Working Group resolutions
THIS PAGE IS OUT OF DATE.
For an up to date version visit: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Resolutions
All the resolutions passed by the WG are collected in this page, in reverse chronological order. However, the resolutions to accept minutes as true records of meetings are not repeated here.
- RESOLVED: Mark "External Frames" AT RISK in BLD.
- RESOLVED: Change the tag name of the sub elements of Equal in BLD XML from side to left and right
- RESOLVED: BLD refers to DTB by version number. If/when dialects need other things, they refer to new versions. BLD still refers to old one.
- RESOLVED: reword req. 5.2.8 to "RIF semantics"
- RESOLVED: replace req. 5.2.9 with re-wording: "The semantics of a RIF document must be uniquely determined by the content of the document, without out-of-band data."
- RESOLVED: change req. 5.2.12 to "must" support ability to merge rule sets
RESOLVED: change req. 5.2.13 "will" to "must" & remove parenthetical comment: RIF must support the identification of rule sets.
- RESOLVED: Move 5.3.1 to 5.2.14 and make it a SHOULD instead of MUST. (support XML as data)
- RESOLVED: change text of 5.1.3 to: It must be possible to create new RIF dialects which extend existing dialects (thus providing backward compatibility) and are handled gracefully by systems which support existing dialects (thus providing forward compatibility).
- RESOLVED: For this next draft of UCR, add an editor's note to 5.1.6 to note that we're still working on how to define a coverage requirement. (unless we come up with some consensus text before publication)
- RESOLVED: rephrase 5.2.1 to: The RIF specifications must provide clear conformance criteria, defining what is or is not a conformant RIF implementation.
- RESOLVED: BLD will include Conjunction in the rule head (the "then" part)
- RESOLVED: remove language about all the subtypes of xsd:string being required (from DTB)
- RESOLVED: DTB will provide the menu of datatypes and builtins which dialects can use, by reference, when they state which datatypes and builtins must be supported by implementations.
RESOLVED: add xs:dayTimeDuration and xs:yearMonthDuration, but NOT duration, to those required in BLD (and of course DTB), as in http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-operators/#dt-yearMonthDuration
- RESOLVED: add builtin predicates to BLD and DTB: pred:numeric-less-or-equal, pred:numberic-greater-or-equal, pred:numberic-not-equal (they amount to shortcuts, to avoid disjunction).
- RESOLVED: Publish DTB as a FPWD once changes decided so far today are made (and reviewed by Chris)
- RESOLVED: remove aliases for symbol space identifiers in RIF
RESOLVED: modify Presentation Syntax to include "Const ::= STRING" (allowing "chat" as short for "chat"xs:string).
- RESOLVED: add xsd:double as a required symbol space
RESOLVED: reuse NumericLiteral from SPARQL http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#rNumericLiteral giving us INTEGER, DECIMAL, and DOUBLE to the Presentation Syntax
RESOLVED: modify presentation syntax so that alphanumeric identifiers starting with "_" are shortcut for rif:local (so _foo is short for "foo"rif:local)
- RESOLVED: Adopt SPARQL convention for using backslash to allow quotes (and cr, lf, tab, etc) within quoted strings (in Presentation Syntax).
- RESOLVED: Close Issue 56 as addressed by the resolutions this morning.
RESOLVED: Publish SWC as LAST CALL Working Draft, after changes agreed upon this session and yesterday are made (and checked by CSMA)
- RESOLVED: Close Issue 49 with decisions made so far today
- RESOLVED: Close Issue 54 with at-risk label as decided this morning.
- RESOLVED: Close Issue 60 as decided this morning -- if they are incomparable it's an error
- RESOLVED: Answer to Dan is that in BLD, pred and funcs have one arity, and it is correct that the restriction holds even across multiple documents. So the requirement is met -- rulesets can be merged -- but if one ruleset is in error, then the merged version will be able to detect the error.
- RESOLVED: in the RIF XML syntax (as long as we stick with this non-RDF style), attributes will have no namespace (be unqualified) (so that we can avoid "rif:" in documents)
- RESOLVED: Change External(ATOMIC) to External(Atom) or External(Frame) and add text explaining how External frames are supported by the semantics.
RESOLVED: accept the conformance statement on http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Conformance for BLD, up to the separator line.
- RESOLVED: we'll have an XML such that RIF can operate on RIF documents at a RIF-syntactic-level instead of a DOM level. Requires something like numbering arguments or rdf:parsetype="collection" or ordered="yes".
