.
Gary Hallmark: I want to specified my RIF data model using RIF constructs. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:02:17 <AdrianP> csma: what about a mapping von XML Schema to RIF
Christian de Sainte Marie: what about a mapping von XML Schema to RIF ←
15:02:49 <AdrianP> Gary: cardinality constraints seem to be a very small extension of the RIF syntax
Gary Hallmark: cardinality constraints seem to be a very small extension of the RIF syntax ←
15:03:04 <AdrianP> Gary: we should provide this expressiveness in RIF
Gary Hallmark: we should provide this expressiveness in RIF ←
15:03:05 <Harold> PRD's Modify construct would just be a special case by replacing a singleton-set value; BLD could also be extended with a Modify construct, which would replace general set values.
Harold Boley: PRD's Modify construct would just be a special case by replacing a singleton-set value; BLD could also be extended with a Modify construct, which would replace general set values. ←
15:03:25 <AdrianP> cke: in XML schema we have all this kind of expersivness
Changhai Ke: in XML schema we have all this kind of expersivness ←
15:04:59 <AdrianP> Gary: but not solved in RIF
Gary Hallmark: but not solved in RIF ←
15:05:28 <AdrianP> csma: impacts the semantics of rules or not?
Christian de Sainte Marie: impacts the semantics of rules or not? ←
15:05:54 <AdrianP> csma: seems to me that it is external to RIF
Christian de Sainte Marie: seems to me that it is external to RIF ←
15:05:58 <sandro> (It doesn't affect the entailments. It may affect type-errors and performance.)
Sandro Hawke: (It doesn't affect the entailments. It may affect type-errors and performance.) ←
15:07:34 <DaveReynolds> Surely it does affect entailments. If you say "slot s has cardinality 1" then a rule o[s->"a", s->"b"] would raise and error.
Dave Reynolds: Surely it does affect entailments. If you say "slot s has cardinality 1" then a rule o[s->"a", s->"b"] would raise and error. ←
15:07:38 <DaveReynolds> s/and/an/
Dave Reynolds: s/and/an/ ←
15:07:58 <AdrianP> Gary: option 6 introduce singleton and set to distinguish
Gary Hallmark: option 6 introduce singleton and set to distinguish ←
15:08:23 <AdrianP> Sandro: may affect type checking, performance, ...
Sandro Hawke: may affect type checking, performance, ... ←
15:09:24 <AdrianP> cke: option 6 example is this information part of the rule?
Changhai Ke: option 6 example is this information part of the rule? ←
15:09:32 <AdrianP> Gary: yes
Gary Hallmark: yes ←
15:10:12 <AdrianP> Michael: how to define interoperability?
Michael Kifer: how to define interoperability? ←
15:10:24 <AdrianP> Gary: would be like type checking
Gary Hallmark: would be like type checking ←
15:10:56 <AdrianP> Gary: basically like a constraint
Gary Hallmark: basically like a constraint ←
15:11:17 <AdrianP> Gary: this example is only for frames
Gary Hallmark: this example is only for frames ←
15:11:37 <Harold> PRD: Given single-valued obj[slot->oldval], the statement Modify(obj, slot, newval) leads to obj[slot->newval].
Harold Boley: PRD: Given single-valued obj[slot->oldval], the statement Modify(obj, slot, newval) leads to obj[slot->newval]. ←
15:11:50 <Harold> BLD: Given multi-valued obj[slot->oldval1] AND ... AND obj[slot->oldvalN], i.e. obj[slot->{oldval1, ..., oldvalN}], the statement Modify(obj,slot,newval) also leads to obj[slot->newval].
Harold Boley: BLD: Given multi-valued obj[slot->oldval1] AND ... AND obj[slot->oldvalN], i.e. obj[slot->{oldval1, ..., oldvalN}], the statement Modify(obj,slot,newval) also leads to obj[slot->newval]. ←
15:12:35 <AdrianP> csma: will lead us to a new data model language
Christian de Sainte Marie: will lead us to a new data model language ←
15:12:58 <AdrianP> csma: all this already exists in othere languages
Christian de Sainte Marie: all this already exists in othere languages ←
15:15:03 <AdrianP> Chrisw: sounds like option 4
Christopher Welty: sounds like option 4 ←
15:16:29 <Harold> My proposal is compatible with option 4.
Harold Boley: My proposal is compatible with option 4. ←
15:17:53 <Harold> (Without need fro static analysis)
Harold Boley: (Without need fro static analysis) ←
15:18:13 <Harold> Just add a modify operator that ALWAYS replaces ALL values.
Harold Boley: Just add a modify operator that ALWAYS replaces ALL values. ←
15:18:46 <Harold> (ALWAYS: in PRD and all follow-up languages extending BLD)
Harold Boley: (ALWAYS: in PRD and all follow-up languages extending BLD) ←
15:19:26 <AdrianP> csma: first two options mean add information explicitly
Christian de Sainte Marie: first two options mean add information explicitly ←
15:19:59 <AdrianP> csma: three is use a new construct for different multiplicity
Christian de Sainte Marie: three is use a new construct for different multiplicity ←
15:20:04 <Harold> When I wrote "BLD: Given multi-valued ..." I meant a future BLD extension allowing a Modify.
Harold Boley: When I wrote "BLD: Given multi-valued ..." I meant a future BLD extension allowing a Modify. ←
15:20:15 <AdrianP> csma: 4 and 5 ignore
Christian de Sainte Marie: 4 and 5 ignore ←
15:20:30 <AdrianP> csma: 6 include some external description
Christian de Sainte Marie: 6 include some external description ←
15:20:55 <AdrianP> csma: 5 include some external description
Christian de Sainte Marie: 5 include some external description ←
15:21:08 <AdrianP> csma: 6 add syntax to RIF
Christian de Sainte Marie: 6 add syntax to RIF ←
15:21:56 <AdrianP> Michael: out-of-band does not make sense from the point of interoperability
Michael Kifer: out-of-band does not make sense from the point of interoperability ←
15:22:29 <AdrianP> Chrisw: option 5 relies on other external mechanism
Christopher Welty: option 5 relies on other external mechanism ←
15:25:43 <AdrianP> Sandro: Gary, would a new error type work for you?
Sandro Hawke: Gary, would a new error type work for you? ←
15:27:05 <AdrianP> Gary: PRD you can directly indicate errors
Gary Hallmark: PRD you can directly indicate errors ←
15:29:03 <GaryHallmark> example of constraint rules: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0135.html
Gary Hallmark: example of constraint rules: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0135.html ←
15:29:14 <AdrianP> Michael: thought the problem was, that Gary sees problems when you translate Core into PRD
Michael Kifer: thought the problem was, that Gary sees problems when you translate Core into PRD ←
15:30:12 <AdrianP> Gary: for instance should be able to say that a person only have one birthday
Gary Hallmark: for instance should be able to say that a person only have one birthday ←
15:30:34 <AdrianP> Gary: should be able to explicity say this in terms of a cardinality constraint
Gary Hallmark: should be able to explicity say this in terms of a cardinality constraint ←
15:31:07 <AxelPolleres> isn't modify just delete all existing values and add the new value?
Axel Polleres: isn't modify just delete all existing values and add the new value? ←
15:32:49 <sandro> chrisw: The issue is: Should we have Cardinality Constraints (and perhaps Type Constraints) in Core?
Christopher Welty: The issue is: Should we have Cardinality Constraints (and perhaps Type Constraints) in Core? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:32:54 <AdrianP> Gary: issue is with core; can I have an explicity cardinality constraint in core
Gary Hallmark: issue is with core; can I have an explicity cardinality constraint in core ←
15:33:14 <sandro> kifer: f-logic has it.
Michael Kifer: f-logic has it. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:34:30 <AxelPolleres> Answer set programming has it as well.
Axel Polleres: Answer set programming has it as well. ←
15:35:00 <AdrianP> Harold: f-logic and RuleML have special syntactic constructs to distinguish cardinality
Harold Boley: f-logic and RuleML have special syntactic constructs to distinguish cardinality ←
15:35:24 <AdrianP> Michael: SWRL has cardinality constraints
Michael Kifer: SWRL has cardinality constraints ←
15:35:35 <sandro> kifer: SWRL and Flora-2 have cardinality constraints.
Michael Kifer: SWRL and Flora-2 have cardinality constraints. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:35:46 <AxelPolleres> OWL implies equalities, doesn't have card constraints.
Axel Polleres: OWL implies equalities, doesn't have card constraints. ←
15:36:45 <sandro> jos: at-most-2 cardinality gives you disjunction. at-most-1 cardinality adds equality.
Jos de Bruijn: at-most-2 cardinality gives you disjunction. at-most-1 cardinality adds equality. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:38:03 <AdrianP> Harold: integrity constraints could be introduced and used to define cardinality constraints
Harold Boley: integrity constraints could be introduced and used to define cardinality constraints ←
15:38:07 <sandro> kifer: Integrity Constraints require the Closed World Assumption.
Michael Kifer: Integrity Constraints require the Closed World Assumption. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:38:53 <sandro> kifer: equating two months is a problem....
Michael Kifer: equating two months is a problem.... [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:38:58 <sandro> s/months/mothers/
Sandro Hawke: s/months/mothers/ ←
15:39:23 <AdrianP> Harold: integrity constrain semantics instead of open equality semantics could be introduced
Harold Boley: integrity constrain semantics instead of open equality semantics could be introduced ←
15:40:54 <AdrianP> Chrisw: needs a closed assumption
Christopher Welty: needs a closed assumption ←
15:41:23 <AdrianP> Harold: person who uses RIF makes a closed world assumption
Harold Boley: person who uses RIF makes a closed world assumption ←
15:42:02 <AdrianP> Gary: my original proposal was to have the syntax but its just like a comment
Gary Hallmark: my original proposal was to have the syntax but its just like a comment ←
15:42:15 <AdrianP> Gary: in BLD and PRD the semantics is then defined
Gary Hallmark: in BLD and PRD the semantics is then defined ←
15:42:37 <DaveReynolds> But different surely.
Dave Reynolds: But different surely. ←
15:42:49 <AdrianP> Chrisw: this is option 1
Christopher Welty: this is option 1 ←
15:44:38 <AdrianP> Michael: interoperability?
Michael Kifer: interoperability? ←
15:44:45 <Harold> s/person who uses RIF makes/person who uses RIF's multiplicity="1" attribute makes/
Harold Boley: s/person who uses RIF makes/person who uses RIF's multiplicity="1" attribute makes/ ←
15:44:55 <AdrianP> Michael: would need to define what interoperabiltiy then means?
Michael Kifer: would need to define what interoperabiltiy then means? ←
15:46:04 <AdrianP> Chrisw: option 1 uses meta data, so it is meaningless / might be ignored
Christopher Welty: option 1 uses meta data, so it is meaningless / might be ignored ←
15:46:41 <AdrianP> Michael: this ok, if we define interoperability accordingly
Michael Kifer: this ok, if we define interoperability accordingly ←
15:47:00 <AdrianP> Chrisw: PRD doesn't ignore meta data?
Christopher Welty: PRD doesn't ignore meta data? ←
15:48:16 <AdrianP> Chrisw: option 4 does not allow you to express cardinality constraints
Christopher Welty: option 4 does not allow you to express cardinality constraints ←
15:48:21 <AdrianP> Chrisw: Gary wants them
Christopher Welty: Gary wants them ←
15:48:33 <AdrianP> Sandro: Gary wants type checking
Sandro Hawke: Gary wants type checking ←
15:48:37 <DaveReynolds> But Gary you are giving it different semantics in BLD and PRD so that isn't an argument for them in Core.
Dave Reynolds: But Gary you are giving it different semantics in BLD and PRD so that isn't an argument for them in Core. ←
15:49:34 <AdrianP> Michael: semantics of cardinality in Core is different from the semantics in PRD
Michael Kifer: semantics of cardinality in Core is different from the semantics in PRD ←
15:50:21 <DaveReynolds> -1 for logical constraints in core, 0 for closed world integrity constraints (potentially useful, huge work, don't see how to get it done in remaining time)
Dave Reynolds: -1 for logical constraints in core, 0 for closed world integrity constraints (potentially useful, huge work, don't see how to get it done in remaining time) ←
15:50:37 <sandro> kifer: It's a good idea, but I'm worried it will be musused.