- RESOLVED: use an XML attribute rif:ordered="yes" (as exemplified above) or using an equivalent unique method to specify order, which works like rdf:parseType="Collection" (and rif:type attribute gets qualified again.)
RESOLVED: Close Issue 34 as addressed by text currently in BLD at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#Conformance_Clauses
- RESOLVED: RIF will use rif:ordered="yes". This item will be marked "at risk", saying the name and XML details on this bit may change.
RESOLVED: Adopt the XML syntax for metadata in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/0036.html and given as the first example on http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Metadata_examples, using conjunction-of-frames instead of all formulas.
RESOLVED: the <id> and <meta> elements can occur under any Class element (this matter is underspecified in 0036, and previous resolution).
- RESOLVED: Close Issue 51 (metadata syntax and rule identification) give the decisions made so far this meeting.
RESOLVED: Close Issue 58 (Comments) by suggesting people use Dublin Core, RDFS, and OWL properties for metadata, along the lines of http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Annotations -- specifically owl:versionInfo, rdfs:label, rdfs:comment, rdfs:seeAlso, rdfs:isDefinedBy, dc:creator, dc:description, dc:date, foaf:maker. This goes in BLD (near where the metadata syntax goes).
- RESOLVED: close Issue 55 (striping and xml syntax and rdf/xml syntax compatibility) addressed by decisions made so far this meeting
- RESOLVED: move Issue 57 (xml syntax extensibility) out of critical path
- RESOLVED: We say metadata SHOULD survive the translation from-and-back-to RIF
- RESOLVED: close Issue 59 as discussed in this meeting
- RESOLVED: In Presentation Syntax, the IRIs in rif:iri Consts can be relative.
RESOLVED: We'll use XML 1.0 as amended http://www.w3.org/TR/xml (not XML 1.1) for the XML syntax for BLD.
- RESOLVED: make equality-in-the-head a feature-at-risk.
- RESOLVED: Mark "at risk" the strictness part of the conformance clause
RESOLVED: Advance BLD to Last Call, pending satisfactory completion of the edits decided at this meeting.
- RESOLVED: Publish PRD as a FPWD, given the editorial changes decided so far this meeting (after confirmation of edits by Gary and Adrian).
RESOLVED: The WG requests a 1-year extension, with the work plan/description http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Extension_Request_2008
- RESOLVED: conditional on reviews by Jos and Chris, publish FLD as 2cnd WD
RESOLVED: to close ISSUE-52 per the current version of BLD and SWC drafts, with the understanding that ISSUE-33 and ISSUE-39, and the new issue to be raised about profile mixing, are moved out of BLD critical path as a consequence.
- RESOLVED: (on Axel's point 4) go with Prefix as Axel proposes (whitespace between prefix name and uri), as long as in the presentation syntax it is in a pre-amble, as a directive, so it is not easily confused with a fact.
RESOLVED: Presentation Syntax will follow option 1a (where Const ::= ANGLEBRACKIRI | CURIE | STRINGANGLEBRACKIRI | STRINGCURIE )
RESOLVED: close ISSUE-53 as in current http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC
RESOLVED: ISSUE-37 is not critical path for BLD.
RESOLVED: ISSUE-38 is not critical path for BLD.
RESOLVED: ISSUE-46 is not critical path for BLD.
RESOLVED: ISSUE-48 is not critical path for BLD.
- RESOLVED: That FLD be published as a FPWD with [three additional] Editor's Notes.
- RESOLVED: That BLD be published as a WD with [three additional] Editor's Notes (same as FLD).
- RESOLVED: Publish rif-rdf-owl (aka SWC) as WD.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-14. It is addressed in the RDF+OWL document
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-15. It is addressed in the RDF+OWL document
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-24. It is addressed in the RDF+OWL document. At the time the issue was opened, Core was BLD.
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-16, it is addressed (as far as Phase 1) in FLD and BLD through the external call mechanism
RESOLVED: Remove ISSUE-26 from critical path (of BLD 1.0).
- RESOLVED: Repeal resolution regarding moving "RIF-BLD as a specialization of FLD" to appendix and keep that as last section before refs
Resolution from Telecon 25 March 2008 Minutes
RESOLVED: Use fully-striped syntax for next WD (option 3 from here)
Resolutions from Telecon 18 March 2008 Minutes
- RESOLVED: Open an issue on terminology around terms/functions/predicates and include an editorial comment in WD2 asking for feedback, but keep "atom" and "expr" for this draft.
- RESOLVED: remove nested Foralls for BLD WD2. Maybe we'll get some use case some day for putting them back in.