Michael Kifer: It's a good idea, but I'm worried it will be musused. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:51:34 <AxelPolleres> -1 (it seems that with a decent semantics for modify, there can still be a PRD (sub?)dialect based on Core without)
Axel Polleres: -1 (it seems that with a decent semantics for modify, there can still be a PRD (sub?)dialect based on Core without) ←
15:52:18 <AxelPolleres> (... i.e. modify meaning delete all existing values and assert new value)
Axel Polleres: (... i.e. modify meaning delete all existing values and assert new value) ←
15:52:50 <sandro> Chrisw: This would not be the first feature we abandoned.
Christopher Welty: This would not be the first feature we abandoned. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:52:58 <sandro> (first useful features)
Sandro Hawke: (first useful features) ←
15:53:48 <sandro> chrisw: It seems we're leaning toward option 4.
Christopher Welty: It seems we're leaning toward option 4. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
15:56:50 <Zakim> -DaveReynolds
Zakim IRC Bot: -DaveReynolds ←
15:57:13 <Zakim> -Meeting_Room
Zakim IRC Bot: -Meeting_Room ←
15:57:15 <Zakim> SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM has ended ←
15:57:17 <Zakim> Attendees were DaveReynolds, csma, josb, MichaelKifer, AxelPolleres, cke, johnHall, AdrianP, Harold, Gary, sandro, ChrisW, Meeting_Room
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were DaveReynolds, csma, josb, MichaelKifer, AxelPolleres, cke, johnHall, AdrianP, Harold, Gary, sandro, ChrisW, Meeting_Room ←
17:40:01 <AxelPolleres> dave, are you on the phone?
(No events recorded for 102 minutes)
Axel Polleres: dave, are you on the phone? ←
17:40:12 <ChrisW> zakim, who is here?
Christopher Welty: zakim, who is here? ←
17:40:29 <DaveReynolds> Yes but I can't hear anything
Dave Reynolds: Yes but I can't hear anything ←
17:40:33 <ChrisW> zakim, this is rif
Christopher Welty: zakim, this is rif ←
17:40:33 <Zakim> ok, ChrisW; that matches SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM
Zakim IRC Bot: ok, ChrisW; that matches SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM ←
17:40:40 <ChrisW> zakim, who is on the phone?
Christopher Welty: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
17:40:40 <Zakim> On the phone I see +44.145.441.aaaa
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see +44.145.441.aaaa ←
17:40:48 <ChrisW> rrsagent, make minutes
Christopher Welty: rrsagent, make minutes ←
17:40:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
RRSAgent IRC Bot: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-minutes.html ChrisW ←
17:40:57 <AxelPolleres> we are dialing in
Axel Polleres: we are dialing in ←
17:41:27 <AxelPolleres> AxelPolleres has changed the topic to: RIF 13th F2F Meeting, Cambridge MA, Agenda http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F13
Axel Polleres: AxelPolleres has changed the topic to: RIF 13th F2F Meeting, Cambridge MA, Agenda http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F13 ←
17:42:32 <AxelPolleres> scribe: Axel Polleres
(Scribe set to Axel Polleres)
17:42:40 <AxelPolleres> scribenick: AxelPolleres
17:42:46 <AxelPolleres> topic: Issue-81
17:42:58 <josb> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0140.html
Jos de Bruijn: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0140.html ←
17:43:12 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/81
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/81 ←
17:43:30 <josb> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0140.html
Jos de Bruijn: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0140.html ←
17:43:38 <josb> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0140.html
Jos de Bruijn: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0140.html ←
17:43:57 <AxelPolleres> jos: let's talk about that email first (coreify OWL2RL combinations)
Jos de Bruijn: let's talk about that email first (coreify OWL2RL combinations) ←
17:44:00 <Zakim> +W3C
Zakim IRC Bot: +W3C ←
17:44:39 <AxelPolleres> we need equality for OWL RL, outside Core
we need equality for OWL RL, outside Core ←
17:44:47 <sandro> 1 == too bad, RL isn't in Core
Sandro Hawke: 1 == too bad, RL isn't in Core ←
17:44:56 <sandro> 2 == pick an equality-free embedding
Sandro Hawke: 2 == pick an equality-free embedding ←
17:44:56 <AxelPolleres> first option, not possible in Core
first option, not possible in Core ←
17:45:12 <sandro> 3 == general embedding into BLD, then pick a subset in Core (== 1+2)
Sandro Hawke: 3 == general embedding into BLD, then pick a subset in Core (== 1+2) ←
17:45:18 <AxelPolleres> ... second option equality free subset
... second option equality free subset ←
17:45:32 <sandro> 4 == Add embedding of equality. (Axiomatizing equality.)
Sandro Hawke: 4 == Add embedding of equality. (Axiomatizing equality.) ←
17:45:32 <AxelPolleres> ... third option, embedding in BLD
... third option, embedding in BLD ←
17:46:05 <AxelPolleres> ...fourth, add equality axioms in core
...fourth, add equality axioms in core ←
17:46:20 <AxelPolleres> ... i.e. axiomatize equality.
... i.e. axiomatize equality. ←
17:47:19 <AxelPolleres> sandro: I like 4, if there is a way to use rif:"=" i.e. BLD's equality here.
Sandro Hawke: I like 4, if there is a way to use rif:"=" i.e. BLD's equality here. ←
17:48:00 <AxelPolleres> csma: RIF can be expressed in BLD, but not in Core, what is the negative impact of that?
Christian de Sainte Marie: RIF can be expressed in BLD, but not in Core, what is the negative impact of that? ←
17:48:14 <AxelPolleres> chrisW: Core won't do OWL RL.
Christopher Welty: Core won't do OWL RL. ←
17:48:32 <DaveReynolds> Depends what you mean by "do OWL RL" - them embedding is different from the direct OWL 2 RL rule implementation which does fit in Core.
Dave Reynolds: Depends what you mean by "do OWL RL" - them embedding is different from the direct OWL 2 RL rule implementation which does fit in Core. ←
17:48:41 <DaveReynolds> s/them/the/
Dave Reynolds: s/them/the/ ←
17:48:51 <AxelPolleres> sandro: whatever we pcik we should be able to explain the different choices.
Sandro Hawke: whatever we pcik we should be able to explain the different choices. ←
17:49:17 <AxelPolleres> ... I am for 4) because it gives us OWL RL in Core.
... I am for 4) because it gives us OWL RL in Core. ←
17:50:07 <AxelPolleres> jos: you can implement it more efficient.
Jos de Bruijn: you can implement it more efficient. ←
17:50:13 <sandro> sandro: This is a proof-of-concept, so performance is not an issue.
Sandro Hawke: This is a proof-of-concept, so performance is not an issue. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:51:06 <AxelPolleres> csma: does that open the possibility that a BLD doc uses rif equality that works together with the core axiomatization
Christian de Sainte Marie: does that open the possibility that a BLD doc uses rif equality that works together with the core axiomatization ←
17:51:32 <AxelPolleres> ... ? We have to make an informed decision in that respect.
... ? We have to make an informed decision in that respect. ←
17:52:21 <sandro> axel: maybe use owl:sameAs.
Axel Polleres: maybe use owl:sameAs. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:52:50 <AxelPolleres> Axel: Can owl:sameAs be used for the axiomaization?
Axel Polleres: Can owl:sameAs be used for the axiomaization? ←
17:53:24 <AxelPolleres> csma: What is the drawback of only providing an embedding in BLD?
Christian de Sainte Marie: What is the drawback of only providing an embedding in BLD? ←
17:53:55 <DaveReynolds> My preference would be 1 and add a comment to point out options 2 & 4 but not exhibit them.
Dave Reynolds: My preference would be 1 and add a comment to point out options 2 & 4 but not exhibit them. ←
17:54:19 <AxelPolleres> jos... explains the different options again.
jos... explains the different options again. ←
17:54:39 <sandro> DaveReynolds, do you think the axiomatizing equality is a problem?
Sandro Hawke: DaveReynolds, do you think the axiomatizing equality is a problem? ←
17:55:19 <DaveReynolds> Sandro -It seems like it would like to a large unwieldy rule set, it would be more an academic exercise that something people would really use. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding.
Dave Reynolds: Sandro -It seems like it would like to a large unwieldy rule set, it would be more an academic exercise that something people would really use. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. ←
17:55:33 <AxelPolleres> sandro: I like option 4 more for political and marketing than for technical reasons.
Sandro Hawke: I like option 4 more for political and marketing than for technical reasons. ←
17:55:51 <DaveReynolds> q+
Dave Reynolds: q+ ←
17:56:00 <AxelPolleres> ... because we can say we support OWL RL with RIF for free.
... because we can say we support OWL RL with RIF for free. ←
17:56:02 <josb> indeed, the ruleset is going to be very unwieldy
Jos de Bruijn: indeed, the ruleset is going to be very unwieldy ←
17:56:14 <josb> esp if we go for b, c, or d
Jos de Bruijn: esp if we go for b, c, or d ←
17:56:27 <AxelPolleres> csma: problem I have with 4 is that I don't see PRD here.
Christian de Sainte Marie: problem I have with 4 is that I don't see PRD here. ←
17:56:45 <DaveReynolds> ack me
Dave Reynolds: ack me ←
17:56:52 <sandro> sandro: I want to be able to say "Anyone who has RIF, get OWL-RL for free".
Sandro Hawke: I want to be able to say "Anyone who has RIF, get OWL-RL for free". [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
17:57:28 <AxelPolleres> dave: in response to sandro: We have shown that we can implement OWL RL, but we can't say that we have OWL RL per se.
Dave Reynolds: in response to sandro: We have shown that we can implement OWL RL, but we can't say that we have OWL RL per se. ←
17:59:41 <AxelPolleres> jos: I'd prefer a)
Jos de Bruijn: I'd prefer a) ←
18:00:00 <AxelPolleres> ... there are now a bunch of unsafe rules in the ruleset.
... there are now a bunch of unsafe rules in the ruleset. ←
18:00:19 <AxelPolleres> ... I don't see the benefit of having OWL2RL in BLD.
... I don't see the benefit of having OWL2RL in BLD. ←
18:00:49 <AxelPolleres> ... we can make some explanation but shouldn't tweak the ruleset at this point.
... we can make some explanation but shouldn't tweak the ruleset at this point. ←
18:00:59 <AxelPolleres> csma: quick poll?
Christian de Sainte Marie: quick poll? ←
18:01:24 <AxelPolleres> chrisw: OWL2RL is in core, but combinations with Rules is in BLD.
Christopher Welty: OWL2RL is in core, but combinations with Rules is in BLD. ←
18:01:50 <sandro> chrisw: OWL 2 RL is in Core (reasoning over OWL alone), but OWL 2 RL in combination with Core Rules puts you into BLD.
Christopher Welty: OWL 2 RL is in Core (reasoning over OWL alone), but OWL 2 RL in combination with Core Rules puts you into BLD. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:02:03 <sandro> Sandro: ah. :-)
Sandro Hawke: ah. :-) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:02:38 <DaveReynolds> prefer a
Dave Reynolds: prefer a ←
18:02:59 <AxelPolleres> csma: who prefers a)?
Christian de Sainte Marie: who prefers a)? ←
18:03:14 <AxelPolleres> ... jos and chris
... jos and chris ←
18:03:20 <AxelPolleres> who prefers d)?
who prefers d)? ←
18:03:25 <AxelPolleres> sandro, axel
sandro, axel ←
18:04:15 <AxelPolleres> Sandro: I'd prefer a) with an explanaiton how to get to d) and what the implications are.
Sandro Hawke: I'd prefer a) with an explanaiton how to get to d) and what the implications are. ←
18:04:37 <sandro> sandro: So go with (A), but provide some text spelling out how to do (D) ....
Sandro Hawke: So go with (A), but provide some text spelling out how to do (D) .... [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:04:55 <josb> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0140.html
Jos de Bruijn: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0140.html ←
18:05:55 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: We go for solution a) in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0140.html plus additionally pointing out the path to d) and what the implications were in a non-normative subsection.
PROPOSED: We go for solution a) in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Mar/0140.html plus additionally pointing out the path to d) and what the implications were in a non-normative subsection. ←
18:05:57 <sandro> "embedding in support of combination"
Sandro Hawke: "embedding in support of combination" ←
18:06:08 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
18:06:36 <ChrisW> PROPOSED: For OWL-2 RL embedding of combinations, provide a (informative) embedding in BLD, pointing out that one can axiomatize equality for specific predicates in Core
PROPOSED: For OWL-2 RL embedding of combinations, provide a (informative) embedding in BLD, pointing out that one can axiomatize equality for specific predicates in Core ←
18:07:34 <ChrisW> PROPOSED: For OWL-2 RL embedding of combinations, provide a (informative) embedding in BLD, pointing out that one can axiomatize equality for predicates in Core
PROPOSED: For OWL-2 RL embedding of combinations, provide a (informative) embedding in BLD, pointing out that one can axiomatize equality for predicates in Core ←
18:07:47 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
18:07:52 <josb> +1
Jos de Bruijn: +1 ←
18:07:56 <ChrisW> +6
Christopher Welty: +6 ←
18:07:59 <Harold> +1
Harold Boley: +1 ←
18:07:59 <DaveReynolds> +1
Dave Reynolds: +1 ←
18:08:01 <AxelPolleres> Axel: can we use owl:sameAs in that axiomatization?
Axel Polleres: can we use owl:sameAs in that axiomatization? ←
18:08:06 <MichaelKifer> 0
Michael Kifer: 0 ←
18:08:20 <AxelPolleres> Axel: +1 given that owl:sameAs is used :-)
Axel Polleres: +1 given that owl:sameAs is used :-) ←
18:08:34 <GaryHallmark> +0
Gary Hallmark: +0 ←
18:08:41 <AdrianP> 0
Adrian Paschke: 0 ←
18:08:49 <johnhall> +1
18:09:07 <ChrisW> RESOLVED: For OWL-2 RL embedding of combinations, provide a (informative) embedding in BLD, pointing out that one can axiomatize equality for predicates in Core
RESOLVED: For OWL-2 RL embedding of combinations, provide a (informative) embedding in BLD, pointing out that one can axiomatize equality for predicates in Core ←
18:09:32 <ChrisW> action: implement resolution on embedding of OWL-2 RL embedding of combinations
ACTION: implement resolution on embedding of OWL-2 RL embedding of combinations ←
18:09:33 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - implement
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - implement ←
18:09:49 <ChrisW> action: axel to review owl-2 rl embedding of combinations
ACTION: axel to review owl-2 rl embedding of combinations ←
18:09:50 <trackbot> Created ACTION-733 - Review owl-2 rl embedding of combinations [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-733 - Review owl-2 rl embedding of combinations [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-22]. ←
18:10:04 <sandro> subtopic: OWL datatypes, OWL RL datatypes
18:10:04 <ChrisW> action: josb implement resolution on embedding of OWL-2 RL embedding of combinations
ACTION: josb implement resolution on embedding of OWL-2 RL embedding of combinations ←
18:10:04 <trackbot> Created ACTION-734 - Implement resolution on embedding of OWL-2 RL embedding of combinations [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2009-04-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-734 - Implement resolution on embedding of OWL-2 RL embedding of combinations [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2009-04-22]. ←
18:10:47 <AxelPolleres> csma: where are we w.r.t. issue-81?
Christian de Sainte Marie: where are we w.r.t. ISSUE-81? ←
18:10:54 <sandro> issue-81?
18:10:54 <trackbot> ISSUE-81 -- Support for additional OWL-RL datatype -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-81 -- Support for additional OWL-RL datatype -- OPEN ←
18:10:54 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/81
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/81 ←
18:10:55 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/81
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/81 ←
18:11:21 <sandro> OWL RL Datatypes: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profiles#Entities_3
Sandro Hawke: OWL RL Datatypes: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profiles#Entities_3 ←
18:12:07 <DaveReynolds> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWLRL#Datatypes_supported is supposed to up to date wrt to current DTB
Dave Reynolds: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWLRL#Datatypes_supported is supposed to up to date wrt to current DTB ←
18:12:22 <DaveReynolds> OWL 2 RL types changed since the issues page was created
Dave Reynolds: OWL 2 RL types changed since the issues page was created ←
18:13:10 <csma> ACTION: to axel to add xsd:nonNegativeInteger, xsd:anyURI, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary in DTB
ACTION: to axel to add xsd:nonNegativeInteger, xsd:anyURI, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary in DTB ←
18:13:10 <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - to
Trackbot IRC Bot: Sorry, couldn't find user - to ←
18:13:44 <csma> ACTION: Axel to add xsd:nonNegativeInteger, xsd:anyURI, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary in DTB
ACTION: Axel to add xsd:nonNegativeInteger, xsd:anyURI, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary in DTB ←
18:13:44 <trackbot> Created ACTION-735 - Add xsd:nonNegativeInteger, xsd:anyURI, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary in DTB [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-735 - Add xsd:nonNegativeInteger, xsd:anyURI, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary in DTB [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-22]. ←
18:14:52 <sandro> owl:realPlus is gone now.
Sandro Hawke: owl:realPlus is gone now. ←
18:15:11 <DaveReynolds> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWLRL#Datatypes_supported is supposed to up to date wrt to current DTB and updated OWL 2
Dave Reynolds: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWLRL#Datatypes_supported is supposed to up to date wrt to current DTB and updated OWL 2 ←
18:15:57 <DaveReynolds> s/2/2 RL/
Dave Reynolds: s/2/2 RL/ ←
18:18:17 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to add owl:real in DTB
ACTION: Axel to add owl:real in DTB ←
18:18:17 <trackbot> Created ACTION-736 - Add owl:real in DTB [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-736 - Add owl:real in DTB [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-22]. ←
18:18:26 <josb> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#Datatype_Maps
Jos de Bruijn: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#Datatype_Maps ←
18:19:56 <AxelPolleres> datatypes to be added... cf. http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DataTypes
datatypes to be added... cf. http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DataTypes ←
18:25:13 <AxelPolleres> chrisw: proposal to support subtypes of integer, subtypes of string, but no separate predicates such as guards for these.
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Christopher Welty: proposal to support subtypes of integer, subtypes of string, but no separate predicates such as guards for these. ←
18:26:06 <AxelPolleres> gary: by isliteraloftype we don't have to do anything.
Gary Hallmark: by isliteraloftype we don't have to do anything. ←
18:27:42 <AxelPolleres> csma: what about datetimestamp?
Christian de Sainte Marie: what about datetimestamp? ←
18:28:13 <AxelPolleres> chrisw: anyone argues for any other support or has objections against those?
Christopher Welty: anyone argues for any other support or has objections against those? ←
18:28:37 <AxelPolleres> csma: what about owl:rational?
Christian de Sainte Marie: what about owl:rational? ←
18:28:45 <AxelPolleres> jos: at risk in the current owl spec.
Jos de Bruijn: at risk in the current owl spec. ←
18:29:14 <DaveReynolds> q+ re: owl:rational
Dave Reynolds: q+ re: owl:rational ←
18:31:09 <AxelPolleres> axel: what about p(x) :- x*x=2.
Axel Polleres: what about p(x) :- x*x=2. ←
18:31:24 <AxelPolleres> jos: no problem since multiplicaiton not defined for real.
Jos de Bruijn: no problem since multiplicaiton not defined for real. ←
18:31:43 <AxelPolleres> dave: problem with arithmetics
Dave Reynolds: problem with arithmetics ←
18:32:10 <AxelPolleres> chrisw: numeric built-ins on owl:reals would create problems.
Christopher Welty: numeric built-ins on owl:reals would create problems. ←
18:32:35 <DaveReynolds> dave - owl:rational arithmetic and promotion to decimal/double *could* be support, my point was that this would be real work to define
Dave Reynolds: dave - owl:rational arithmetic and promotion to decimal/double *could* be support, my point was that this would be real work to define ←
18:32:47 <DaveReynolds> s/support/supported/
Dave Reynolds: s/support/supported/ ←
18:33:19 <AxelPolleres> ... real and rational have no built-in support other than guards.
... real and rational have no built-in support other than guards. ←
18:34:19 <AxelPolleres> jos: real is trivial.
Jos de Bruijn: real is trivial. ←
18:34:31 <AxelPolleres> ... rational is a superset of decimal
... rational is a superset of decimal ←
18:34:40 <sandro> The value space of owl:rational is the set of all rational numbers. It is a subset of the value space of owl:real, and it contains the value space of xsd:decimal (and thus of all xsd: numeric datatypes listed above as well).
Sandro Hawke: The value space of owl:rational is the set of all rational numbers. It is a subset of the value space of owl:real, and it contains the value space of xsd:decimal (and thus of all xsd: numeric datatypes listed above as well). ←
18:35:03 <Zakim> -DaveReynolds
Zakim IRC Bot: -DaveReynolds ←
18:35:10 <sandro> The owl:rational datatype supports lexical forms defined by the following grammar ... numerator '/' denominator
Sandro Hawke: The owl:rational datatype supports lexical forms defined by the following grammar ... numerator '/' denominator ←
18:35:23 <AdrianP> which concrete rule engines support rationals - is there any need for that datatype?
Adrian Paschke: which concrete rule engines support rationals - is there any need for that datatype? ←
18:35:23 <csma> PROPOSED: Add the following primitive data types, without guard predicates or other builtins for subtypes of xs:string and xs:integer: owl:rational, xsd:nonPositiveInteger, xsd:positiveInteger, xsd:negativeInteger, xsd:long, xsd:int, xsd:short, xsd:byte, xsd:unsignedLong, xsd:unsignedInt, xsd:unsignedShort, xsd:unsignedByte, xsd:float, xsd:normalizedString, xsd:token, xsd:language,...
PROPOSED: Add the following primitive data types, without guard predicates or other builtins for subtypes of xs:string and xs:integer: owl:rational, xsd:nonPositiveInteger, xsd:positiveInteger, xsd:negativeInteger, xsd:long, xsd:int, xsd:short, xsd:byte, xsd:unsignedLong, xsd:unsignedInt, xsd:unsignedShort, xsd:unsignedByte, xsd:float, xsd:normalizedString, xsd:token, xsd:language,... ←
18:35:25 <csma> ...xsd:Name, xsd:NCName, xsd:NMTOKEN, xsd:boolean, xsd:datetimestamp
Christian de Sainte Marie: ...xsd:Name, xsd:NCName, xsd:NMTOKEN, xsd:boolean, xsd:datetimestamp ←
18:35:28 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#Real_Numbers.2C_Decimal_Numbers.2C_and_Integers
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#Real_Numbers.2C_Decimal_Numbers.2C_and_Integers ←
18:35:38 <AxelPolleres> ... so some rational values of are in the scope of the builtins (those which happen to be decimals), others no
... so some rational values of are in the scope of the builtins (those which happen to be decimals), others no ←
18:36:04 <Zakim> +DaveReynolds
Zakim IRC Bot: +DaveReynolds ←
18:36:53 <csma> PROPOSED: Add the following primitive data types, without builtins (other than guard predicates) for subtypes of xs:string and xs:integer: owl:rational, xsd:nonPositiveInteger, xsd:positiveInteger, xsd:negativeInteger, xsd:long, xsd:int, xsd:short, xsd:byte, xsd:unsignedLong, xsd:unsignedInt, xsd:unsignedShort, xsd:unsignedByte, xsd:float, xsd:normalizedString, xsd:token, xsd:language,...