Resolutions from Telecon 11 March 2008 Minutes
- RESOLVED: BLD builtins are not sensitive to order of evaluation (closing issue-40).
RESOLVED: Approve Michael's alternative proposal on lists and update FLD+BLD syntax/semantics accordingly to reflect that and the previous resolution on lists
Resolutions from F2F9 21-22 Feb, 2008, Paris
- RESOLVED: Create a new Document with provisional title "Data Types and Builtins" to contain elements common to all dialects with Harold and Axel as editors.
- RESOLVED: make "specialization of FLD" sections (of BLD) appendices, leaving standalone sections in place, and making both standalone and specialization normative.
- RESOLVED: make argument names distinct.
- RESOLVED: We keep named arguments, explaining in BLD that: A RIF consumer that does not support named arguments can implement them, with relative ease, by treating them as positional arguments (of a different predicate, formed in a stable but implementation-dependent way) in the lexical order of the argument names. (Closing ISSUE-44).
- RESOLVED: No reification in BLD. This is like WD1, except no nested frames. A change from 18-Feb draft: Equality, frames, subclass, membership are no longer terms.
- RESOLVED: (Approach 3) Functions on error return an error element that is in the domain. BLD Spec does not require that predicates return F on error, just that they have a truth value. BLD spec recommends using guards with builtins, to give predictability. Without guards, rules may behave unpredictability on error.
- RESOLVED: Fixed interpretation functions will be represented as functions and fixed interpretation relations as predicates, rather than representing functions as predicates.
- RESOLVED: to close issue 36 without action (that is, direct mapping between presentation and XML syntaxes, e.g. presented as a table).
- RESOLVED: close issue 45 by including lists in BLD as sequences for both presentation and XML syntaxes.
RESOLVED: to close issue 47 without action (i.e. equality stays in BLD as it is currently specified)
- RESOLVED: Close Issue-43 by including in BLD subclass formulae of the form a ## b. In the RDF compatibility document, ## and rdfs:subClassOf will be connected appropriately, i.e. whenever a ## b holds, a rdfs:subClassOf b is required to hold.
- RESOLVED: Close Issue-41 by including in BLD membership formulae of the form c # a. In the RDF compatibility document, # and rdf:type will be connected appropriately, i.e. a # b holds iff a rdf:type b holds.
RESOLVED: Go with Axel's option C, that is using a special syntax to distinguish evaluated functions/predicates from logical functions/predicates
- RESOLVED: Close Issue 42 such that the relationship between the xml syntax treatment of constants and the presentation treatment of constants is specified in the syntax mapping table
Resolutions from Telecon 20 November 2007
RESOLVED: close ISSUE-2 based on Jos' analysis
- RESOLVED: We'll refer to XSD 1.0 instead of XSD 1.1 in our document for now, including a clear note that it our intention to change to XSD 1.1 when it becomes available, so that people can use XML 1.1.
Resolutions from F2F8
- RESOLVED: All official (ie standard) dialects will use the main RIF namespace. We will support user extensions using other namespaces.
- RESOLVED: WG asks for 6 months extension. Plans to get BLD to Last Call and hold 2 more F2F meetings by end of May.
- RESOLVED: Core will be what is currently called BLD with Equality removed, function terms removed, and perhaps safeness, and perhaps slotted terms. We will not get rid of BLD. (Ignoring editorial issues for now) Frames stay in core.
- RESOLVED: CLOSE ISSUE 25. Addressed by SWC document.
- RESOLVED: close ISSUE-27 with the understanding that neither RIF Core nor RIF BLD will have constraint logic programming.
- RESOLVED: close ISSUE-28 with the understanding that RIF Core (as defined earlier today) does not have the problems which caused us to raise this issue.
- RESOLVED: to close ISSUE-35 with the understanding that this issue is settled in our latest published version of BLD.
- RESOLVED: no invisible extensions (official or user extensions)
- RESOLVED: Be nice to Michael until mid-december
Resolutions from Telecon 23 October 2007
- RESOLVED: Short name request for the SWC document will be rif-rdf-owl
- RESOLVED: short name request for BLD will be rif-bld, with rif-core being republished as a trivial document referring people to rif-bld.