PROPOSED: Add the following primitive data types, without builtins (other than guard predicates) for subtypes of xs:string and xs:integer: owl:rational, xsd:nonPositiveInteger, xsd:positiveInteger, xsd:negativeInteger, xsd:long, xsd:int, xsd:short, xsd:byte, xsd:unsignedLong, xsd:unsignedInt, xsd:unsignedShort, xsd:unsignedByte, xsd:float, xsd:normalizedString, xsd:token, xsd:language,... ←
18:36:55 <csma> ...xsd:Name, xsd:NCName, xsd:NMTOKEN, xsd:boolean, xsd:datetimestamp
Christian de Sainte Marie: ...xsd:Name, xsd:NCName, xsd:NMTOKEN, xsd:boolean, xsd:datetimestamp ←
18:37:53 <csma> PROPOSED: Add the following primitive data types, without builtins (other than guard predicates) for subtypes of xs:string and xs:integer: xsd:nonPositiveInteger, xsd:positiveInteger, xsd:negativeInteger, xsd:long, xsd:int, xsd:short, xsd:byte, xsd:unsignedLong, xsd:unsignedInt, xsd:unsignedShort, xsd:unsignedByte, xsd:float, xsd:normalizedString, xsd:token, xsd:language, xsd:Name, xsd:NCName, xsd
PROPOSED: Add the following primitive data types, without builtins (other than guard predicates) for subtypes of xs:string and xs:integer: xsd:nonPositiveInteger, xsd:positiveInteger, xsd:negativeInteger, xsd:long, xsd:int, xsd:short, xsd:byte, xsd:unsignedLong, xsd:unsignedInt, xsd:unsignedShort, xsd:unsignedByte, xsd:float, xsd:normalizedString, xsd:token, xsd:language, xsd:Name, xsd:NCName, xsd ←
18:37:55 <csma> :NMTOKEN, xsd:boolean, xsd:datetimestamp
Christian de Sainte Marie: :NMTOKEN, xsd:boolean, xsd:datetimestamp ←
18:38:11 <sandro> We understand these to be ALL OWL datatypes except owl:rational.
Sandro Hawke: We understand these to be ALL OWL datatypes except owl:rational. ←
18:38:49 <sandro> We understand this will make RIF support all the same datatypes as OWL, except owl:rational.
Sandro Hawke: We understand this will make RIF support all the same datatypes as OWL, except owl:rational. ←
18:39:11 <csma> PROPOSED: Add the following primitive data types, without builtins (other than guard predicates) for subtypes of xs:string and xs:integer: xsd:nonPositiveInteger, xsd:positiveInteger, xsd:negativeInteger, xsd:long, xsd:int, xsd:short, xsd:byte, xsd:unsignedLong, xsd:unsignedInt, xsd:unsignedShort, xsd:unsignedByte, xsd:float, xsd:normalizedString, xsd:token, xsd:language, xsd:Name, xsd:NCName, xsd
PROPOSED: Add the following primitive data types, without builtins (other than guard predicates) for subtypes of xs:string and xs:integer: xsd:nonPositiveInteger, xsd:positiveInteger, xsd:negativeInteger, xsd:long, xsd:int, xsd:short, xsd:byte, xsd:unsignedLong, xsd:unsignedInt, xsd:unsignedShort, xsd:unsignedByte, xsd:float, xsd:normalizedString, xsd:token, xsd:language, xsd:Name, xsd:NCName, xsd ←
18:39:13 <csma> :NMTOKEN, xsd:boolean, xsd:datetimestamp; with thiese additions, RIF has all OWL datatypes except owl:rational
Christian de Sainte Marie: :NMTOKEN, xsd:boolean, xsd:datetimestamp; with thiese additions, RIF has all OWL datatypes except owl:rational ←
18:39:19 <AxelPolleres> jos: realizing the problems with built-ins, I am hesitant about owl:rational
Jos de Bruijn: realizing the problems with built-ins, I am hesitant about owl:rational ←
18:39:37 <AxelPolleres> chrisw: shall we approach owl with commenting on why we don't like owl:rational?
Christopher Welty: shall we approach owl with commenting on why we don't like owl:rational? ←
18:41:45 <ChrisW> PROPOSED: support all OWL datatypes in RIF except owl:rational (to be discussed further)
PROPOSED: support all OWL datatypes in RIF except owl:rational (to be discussed further) ←
18:42:16 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
18:42:27 <DaveReynolds> This this proposal include adding the builtins for boolean, datetimestamp?
Dave Reynolds: This this proposal include adding the builtins for boolean, datetimestamp? ←
18:42:29 <josb> +1
Jos de Bruijn: +1 ←
18:42:31 <DaveReynolds> s/This/Does/
Dave Reynolds: s/This/Does/ ←
18:42:35 <ChrisW> yes, DaveReynolds
Christopher Welty: yes, DaveReynolds ←
18:42:37 <Harold> +1
Harold Boley: +1 ←
18:42:40 <AxelPolleres> Axel: 0 still don't fancy owl:real
Axel Polleres: 0 still don't fancy owl:real ←
18:42:41 <DaveReynolds> 0
Dave Reynolds: 0 ←
18:42:42 <sandro> we're not deciding about builtins yet, DaveReynolds
Sandro Hawke: we're not deciding about builtins yet, DaveReynolds ←
18:42:44 <AdrianP> +1
Adrian Paschke: +1 ←
18:42:52 <MichaelKifer> +1
Michael Kifer: +1 ←
18:42:59 <johnhall> =1
18:43:04 <ChrisW> +1
Christopher Welty: +1 ←
18:43:19 <AxelPolleres> s/0 still don't fancy owl:real/+1/
s/0 still don't fancy owl:real/+1/ ←
18:44:14 <ChrisW> RESOLVED: support all OWL datatypes in RIF except owl:rational (to be discussed further)
RESOLVED: support all OWL datatypes in RIF except owl:rational (to be discussed further) ←
18:44:42 <sandro> PROPOSED: Remove owl:realPlus since OWL removed it.
PROPOSED: Remove owl:realPlus since OWL removed it. ←
18:44:46 <ChrisW> +1
Christopher Welty: +1 ←
18:44:49 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
18:44:52 <DaveReynolds> +1
Dave Reynolds: +1 ←
18:44:52 <AdrianP> +1
Adrian Paschke: +1 ←
18:44:54 <josb> +q1
Jos de Bruijn: +q1 ←
18:44:56 <josb> +1
Jos de Bruijn: +1 ←
18:45:01 <Harold> +1
Harold Boley: +1 ←
18:45:04 <DaveReynolds> -q
Dave Reynolds: -q ←
18:45:04 <johnhall> +1
18:45:09 <csma> ack dave
Christian de Sainte Marie: ack dave ←
18:45:10 <sandro> queue=
Sandro Hawke: queue= ←
18:45:12 <csma> ack 1
Christian de Sainte Marie: ack 1 ←
18:45:21 <sandro> RESOLVED: Remove owl:realPlus since OWL removed it.
RESOLVED: Remove owl:realPlus since OWL removed it. ←
18:45:49 <josb> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#dateTimeStamp
Jos de Bruijn: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#dateTimeStamp ←
18:46:25 <AxelPolleres> axel: datetimestamp is a subtype of datetime, so all builtins apply.
Axel Polleres: datetimestamp is a subtype of datetime, so all builtins apply. ←
18:47:06 <sandro> jos: We already have all the builtins for dateTimeStamp, since it's a subtype of dateTime.
Jos de Bruijn: We already have all the builtins for dateTimeStamp, since it's a subtype of dateTime. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:47:44 <AxelPolleres> jos: boolean has less-than, equal, ...
Jos de Bruijn: boolean has less-than, equal, ... ←
18:48:51 <AxelPolleres> sandro: overlap of fn:true, fn:false with rif:true rif:false is awkward.
Sandro Hawke: overlap of fn:true, fn:false with rif:true rif:false is awkward. ←
18:49:40 <AxelPolleres> q+ to ask: What about casting?
q+ to ask: What about casting? ←
18:49:42 <sandro> (where rif:true is really an empty-OR)
Sandro Hawke: (where rif:true is really an empty-OR) ←
18:52:17 <AxelPolleres> axel: we can cast boolean to integer.
Axel Polleres: we can cast boolean to integer. ←
18:54:15 <AxelPolleres> ... I'd prefer all or none of the built-ins for boolean.
... I'd prefer all or none of the built-ins for boolean. ←
18:54:18 <sandro> Sandro: the reason to have builtins to boolean is to support data out there using xs:boolean
Sandro Hawke: the reason to have builtins to boolean is to support data out there using xs:boolean [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:54:35 <AxelPolleres> adrian: prefer to have less than more.
Adrian Paschke: prefer to have less than more. ←
18:54:36 <sandro> Chrisw: the reason to not have xs:boolean is confusing vs RIF predications
Christopher Welty: the reason to not have xs:boolean is confusing vs RIF predications [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:54:47 <AxelPolleres> sandro: I'd prefer all.
Sandro Hawke: I'd prefer all. ←
18:55:35 <sandro> Gary: People are going to complain about rif predicates not just being functions that return true.
Gary Hallmark: People are going to complain about rif predicates not just being functions that return true. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:55:39 <sandro> sandro: yeah...
Sandro Hawke: yeah... [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
18:55:46 <csma> PROPOSED: include all the builtins for xs:boolean per F&O
PROPOSED: include all the builtins for xs:boolean per F&O ←
18:55:47 <ChrisW> +true
Christopher Welty: +true ←
18:55:56 <sandro> +0.5
Sandro Hawke: +0.5 ←
18:56:04 <csma> fn:not(fn:false) (maybe?)
Christian de Sainte Marie: fn:not(fn:false) (maybe?) ←
18:56:18 <GaryHallmark> +1
Gary Hallmark: +1 ←
18:56:20 <sandro> where does truth lie
Sandro Hawke: where does truth lie ←
18:56:21 <DaveReynolds> +1
Dave Reynolds: +1 ←
18:56:22 <AxelPolleres> Axel: +xs:integer("true"^^xs:boolean)
Axel Polleres: +xs:integer("true"^^xs:boolean) ←
18:56:24 <MichaelKifer> -0.2
Michael Kifer: -0.2 ←
18:56:28 <josb> +And()
Jos de Bruijn: +And() ←
18:56:33 <AdrianP> 0
Adrian Paschke: 0 ←
18:56:43 <GaryHallmark> +money
Gary Hallmark: +money ←
18:56:49 <josb> -Or()
Jos de Bruijn: -Or() ←
18:57:02 <Harold> +1
Harold Boley: +1 ←
18:57:07 <csma> RESOLVED:include all the builtins for xs:boolean per F&O
RESOLVED: include all the builtins for xs:boolean per F&O ←
18:57:27 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: axel to include all the builtins for xs:boolean per F&O
ACTION: axel to include all the builtins for xs:boolean per F&O ←
18:57:27 <trackbot> Created ACTION-737 - Include all the builtins for xs:boolean per F&O [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-737 - Include all the builtins for xs:boolean per F&O [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-22]. ←
18:57:27 <ChrisW> action: axel to add all boolean builtins
ACTION: axel to add all boolean builtins ←
18:57:28 <trackbot> Created ACTION-738 - Add all boolean builtins [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-738 - Add all boolean builtins [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-22]. ←
18:59:09 <ChrisW> action: axel to add xs:float to numeric builtins
ACTION: axel to add xs:float to numeric builtins ←
18:59:09 <trackbot> Created ACTION-739 - Add xs:float to numeric builtins [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-739 - Add xs:float to numeric builtins [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-22]. ←
19:03:10 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-xpath-functions-20070123/#casting-from-primitive-to-primitive
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-xpath-functions-20070123/#casting-from-primitive-to-primitive ←
19:07:35 <ChrisW> action: axel to accomodate casting functions in a well defined manner
ACTION: axel to accomodate casting functions in a well defined manner ←
19:07:35 <trackbot> Created ACTION-740 - Accomodate casting functions in a well defined manner [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-740 - Accomodate casting functions in a well defined manner [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-04-22]. ←
19:07:57 <sandro> subtopic: owl:rational
19:08:02 <sandro> sandro: anyone want to argue for it.
Sandro Hawke: anyone want to argue for it. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:08:24 <AxelPolleres> csma: who wants owl:rational?
Christian de Sainte Marie: who wants owl:rational? ←
19:09:13 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: we do not include owl:rational closing issue-81
PROPOSED: we do not include owl:rational closing ISSUE-81 ←
19:10:22 <sandro> why not have it?
Sandro Hawke: why not have it? ←
19:10:29 <sandro> Gary: Because implementing it is a pain
Gary Hallmark: Because implementing it is a pain [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:10:56 <AdrianP> +1
Adrian Paschke: +1 ←
19:10:59 <AxelPolleres> +1
+1 ←
19:11:03 <DaveReynolds> +1
Dave Reynolds: +1 ←
19:11:06 <sandro> sandro: but you could specify small enough precision requirements (so you can just use double)....?
Sandro Hawke: but you could specify small enough precision requirements (so you can just use double)....? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:11:06 <johnhall> +1
19:11:22 <AxelPolleres> kifer: this wouldn't be the most difficult thing to do.
Michael Kifer: this wouldn't be the most difficult thing to do. ←
19:11:51 <sandro> gary: That's not what users will be expecting. [[ They'll assume 1/3 + 1/3 == 2/3 not 0.6666666666666667 ]]
Gary Hallmark: That's not what users will be expecting. [[ They'll assume 1/3 + 1/3 == 2/3 not 0.6666666666666667 ]] [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:12:26 <sandro> +0
Sandro Hawke: +0 ←
19:12:41 <AxelPolleres> jos: arithmetics only defined for a subset, that seems to be problematic and unintuitive.
Jos de Bruijn: arithmetics only defined for a subset, that seems to be problematic and unintuitive. ←
19:12:51 <csma> RESOLVED: : we do not include owl:rational (closing issue-81)
RESOLVED: : we do not include owl:rational (closing ISSUE-81) ←
19:13:04 <ChrisW> action: Chris to close issue-81
ACTION: Chris to close ISSUE-81 ←
19:13:04 <trackbot> Created ACTION-741 - Close issue-81 [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-04-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-741 - Close ISSUE-81 [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-04-22]. ←
19:13:08 <ChrisW> rrsagent, pointer?
Christopher Welty: rrsagent, pointer? ←
19:13:08 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc#T19-13-08
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc#T19-13-08 ←
19:13:36 <ChrisW> action: chris to respond to OWL WG public comment response
ACTION: chris to respond to OWL WG public comment response ←
19:13:36 <trackbot> Created ACTION-742 - Respond to OWL WG public comment response [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-04-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-742 - Respond to OWL WG public comment response [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-04-22]. ←
19:15:33 <sandro> axel: x times x ....
Axel Polleres: x times x .... [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:16:07 <sandro> chrisw: But the type signature of times is what it is, eg decimal x decimal -> decimal
Christopher Welty: But the type signature of times is what it is, eg decimal x decimal -> decimal [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:17:11 <AxelPolleres> p(X) :- X*X = 2.
p(X) :- X*X = 2. ←
19:17:11 <AxelPolleres> q(Y) :- X*X = Y, p(X).
q(Y) :- X*X = Y, p(X). ←
19:17:12 <AxelPolleres> would NOT entail q(2).
would NOT entail q(2). ←
19:17:19 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profiles#Entities_3
Sandro Hawke: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profiles#Entities_3 ←
19:18:37 <AxelPolleres> jos:it looks like there is an error in the owl2 spec.
Jos de Bruijn: it looks like there is an error in the owl2 spec. ←
19:18:56 <AxelPolleres> ... rdfs:Literal is not a datatype according to the spec.
... rdfs:Literal is not a datatype according to the spec. ←
19:18:57 <sandro> "The built-in datatype rdfs:Literal denotes any set that contains the union of the value spaces of all datatypes in the datatype map. "
Sandro Hawke: "The built-in datatype rdfs:Literal denotes any set that contains the union of the value spaces of all datatypes in the datatype map. " ←
19:20:20 <sandro> jos: There is no way to access the irrationals.
Jos de Bruijn: There is no way to access the irrationals. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:21:02 <sandro> chrisw: Axel, your strange lack-of-entailment exists, regardless of owl:real.
Christopher Welty: Axel, your strange lack-of-entailment exists, regardless of owl:real. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:21:09 <AxelPolleres> axel: having a datatype real "suggests: that the example would work
Axel Polleres: having a datatype real "suggests: that the example would work ←
19:21:29 <AxelPolleres> s/suggests:/suggests"/
s/suggests:/suggests"/ ←
19:21:39 <sandro> sandro: but the presence of owl:real makes folks more likely to be bothered by it.
Sandro Hawke: but the presence of owl:real makes folks more likely to be bothered by it. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:22:23 <AxelPolleres> chrisw: break now and move to extensibility or ISSUES-95 ISSUES-95 then.
Christopher Welty: break now and move to extensibility or ISSUES-95 ISSUES-95 then. ←
19:23:03 <AxelPolleres> s/extensibility/ISSUE-57/
19:23:05 <AxelPolleres> ... I like to close on the issues after the break.
... I like to close on the issues after the break. ←
19:23:31 <AxelPolleres> ... let's do 5 more minutes on extensibility.
... let's do 5 more minutes on extensibility. ←
19:24:02 <AxelPolleres> sandro: cool mechanism for extensibility would be great but not manageable in time. so let's do something simple.
Sandro Hawke: cool mechanism for extensibility would be great but not manageable in time. so let's do something simple. ←
19:25:14 <AxelPolleres> ... e.g. PRD rewriteable to Core should be interchangeable.
... e.g. PRD rewriteable to Core should be interchangeable. ←
19:25:50 <AxelPolleres> csma: I am sad about the non-interoperability.
Christian de Sainte Marie: I am sad about the non-interoperability. ←
19:26:54 <sandro> csma: this means: drop bounded quantifiers in PRD
Christian de Sainte Marie: this means: drop bounded quantifiers in PRD [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:27:24 <AxelPolleres> ... consequence for PRD: We shall remove bounded quantifiers in this version of PRD.
... consequence for PRD: We shall remove bounded quantifiers in this version of PRD. ←
19:27:37 <sandro> csma: Everything that CAN be written in Core, MUST be expressed in Core.
Christian de Sainte Marie: Everything that CAN be written in Core, MUST be expressed in Core. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:27:47 <sandro> gary: then revisit no-nested-function-symbols.
Gary Hallmark: then revisit no-nested-function-symbols. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:28:04 <AxelPolleres> gary: nested function symbols also need to be revisited.
Gary Hallmark: nested function symbols also need to be revisited. ←
19:28:16 <AxelPolleres> jos: does that also mean you remove assert?
Jos de Bruijn: does that also mean you remove assert? ←
19:28:48 <sandro> csma: Assert will not be used if the ONLY action is Assert, but if there are RETRACT, NEW, MODIFY, then.
Christian de Sainte Marie: Assert will not be used if the ONLY action is Assert, but if there are RETRACT, NEW, MODIFY, then. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:28:55 <sandro> gary: conjuncts in the head in Core>
Gary Hallmark: conjuncts in the head in Core> [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:28:58 <DaveReynolds> Core currently does have nested function symbols in the body
Dave Reynolds: Core currently does have nested function symbols in the body ←
19:29:03 <sandro> harold: yes, it was removed.
Harold Boley: yes, it was removed. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:29:17 <sandro> Gary: Put nested functions and conjuncts in head back into Core.
Gary Hallmark: Put nested functions and conjuncts in head back into Core. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:29:23 <DaveReynolds> s/function symbols/external functions/
Dave Reynolds: s/function symbols/external functions/ ←
19:30:27 <sandro> kifer: I think it was a mistake to remove conjunction in the head.
Michael Kifer: I think it was a mistake to remove conjunction in the head. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:30:43 <sandro> kifer: (that is -- we didn't mean to remove it. it's just a typo.)
Michael Kifer: (that is -- we didn't mean to remove it. it's just a typo.) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
19:30:48 <DaveReynolds> We did get rid of disjunction at one point but the wg voted to put it back in :-(
Dave Reynolds: We did get rid of disjunction at one point but the wg voted to put it back in :-( ←
19:31:13 <AxelPolleres> BREAK
BREAK ←
19:32:29 <AxelPolleres> no BREAK...
no BREAK... ←
19:32:50 <AxelPolleres> chrisw: what was the rationale for not having conjunction in heads in Core?
Christopher Welty: what was the rationale for not having conjunction in heads in Core? ←
19:33:09 <AxelPolleres> dave: it wasn't in the minimum set we started with and it wasn't claimed in by anybody.
Dave Reynolds: it wasn't in the minimum set we started with and it wasn't claimed in by anybody. ←
19:33:45 <Zakim> -DaveReynolds
Zakim IRC Bot: -DaveReynolds ←
19:34:09 <Zakim> -W3C
Zakim IRC Bot: -W3C ←
19:34:11 <Zakim> SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM has ended ←
19:34:12 <Zakim> Attendees were +44.145.441.aaaa, DaveReynolds, W3C
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were +44.145.441.aaaa, DaveReynolds, W3C ←
20:07:43 <sandro> DaveReynolds, do you want us to get back on the phone?
(No events recorded for 33 minutes)
Sandro Hawke: DaveReynolds, do you want us to get back on the phone? ←
20:07:53 <DaveReynolds> Yes please
Dave Reynolds: Yes please ←
20:07:58 <DaveReynolds> Just about to dial in
Dave Reynolds: Just about to dial in ←
<sandro> scribe: johnhall
(Scribe set to John Hall)
20:08:07 <johnhall> CW: Discussed in break - ground lists, safe lists (variable only if bound oustdie list), built-ins
Christopher Welty: Discussed in break - ground lists, safe lists (variable only if bound oustdie list), built-ins ←
20:08:30 <johnhall> CW: preferences?
Christopher Welty: preferences? ←
20:08:33 <sandro> chrisw: 2 is a little more expressive than 1
Christopher Welty: 2 is a little more expressive than 1 [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
20:08:34 <johnhall> Jos: 1
Jos de Bruijn: 1 ←
20:08:50 <johnhall> Jos: no lists in Core
Jos de Bruijn: no lists in Core ←
20:09:05 <johnhall> csma: 4th option is no list at all
Christian de Sainte Marie: 4th option is no list at all ←
20:09:15 <Zakim> SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM has now started
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM has now started ←
20:09:22 <Zakim> +DaveReynolds
Zakim IRC Bot: +DaveReynolds ←
20:09:41 <johnhall> Michael: ground lists strightforward
Michael Kifer: ground lists strightforward ←
20:09:57 <johnhall> Michael: safe lists more difficult
Michael Kifer: safe lists more difficult ←
20:10:03 <sandro> jos: for 2, you have to support constructive terms in your engine ... it's basically the same as function terms.
Jos de Bruijn: for 2, you have to support constructive terms in your engine ... it's basically the same as function terms. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
20:10:57 <johnhall> csma: argument - inorder to define built-ins on core, you need the ground lists
Christian de Sainte Marie: argument - inorder to define built-ins on core, you need the ground lists ←
20:11:09 <sandro> DaveReynolds?
Sandro Hawke: DaveReynolds? ←
20:11:18 <csma> (and that's builtins that are useful, not ground lists)
Christian de Sainte Marie: (and that's builtins that are useful, not ground lists) ←
20:11:33 <johnhall> Michael: how hard to add safe lists for Datalog engines?
Michael Kifer: how hard to add safe lists for Datalog engines? ←
20:11:44 <johnhall> CW: preferences?
Christopher Welty: preferences? ←
20:11:45 <Zakim> +W3C
Zakim IRC Bot: +W3C ←
20:12:07 <ChrisW> zakim, who is on the phone?
Christopher Welty: zakim, who is on the phone? ←
20:12:07 <Zakim> On the phone I see DaveReynolds, W3C
Zakim IRC Bot: On the phone I see DaveReynolds, W3C ←
20:12:20 <johnhall> kifer: how hard to implement lists with variables?
Michael Kifer: how hard to implement lists with variables? ←
20:12:41 <johnhall> DR: variable? Prolog unbound term?
Dave Reynolds: variable? Prolog unbound term? ←
20:12:48 <johnhall> DR: would be hard
Dave Reynolds: would be hard ←
20:13:00 <johnhall> GH: if bound?
Gary Hallmark: if bound? ←
20:13:54 <johnhall> cke: differenes between 1 and 2 is for 1 can do staic analysis, 2 dynamic in execution
Changhai Ke: differenes between 1 and 2 is for 1 can do staic analysis, 2 dynamic in execution ←
20:14:38 <DaveReynolds> Unification is not that hard so long as the asserted data is variable-free, just pattern matching.
Dave Reynolds: Unification is not that hard so long as the asserted data is variable-free, just pattern matching. ←
20:14:55 <johnhall> Gary:go back to charter - we should have lists
Gary Hallmark: go back to charter - we should have lists ←
20:15:08 <johnhall> Gary: should be in core
Gary Hallmark: should be in core ←
20:15:38 <johnhall> Michael: Core could do 1, PRD could do 2 as an extension
Michael Kifer: Core could do 1, PRD could do 2 as an extension ←
20:15:53 <DaveReynolds> Could you post what 1, 2 refer to?
Dave Reynolds: Could you post what 1, 2 refer to? ←
20:15:56 <csma> (1 is: "ground lists + builtins in Core; 2: is Core has safe lists = variables allowed in lists only if they are bound outside + builtins)
Christian de Sainte Marie: (1 is: "ground lists + builtins in Core; 2: is Core has safe lists = variables allowed in lists only if they are bound outside + builtins) ←
20:16:32 <johnhall> 1 is ground lists, 2 is safe lists
1 is ground lists, 2 is safe lists ←
20:16:32 <csma> (that's written on the wall)
Christian de Sainte Marie: (that's written on the wall) ←
20:16:52 <johnhall> But Dave can't see the wall
But Dave can't see the wall ←
20:16:58 <csma> 5there is also 3: no lits in Core°
Christian de Sainte Marie: 5there is also 3: no lits in Core° ←
20:17:05 <DaveReynolds> Lists without constructing them sound pretty useless.
Dave Reynolds: Lists without constructing them sound pretty useless. ←
20:17:43 <DaveReynolds> Stable position would be to forgo E-S safe, stick to simple safety, allow non-termination, have list constructor builtins
Dave Reynolds: Stable position would be to forgo E-S safe, stick to simple safety, allow non-termination, have list constructor builtins ←
20:17:56 <johnhall> Michael: can define built ins to construct
Michael Kifer: can define built ins to construct ←
20:18:03 <DaveReynolds> Second stable position would be no-non-termination and so no useful list constructors.
Dave Reynolds: Second stable position would be no-non-termination and so no useful list constructors. ←
20:18:22 <johnhall> Axel: safeness?
Axel Polleres: safeness? ←
20:18:33 <johnhall> Michael: out of the window
Michael Kifer: out of the window ←
20:19:32 <johnhall> Michael: need const, then can construct infinitely long list
Michael Kifer: need const, then can construct infinitely long list ←
20:19:50 <johnhall> Gary: not saying Core has to be finite
Gary Hallmark: not saying Core has to be finite ←
20:20:14 <sandro> gary: safeness is about bottom-up evaluation, not finite operation (termination)
Gary Hallmark: safeness is about bottom-up evaluation, not finite operation (termination) [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
20:21:35 <johnhall> Dave: is purpose of safety in core to support bottom-up evaluation, or termination for Datalog engines?
Dave Reynolds: is purpose of safety in core to support bottom-up evaluation, or termination for Datalog engines? ←
20:22:20 <AxelPolleres> dave: you meant top-down, not bottom, up... yes?
Dave Reynolds: you meant top-down, not bottom, up... yes? [ Scribe Assist by Axel Polleres ] ←
20:22:30 <sandro> dave: either have recursive structures or have finite-operation. pick one camp or the other.
Dave Reynolds: either have recursive structures or have finite-operation. pick one camp or the other. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
20:22:44 <DaveReynolds> Axel - I mean forward chaining
Dave Reynolds: Axel - I mean forward chaining ←
20:22:44 <AxelPolleres> datalog = bottom-up
Axel Polleres: datalog = bottom-up ←
20:22:46 <sandro> I translate that to "forward-chaining".
Sandro Hawke: I translate that to "forward-chaining". ←
20:22:59 <johnhall> Michael: proposal was to have first, tail, const
Michael Kifer: proposal was to have first, tail, const ←
20:23:08 <sandro> s/const/cons/
Sandro Hawke: s/const/cons/ ←
20:23:14 <johnhall> cke: append?
Changhai Ke: append? ←
20:23:17 <josb> yes, standard safeness we have now is for bottom-up evaluation
Jos de Bruijn: yes, standard safeness we have now is for bottom-up evaluation ←
20:23:28 <DaveReynolds> If we have cons then we should drop E-S safe
Dave Reynolds: If we have cons then we should drop E-S safe ←
20:23:31 <johnhall> Michael: for PRD need more
Michael Kifer: for PRD need more ←
20:24:46 <johnhall> ChrisW: ground list plus first, rest, cons?
Christopher Welty: ground list plus first, rest, cons? ←
20:24:50 <AxelPolleres> Dave, I don't like that... we would have the effect that strongly safe rulesets which use lists are probably useless in practical.
Axel Polleres: Dave, I don't like that... we would have the effect that strongly safe rulesets which use lists are probably useless in practical. ←
20:24:53 <johnhall> cke: why cons?
Changhai Ke: why cons? ←
20:25:07 <johnhall> Michael: is the basic one for others
Michael Kifer: is the basic one for others ←
20:25:17 <AxelPolleres> I could just view cons as yet another built-in, that's it.
Axel Polleres: I could just view cons as yet another built-in, that's it. ←
20:25:26 <DaveReynolds> Axel - exactly, strongly safe means that rulesets with lists are useless. You can have lists. or strongly safe but not both.
Dave Reynolds: Axel - exactly, strongly safe means that rulesets with lists are useless. You can have lists. or strongly safe but not both. ←
20:25:42 <AxelPolleres> S-E- safe still has its merits.
Axel Polleres: S-E- safe still has its merits. ←
20:26:06 <johnhall> Gary: look at Ch 15 Xpath
Gary Hallmark: look at Ch 15 Xpath ←
20:26:12 <AxelPolleres> it appears that, together with some built-ins, it moght still make sense.
Axel Polleres: it appears that, together with some built-ins, it moght still make sense. ←
20:26:27 <csma> http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/#sequence-functions
Christian de Sainte Marie: http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/#sequence-functions ←
20:26:29 <sandro> Chrisw: Ground lists, plut first/rest/constructors ?
Christopher Welty: Ground lists, plut first/rest/constructors ? [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
20:26:36 <johnhall> ChrisW: doe we have consensus on ground + first, rest, cons?
Christopher Welty: doe we have consensus on ground + first, rest, cons? ←
20:27:28 <johnhall> Axel: if you require safe rules, others cannot be built from cons
Axel Polleres: if you require safe rules, others cannot be built from cons ←
20:28:20 <sandro> chrisw: These are immutable lists.
Christopher Welty: These are immutable lists. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
20:28:45 <johnhall> Harold: in ground list can replace elements
Harold Boley: in ground list can replace elements ←
20:29:52 <AxelPolleres> emulating other list built-ins with cons needs cons in rule heads, or at least S-E-unsafe use of cons().
Axel Polleres: emulating other list built-ins with cons needs cons in rule heads, or at least S-E-unsafe use of cons(). ←
20:29:55 <sandro> cons == prepend
Sandro Hawke: cons == prepend ←
20:30:07 <sandro> cons == make new list with added element.
Sandro Hawke: cons == make new list with added element. ←
20:30:24 <johnhall> ChrisW: close soon. What do we agree on?
Christopher Welty: close soon. What do we agree on? ←
20:30:29 <Harold> ?x = List(a b c d) AND ?y = func:replace(2 beta ?x) will bind ?y to List(a beta c d)
Harold Boley: ?x = List(a b c d) AND ?y = func:replace(2 beta ?x) will bind ?y to List(a beta c d) ←
20:30:38 <johnhall> Gary: ground lists with Xpath operators
Gary Hallmark: ground lists with Xpath operators ←
20:30:56 <johnhall> csma: what perdicates?
Christian de Sainte Marie: what perdicates? ←
20:30:56 <sandro> PROPOSED: Core will have Ground Lists with basic XPath "Sequence" operators.
PROPOSED: Core will have Ground Lists with basic XPath "Sequence" operators. ←
20:31:05 <johnhall> Gary: empty and exists
Gary Hallmark: empty and exists ←
20:31:18 <DaveReynolds> -1 Xpath sequences are not nested, they are flat
Dave Reynolds: -1 Xpath sequences are not nested, they are flat ←
20:31:46 <sandro> PROPOSED: Core will have immutable Ground Lists (no variables stored inside the list) with basic XPath "Sequence" operators.
PROPOSED: Core will have immutable Ground Lists (no variables stored inside the list) with basic XPath "Sequence" operators. ←
20:31:47 <AxelPolleres> member
Axel Polleres: member ←
20:31:47 <AxelPolleres> first
Axel Polleres: first ←
20:31:47 <AxelPolleres> last
Axel Polleres: last ←
20:31:47 <AxelPolleres> length
Axel Polleres: length ←
20:32:35 <sandro> PROPOSED: Core will have immutable Ground Lists (no variables stored inside the list) with builtins paralleling the XPath "Sequence" functions (but this isn't a real XPath sequence, since it can be nested, etc)
PROPOSED: Core will have immutable Ground Lists (no variables stored inside the list) with builtins paralleling the XPath "Sequence" functions (but this isn't a real XPath sequence, since it can be nested, etc) ←
20:34:26 <johnhall> csma: see Changhai's wish list (slides)
Christian de Sainte Marie: see Changhai's wish list (slides) ←
20:35:04 <johnhall> csma: some Xpath are not relevant
Christian de Sainte Marie: some Xpath are not relevant ←
20:35:10 <sandro> PROPOSED: Core will have immutable Ground Lists (no variables stored inside the list) with builtins generally paralleling the XPath "Sequence" functions (but this isn't a real XPath sequence, since it can be nested, etc)
PROPOSED: Core will have immutable Ground Lists (no variables stored inside the list) with builtins generally paralleling the XPath "Sequence" functions (but this isn't a real XPath sequence, since it can be nested, etc) ←
20:35:16 <DaveReynolds> Is the proposal to remove strong safety at the same time?
Dave Reynolds: Is the proposal to remove strong safety at the same time? ←
20:35:31 <sandro> PROPOSED: Core will have immutable Ground Lists (no variables stored inside the list) with builtins generally paralleling the XPath "Sequence" functions (but this isn't a real XPath sequence, since it can be nested, etc). (Actual builtins to be settled in the future, soon)
PROPOSED: Core will have immutable Ground Lists (no variables stored inside the list) with builtins generally paralleling the XPath "Sequence" functions (but this isn't a real XPath sequence, since it can be nested, etc). (Actual builtins to be settled in the future, soon) ←
20:36:46 <sandro> axel: Sure, if you're E-S-Safe, you can't do much with lists. That's okay.
Axel Polleres: Sure, if you're E-S-Safe, you can't do much with lists. That's okay. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
20:36:47 <johnhall> ChrisW: safety is not a requirement in Core
Christopher Welty: safety is not a requirement in Core ←
20:38:18 <sandro> Gary: Lots of arithmetic violates strong safeness again.
Gary Hallmark: Lots of arithmetic violates strong safeness again. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
20:38:49 <sandro> Axel: but if we get rid of strong safeness, then many answer set programming systems wont be able to support Core.
Axel Polleres: but if we get rid of strong safeness, then many answer set programming systems wont be able to support Core. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
20:38:52 <johnhall> Axel: Datalog engines are not fully covered
Axel Polleres: Datalog engines are not fully covered ←
20:39:06 <sandro> axel: s-models, clasp,
Axel Polleres: s-models, clasp, [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
20:39:38 <johnhall> ChrisW: we have still not resolved safeness
Christopher Welty: we have still not resolved safeness ←
20:40:00 <sandro> PROPOSED: Core will have immutable Ground Lists (no variables stored inside the list) with builtins generally paralleling the XPath "Sequence" functions (but this isn't a real XPath sequence, since it can be nested, etc). (Actual builtins to be settled in the future, soon) (If we have strong safeness in Core, then this stuff will be mostly useless in Core.)
PROPOSED: Core will have immutable Ground Lists (no variables stored inside the list) with builtins generally paralleling the XPath "Sequence" functions (but this isn't a real XPath sequence, since it can be nested, etc). (Actual builtins to be settled in the future, soon) (If we have strong safeness in Core, then this stuff will be mostly useless in Core.) ←
20:40:15 <johnhall> ChrisW: BLD does not require safeness
Christopher Welty: BLD does not require safeness ←
20:40:38 <DaveReynolds> OK
Dave Reynolds: OK ←
20:40:57 <johnhall> ChrisW: can we save safeness until tomorrow, and decide on lists now?
Christopher Welty: can we save safeness until tomorrow, and decide on lists now? ←
20:40:59 <AdrianP> +1
Adrian Paschke: +1 ←
20:41:02 <GaryHallmark> +1
Gary Hallmark: +1 ←
20:41:07 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
20:41:21 <DaveReynolds> +1
Dave Reynolds: +1 ←
20:41:23 <josb> 0
Jos de Bruijn: 0 ←
20:41:26 <AxelPolleres> 0
Axel Polleres: 0 ←
20:41:30 <cke> +1
Changhai Ke: +1 ←
20:41:39 <Harold> +1
Harold Boley: +1 ←
20:41:43 <johnhall> +1
+1 ←
20:41:45 <ChrisW> 0
20:41:48 <MichaelKifer> +1
Michael Kifer: +1 ←
20:41:53 <sandro> RESOLVED: Core will have immutable Ground Lists (no variables stored inside the list) with builtins generally paralleling the XPath "Sequence" functions (but this isn't a real XPath sequence, since it can be nested, etc). (Actual builtins to be settled in the future, soon) (If we have strong safeness in Core, then this stuff will be mostly useless in Core.)
RESOLVED: Core will have immutable Ground Lists (no variables stored inside the list) with builtins generally paralleling the XPath "Sequence" functions (but this isn't a real XPath sequence, since it can be nested, etc). (Actual builtins to be settled in the future, soon) (If we have strong safeness in Core, then this stuff will be mostly useless in Core.) ←
20:42:03 <sandro> issue-94?
20:42:03 <trackbot> ISSUE-94 -- How to represent object fields and methods in RIF; esp. interoperability with Java OO model? -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-94 -- How to represent object fields and methods in RIF; esp. interoperability with Java OO model? -- OPEN ←
20:42:03 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/94
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/94 ←
20:42:04 <johnhall> Closes Issue 94
20:42:19 <sandro> issue-95?
20:42:19 <trackbot> ISSUE-95 -- Does RIF need a primitive data type (and associated builtins) for lists? -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-95 -- Does RIF need a primitive data type (and associated builtins) for lists? -- OPEN ←
20:42:19 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/95
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/95 ←
20:42:28 <AxelPolleres> michael, the function symbols in dlv are not yet part of the standard distribution, AFAIK.
Axel Polleres: michael, the function symbols in dlv are not yet part of the standard distribution, AFAIK. ←
20:42:32 <johnhall> Issue 95, not 94
20:43:26 <ChrisW> action: gary to propose builtins for lists based on xpath sequence
ACTION: gary to propose builtins for lists based on xpath sequence ←
20:43:26 <trackbot> Created ACTION-743 - Propose builtins for lists based on xpath sequence [on Gary Hallmark - due 2009-04-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-743 - Propose builtins for lists based on xpath sequence [on Gary Hallmark - due 2009-04-22]. ←
20:43:44 <sandro> Topic: Extensibility
20:44:23 <ChrisW> q?
Christopher Welty: q? ←
20:44:35 <johnhall> ChrisW: csma proposed - when you have something expressible in Core, you have to use Core syntax
Christopher Welty: csma proposed - when you have something expressible in Core, you have to use Core syntax ←
20:44:45 <csma> PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism at this stage; anything that can be expressed in Core MUST be (in the XML syntax)
PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism at this stage; anything that can be expressed in Core MUST be (in the XML syntax) ←
20:45:40 <sandro> Jos: this would require BLD producers to axiomatize equality.
Jos de Bruijn: this would require BLD producers to axiomatize equality. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
20:46:56 <johnhall> sandro: why would this be bad?
Sandro Hawke: why would this be bad? ←
20:47:52 <sandro> (is this really completely unacceptable...?)
Sandro Hawke: (is this really completely unacceptable...?) ←
20:48:19 <johnhall> ChrisW: identify the cases where the difference seems arbitrary?
Christopher Welty: identify the cases where the difference seems arbitrary? ←
20:48:41 <johnhall> csma: not arbitrary - sometimes just has the same effect
Christian de Sainte Marie: not arbitrary - sometimes just has the same effect ←
20:51:11 <johnhall> csma: purpose of common core is interoperability
Christian de Sainte Marie: purpose of common core is interoperability ←
20:51:44 <johnhall> ... if some things do not have to be expressed in core, thos things are not interoperable
... if some things do not have to be expressed in core, thos things are not interoperable ←
20:52:26 <johnhall> Sandro: equality is a sticking point
Sandro Hawke: equality is a sticking point ←
20:53:02 <johnhall> csma: if you can statically decide, then must be expressed in Core syntax
Christian de Sainte Marie: if you can statically decide, then must be expressed in Core syntax ←
20:53:30 <sandro> PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism at this stage; any syntactic form that can in all cases be expressed in Core, without super-linear blow-up MUST be (in the XML syntax)
PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism at this stage; any syntactic form that can in all cases be expressed in Core, without super-linear blow-up MUST be (in the XML syntax) ←
20:53:42 <johnhall> ... interoperatbility is not relevant for BLD?
... interoperatbility is not relevant for BLD? ←
20:54:35 <johnhall> Michael: why does anyone have to translate to Core - unless they want interoperability?
Michael Kifer: why does anyone have to translate to Core - unless they want interoperability? ←
20:54:53 <csma> PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism.
PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism. ←
20:55:08 <johnhall> Gary: cannot legislate - too many tricky cases
Gary Hallmark: cannot legislate - too many tricky cases ←
20:55:45 <sandro> PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism at this stage; we tell PRD and BLD producers they SHOULD translate to Core any rulesets which can be translated to Core with identical semantics.
PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism at this stage; we tell PRD and BLD producers they SHOULD translate to Core any rulesets which can be translated to Core with identical semantics. ←
20:55:54 <johnhall> ... say 'should' rather than 'must'
... say 'should' rather than 'must' ←
20:56:30 <AxelPolleres> I don't understand "identical" semantics
Axel Polleres: I don't understand "identical" semantics ←
20:56:37 <sandro> PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism at this stage; we tell PRD and BLD producers they SHOULD translate to Core any rulesets which can be translated to Core.
PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism at this stage; we tell PRD and BLD producers they SHOULD translate to Core any rulesets which can be translated to Core. ←
20:56:41 <johnhall> josb: should have a mechanism to detect if rules are redundant
Jos de Bruijn: should have a mechanism to detect if rules are redundant ←
20:57:13 <AxelPolleres> I don't understand "can be translated"... what kind of equivalence do we talk about here?!?
Axel Polleres: I don't understand "can be translated"... what kind of equivalence do we talk about here?!? ←
20:57:25 <sandro> PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism at this stage; our specs for PRD and BLD say producers they SHOULD translate to Core any rulesets which can be translated to Core, and we'll give some specific examples they should use (eg for removing Do/Assert).
PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism at this stage; our specs for PRD and BLD say producers they SHOULD translate to Core any rulesets which can be translated to Core, and we'll give some specific examples they should use (eg for removing Do/Assert). ←
20:57:31 <johnhall> Michael: tell people to write in Core, provide algorithm for translation to dialects
Michael Kifer: tell people to write in Core, provide algorithm for translation to dialects ←
20:57:38 <AxelPolleres> q+
Axel Polleres: q+ ←
20:57:54 <johnhall> csma: the algorithm was the extensibility mechanism
Christian de Sainte Marie: the algorithm was the extensibility mechanism ←
20:58:09 <DaveReynolds> q+
Dave Reynolds: q+ ←
20:59:13 <johnhall> Axel: what does 'can be translated' mean?
Axel Polleres: what does 'can be translated' mean? ←
20:59:26 <sandro> PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism at this stage. We'll provide some translations to Core (such as removing Do/Assert in some case) and tell producers they SHOULD do them.
PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism at this stage. We'll provide some translations to Core (such as removing Do/Assert in some case) and tell producers they SHOULD do them. ←
20:59:47 <josb> I can support this one
Jos de Bruijn: I can support this one ←
21:00:07 <johnhall> DAve: by 'producers' rule set authors or translators?
Dave Reynolds: by 'producers' rule set authors or translators? ←
21:00:21 <johnhall> Sandro: translators
Sandro Hawke: translators ←
21:01:26 <johnhall> Harold: this is about whole set of dialects - best practice guidance about using the lowest
Harold Boley: this is about whole set of dialects - best practice guidance about using the lowest ←
21:01:42 <johnhall> ... where to place the guidance
... where to place the guidance ←
21:02:17 <johnhall> ChrisW: rules authors - use lowest common case; translators - translate where you can
Christopher Welty: rules authors - use lowest common case; translators - translate where you can ←
21:03:04 <DaveReynolds> q-
Dave Reynolds: q- ←
21:03:27 <johnhall> Michael: there will be different plug-ins, with options to save in Core - which may not be possible for some
Michael Kifer: there will be different plug-ins, with options to save in Core - which may not be possible for some ←
21:04:07 <sandro> PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism at this stage. We'll provide some translations to Core (such as removing Do/Assert in some case) and tell producers they SHOULD do them.
PROPOSED: We do not define an extensibility mechanism at this stage. We'll provide some translations to Core (such as removing Do/Assert in some case) and tell producers they SHOULD do them. ←
21:04:58 <sandro> PROPOSED: We will not define a fallback mechanism at this stage. We'll provide some translations to Core (such as removing Do/Assert in some case) and tell producers they SHOULD do them.
PROPOSED: We will not define a fallback mechanism at this stage. We'll provide some translations to Core (such as removing Do/Assert in some case) and tell producers they SHOULD do them. ←
21:05:21 <johnhall> ChrisW: this is about an explicit mechansm for fall-backs
Christopher Welty: this is about an explicit mechansm for fall-backs ←
21:05:34 <Harold> +1
Harold Boley: +1 ←
21:05:36 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
21:05:48 <josb> +1
Jos de Bruijn: +1 ←
21:05:50 <AdrianP> +1
Adrian Paschke: +1 ←
21:05:52 <MichaelKifer> +1
Michael Kifer: +1 ←
21:05:53 <cke> +1
Changhai Ke: +1 ←
21:06:02 <sandro> PROPOSED: We will not define a fallback mechanism at this stage. We'll provide some translations to Core (such as removing Do/Assert in some case) and tell producers they SHOULD do them. (Closing issue-57)
PROPOSED: We will not define a fallback mechanism at this stage. We'll provide some translations to Core (such as removing Do/Assert in some case) and tell producers they SHOULD do them. (Closing ISSUE-57) ←
21:06:06 <sandro> issue-57?
21:06:06 <trackbot> ISSUE-57 -- Does RIF specify an extensibility mechanism? -- OPEN
Trackbot IRC Bot: ISSUE-57 -- Does RIF specify an extensibility mechanism? -- OPEN ←
21:06:06 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/57
Trackbot IRC Bot: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/57 ←
21:06:08 <DaveReynolds> +1
Dave Reynolds: +1 ←
21:06:20 <johnhall> 0
0 ←
21:06:28 <sandro> RESOLVED: We will not define a fallback mechanism at this stage. We'll provide some translations to Core (such as removing Do/Assert in some case) and tell producers they SHOULD do them. (Closing issue-57)
RESOLVED: We will not define a fallback mechanism at this stage. We'll provide some translations to Core (such as removing Do/Assert in some case) and tell producers they SHOULD do them. (Closing ISSUE-57) ←
21:07:48 <sandro> sandro: I think BLD should drop NAU's and include some text about axiomatizing equality.
Sandro Hawke: I think BLD should drop NAU's and include some text about axiomatizing equality. [ Scribe Assist by Sandro Hawke ] ←
21:08:17 <sandro> action: gary add text to PRD about how folks should get rid of do/assert when they can.
ACTION: gary add text to PRD about how folks should get rid of do/assert when they can. ←
21:08:17 <trackbot> Created ACTION-744 - Add text to PRD about how folks should get rid of do/assert when they can. [on Gary Hallmark - due 2009-04-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-744 - Add text to PRD about how folks should get rid of do/assert when they can. [on Gary Hallmark - due 2009-04-22]. ←
21:09:31 <johnhall> Topic: Object Representation (ISSUE-94, Cardinality in Core)
21:09:39 <sandro> action: harold draft some text for BLD about consumers doing translations-to-Core when they can.
ACTION: harold draft some text for BLD about consumers doing translations-to-Core when they can. ←
21:09:39 <trackbot> Created ACTION-745 - Draft some text for BLD about consumers doing translations-to-Core when they can. [on Harold Boley - due 2009-04-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-745 - Draft some text for BLD about consumers doing translations-to-Core when they can. [on Harold Boley - due 2009-04-22]. ←
21:09:49 <csma> PROPOSED: Do not change anything (taking into account that PRD has an action with replacement semantics: Modify) (closing issue-94)
PROPOSED: Do not change anything (taking into account that PRD has an action with replacement semantics: Modify) (closing ISSUE-94) ←
21:10:36 <johnhall> ChrisW: Cardinality in Core?
Christopher Welty: Cardinality in Core? ←
21:10:51 <johnhall> Michael: too complicated
Michael Kifer: too complicated ←
21:11:26 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
21:11:33 <josb> +1
Jos de Bruijn: +1 ←
21:11:35 <johnhall> csma: no time to add new things that will raise new issues with no time to resolve
Christian de Sainte Marie: no time to add new things that will raise new issues with no time to resolve ←
21:11:39 <DaveReynolds> +1
Dave Reynolds: +1 ←
21:11:45 <Harold> +1
Harold Boley: +1 ←
21:11:48 <cke> +1
Changhai Ke: +1 ←
21:11:50 <AdrianP> +1
Adrian Paschke: +1 ←
21:12:48 <johnhall> Michael: will not be the same in dialects as in Core
Michael Kifer: will not be the same in dialects as in Core ←
21:12:56 <johnhall> ChrisW: has to be
Christopher Welty: has to be ←
21:13:21 <johnhall> Michael: same semantics, different repesentation
Michael Kifer: same semantics, different repesentation ←
21:14:07 <AxelPolleres> +1
Axel Polleres: +1 ←
21:14:07 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-94, without adding cardinality constraints, and with PRD having an action with replacement semantics (modify).
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-94, without adding cardinality constraints, and with PRD having an action with replacement semantics (modify). ←
21:14:36 <cke> +1
Changhai Ke: +1 ←
21:14:38 <sandro> PROPOSED: Close issue-94, without adding cardinality constraints, or other object-representation beyond frames, and with PRD having an action with replacement semantics (modify).
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-94, without adding cardinality constraints, or other object-representation beyond frames, and with PRD having an action with replacement semantics (modify). ←
21:14:50 <AdrianP> +1
Adrian Paschke: +1 ←
21:14:51 <MichaelKifer> +1
Michael Kifer: +1 ←
21:14:54 <sandro> +1
Sandro Hawke: +1 ←
21:14:55 <johnhall> +1
+1 ←
21:14:56 <DaveReynolds> +1
Dave Reynolds: +1 ←
21:14:57 <Harold> +1
Harold Boley: +1 ←
21:15:11 <AxelPolleres> +1
Axel Polleres: +1 ←
21:15:12 <ChrisW> +1
Christopher Welty: +1 ←
21:15:14 <GaryHallmark> 0
Gary Hallmark: 0 ←
21:15:18 <sandro> RESOLVED: Close issue-94, without adding cardinality constraints, or other object-representation beyond frames, and with PRD having an action with replacement semantics (modify).
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-94, without adding cardinality constraints, or other object-representation beyond frames, and with PRD having an action with replacement semantics (modify). ←
21:15:36 <ChrisW> Gary: would have prefered to have cardinality constraints
Gary Hallmark: would have prefered to have cardinality constraints [ Scribe Assist by Christopher Welty ] ←
21:15:46 <ChrisW> action: chris to close issue-94
ACTION: chris to close ISSUE-94 ←
21:15:46 <trackbot> Created ACTION-746 - Close issue-94 [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-04-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-746 - Close ISSUE-94 [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-04-22]. ←
21:15:49 <ChrisW> rrsagent, pointer?
Christopher Welty: rrsagent, pointer? ←
21:15:49 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc#T21-15-49
RRSAgent IRC Bot: See http://www.w3.org/2009/04/15-rif-irc#T21-15-49 ←
21:16:08 <ChrisW> action: chris to close issue-57
ACTION: chris to close ISSUE-57 ←
21:16:09 <trackbot> Created ACTION-747 - Close issue-57 [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-04-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-747 - Close ISSUE-57 [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-04-22]. ←
21:16:57 <sandro> thanks, DaveReynolds !
Sandro Hawke: thanks, DaveReynolds ! ←
21:16:58 <ChrisW> bye dave, and thanks
Christopher Welty: bye dave, and thanks ←
21:16:58 <Zakim> -DaveReynolds
Zakim IRC Bot: -DaveReynolds ←
21:17:07 <Zakim> -W3C
Zakim IRC Bot: -W3C ←
21:17:08 <Zakim> SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM has ended
Zakim IRC Bot: SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM has ended ←
21:17:08 <Zakim> Attendees were DaveReynolds, W3C
Zakim IRC Bot: Attendees were DaveReynolds, W3C ←
21:18:24 <johnhall> Topic: XML Schemata
21:18:58 <johnhall> cke: Core
Changhai Ke: Core ←
21:20:21 <johnhall> csma: What has been added?
Christian de Sainte Marie: What has been added? ←
21:20:53 <Harold> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core#Appendix:_XML_Schema_for_RIF-Core
Harold Boley: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core#Appendix:_XML_Schema_for_RIF-Core ←
21:20:57 <johnhall> cke: 'Atomic' was 'atom' and 'frame'
Changhai Ke: 'Atomic' was 'atom' and 'frame' ←
21:21:52 <johnhall> csma: requires that PRD changes as well
Christian de Sainte Marie: requires that PRD changes as well ←
21:22:30 <johnhall> Harold: because 'atomic' should not be in head
Harold Boley: because 'atomic' should not be in head ←
21:24:11 <johnhall> csma: though that 'subclass' had been removed
Christian de Sainte Marie: though that 'subclass' had been removed ←
21:24:31 <johnhall> cke: to check 'subclass' for PRD
Changhai Ke: to check 'subclass' for PRD ←
21:25:43 <johnhall> csma: 'subclass' should be in 'FORMULA', but not in 'ATOMIC'
Christian de Sainte Marie: 'subclass' should be in 'FORMULA', but not in 'ATOMIC' ←
21:28:00 <johnhall> ChrisW: add comment about why 'Atoms' are not 'ATOMIC@
Christopher Welty: add comment about why 'Atoms' are not 'ATOMIC@ ←
21:28:18 <johnhall> 'ATOMIC' not 'ATOMIC@
'ATOMIC' not 'ATOMIC@ ←
21:33:24 <Harold> Equal ::= TERM '=' ( TERM | IRIMETA? 'External' '(' Expr ')' )
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
Harold Boley: Equal ::= TERM '=' ( TERM | IRIMETA? 'External' '(' Expr ')' ) ←
21:33:28 <ChrisW> issue: drop restriction in core that there are no nested externals
ISSUE: drop restriction in core that there are no nested externals ←
21:33:28 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-99 - Drop restriction in core that there are no nested externals ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/99/edit .
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-99 - Drop restriction in core that there are no nested externals ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/99/edit . ←
21:33:37 <johnhall> Michael: drop the restriction that externals cannot be nested
Michael Kifer: drop the restriction that externals cannot be nested ←
21:35:20 <Harold> "Thus, while function applications are not allowed as arguments to predicates, built-in and externally defined functions are permitted inside equalities. "
Harold Boley: "Thus, while function applications are not allowed as arguments to predicates, built-in and externally defined functions are permitted inside equalities. " ←
21:35:41 <Harold> (http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core#Terms_of_RIF-Core)
Harold Boley: (http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core#Terms_of_RIF-Core) ←
21:37:45 <Harold> NmNot ---> InflaNot
Harold Boley: NmNot ---> InflaNot ←
21:38:33 <johnhall> cke: CoreRule
Changhai Ke: CoreRule ←
21:40:18 <johnhall> csma: removed sections because we have decided not to have extension mechanism
Christian de Sainte Marie: removed sections because we have decided not to have extension mechanism ←
21:40:29 <johnhall> cke, not csma
cke, not csma ←
21:41:39 <johnhall> Gary: 'AndAction' should be 'And' in Core
Gary Hallmark: 'AndAction' should be 'And' in Core ←
21:42:36 <johnhall> axel is here, but not in the room at the moment
axel is here, but not in the room at the moment ←
21:43:45 <ChrisW> issue: add and back into Core conclusion
ISSUE: add and back into Core conclusion ←
21:43:45 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-100 - Add and back into Core conclusion ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/100/edit .
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ISSUE-100 - Add and back into Core conclusion ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/100/edit . ←
21:44:44 <johnhall> csma: BLD should have conjunction in head
Christian de Sainte Marie: BLD should have conjunction in head ←
21:45:52 <csma> s/BLD should/we have a resolution that BLD/
Christian de Sainte Marie: s/BLD should/we have a resolution that BLD/ ←
21:51:10 <ChrisW> action: csma to add modify to PRD spec as we defined it
(No events recorded for 5 minutes)
ACTION: csma to add modify to PRD spec as we defined it ←
21:51:11 <trackbot> Created ACTION-748 - Add modify to PRD spec as we defined it [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-04-22].
Trackbot IRC Bot: Created ACTION-748 - Add modify to PRD spec as we defined it [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-04-22]. ←
21:57:29 <Harold> <xs:attribute name="ordered" type="xs:string" fixed="yes"/>
(No events recorded for 6 minutes)
Harold Boley: <xs:attribute name="ordered" type="xs:string" fixed="yes"/> ←
21:59:38 <johnhall> csma: 'And' is already defined in the condition block
Christian de Sainte Marie: 'And' is already defined in the condition block ←
22:00:01 <johnhall> Gary; in BLD is a different production
Gary; in BLD is a different production ←
22:00:29 <johnhall> Harold: have to define context
Harold Boley: have to define context ←
22:00:45 <johnhall> csma: should be the same
Christian de Sainte Marie: should be the same ←
22:01:38 <johnhall> Gary: without context, will get a syntax error in BLD
Gary Hallmark: without context, will get a syntax error in BLD ←
22:02:21 <johnhall> csma: who will do similar exercise for BLD
Christian de Sainte Marie: who will do similar exercise for BLD ←
22:02:45 <johnhall> Harold: may be so artificial that we won't want to do it
Harold Boley: may be so artificial that we won't want to do it ←
22:03:25 <johnhall> csma: one way to test is to rewrite BLD on top of Core schema
Christian de Sainte Marie: one way to test is to rewrite BLD on top of Core schema ←
22:04:23 <johnhall> ChrisW: any idea how much work to rewrite Core import?
Christopher Welty: any idea how much work to rewrite Core import? ←
22:04:54 <johnhall> ChrisW: postpone consideration until tomorrow
Christopher Welty: postpone consideration until tomorrow ←
22:05:33 <ChrisW> adjourned
Christopher Welty: adjourned ←
22:07:05 <GaryHallmark> I added proposed List builtins at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Lists#List_Builtins
Gary Hallmark: I added proposed List builtins at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Lists#List_Builtins ←
22:08:46 <ChrisW> http://maps.yahoo.com/#mvt=m&lat=42.364408&lon=-71.089943&zoom=17&q1=1%2520Kendall%2520Sq%252C%2520Cambridge%252C%2520MA%252C%252002139
Christopher Welty: http://maps.yahoo.com/#mvt=m&lat=42.364408&lon=-71.089943&zoom=17&q1=1%2520Kendall%2520Sq%252C%2520Cambridge%252C%2520MA%252C%252002139 ←
Formatted by CommonScribe
This revision (#2) generated 2009-04-20 00:26:16 UTC by 'cwelty', comments: 'Annotated some scribe votes'