Resolutions from Telecon 9 0ctober 2007
- RESOLVED: the name of the dialect is RIF basic logic dialect and the short notation is RIF-BLD
- RESOLVED: to split RIF Compatibility from BLD and publish 2 drafts simultaneously: RIF-BLD (WD 2) and RIF-COMP (WD 1)
Resolutions from F2F7
- RESOLVED: for BLD WD2, the root element will not be dialect specific
- RESOLVED: root element is rif:Document
- RESOLVED: To identify rules and rulesets (and other syntactic objects not otherwise having identifiers) we'll use rdf:about or rif:identifier in the next draft. This is envisioned for metadata and should not affect the semantics
- RESOLVED: In WD2 there will be no indication of whether order has semantics in XML instance documents. The issue remains open for future drafts.
- RESOLVED: In the XML syntax, we'll use full IRIs (not qnames or curies) for Const types, etc. Of course, XML entities can be used.
- RESOLVED: dialect-of-authoring is identified by an IRI, which appears in the document as an attribute rif:dialect on the root element (for WD2, until we figure out extensibility)
- RESOLVED: We will use Presentation Syntax, with minor changes, with a mapping table to the XML syntax.
- RESOLVED: BLD WD2 will have structural model diagrams (which look like UML).
- RESOLVED: Remove ASN from BLD WD2.
- RESOLVED: For WD2, change structural model so that Forall, Implies, and Atomic are three parallel subclasses of RULE (as shown on Christian's diagram labeled "BLD Rule: alternative")
- RESOLVED: The OWL Compatibility text will proceed to Last Call in sync with BLD.
Resolutions from Telecon 11 September 2007
- RESOLVED: we will have naming conventions; people edit the page to propose theirs (with explanation and reasons for any differences from what's already on page)
Resolutions from Telecon 28 August 2007
- RESOLVED: To include the section on frames/classification in the next BLD WD, suitably labelled as "under discussion" with rationale for/against
Resolutions from Telecon 17 July 2007
- RESOLVED: To better understand what RIF Core could be, create two task forces in RIF, one focusing on a logical dialect and the other one focusing on a production rules dialect
- RESOLVED: Rename the current "RIF Core" draft: "RIF basic logic dialect"
- RESOLVED: Create a "RIF basic PR dialect"
Resolutions from F2F6 2-3 June 2007
RESOLVED: for XML syntax issue 2.1. "Should string values be child-elements or attributes?", the answer is: Use Child Elements
RESOLVED: Add Frames to RIF Core (objects with slots and values, where slots are just binary predicates), roughly as described in Core/Slotted_Conditions. We'll decide about the classification and slotted-predicates separately.
Resolutions from Telecon 22 May 2007
RESOLVED: RIF Core follows OS ("overlapping sorts") as on http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Issue-31 (resolving issue-31)
RESOLVED: RIF Core will require implementations to support an enumerated subset of F&O, used as functions (or predicates if they are boolean functions, like comparators), in an "evaluation" style (with no unbound variables as arguments).
Resolutions from Telecon 8 May 2007
Resolutions from Telecon 17 April 2007
RESOLVED: Change rif:uri to rif:iri for now, we can discuss level of indirection and change it later if there's consensus on a new name (closing Issue 30)
Resolutions from Telecon 27 March 2007
- RESOLVED: Publish first WD of RIF Core
Resolutions from Telecon 20 March 2007
- RESOLVED: Add "The examples of BNF and XML rule syntax given here use the unsorted version of the condition syntax and fail to illustrate the use of URIs for constants. This will be addressed in a future working draft." to the CORE WD
Resolutions from 5th F2F Meeting
- RESOLVED: remove link to draft DTD from Core WD1
- RESOLVED: Remove anonymous variables from CORE WD1
- RESOLVED: Equal aggregates 2 Terms (one association with multiplicity = 2 in Core condition language diagram)
- RESOLVED: we'll keep AND and OR as 0-or-more. (it's a conventional treatment.)
RESOLVED: UML diagram for Core condition language stays in WD1 but with NamedElement and PSort removed
RESOLVED: Use diagram in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Feb/0134, in Core WD1, labeled "still under discussion"
- RESOLVED: The concrete human-readable syntax, described in BNF, is: work in progress and under discussion. (It was already resolved as being For Illustrative Purposes Only)
RESOLVED: the xmlns to use for WD1 is "http://www.w3.org/2007/01/rif#"
- RESOLVED: Any sort defined in Core MUST BE identified by a URI
- RESOLVED: replace uri with rif:URI in WD1 and link to issue
- RESOLVED: keep text as in draft, which changes datatype list from charter by replacing int with integer
- RESOLVED: to publish Core WD1, if ACTIONS assigned in this meeting so far are done to our satisfaction. (That is, no new issues should arise to block publication of Core WD1)
- RESOLVED: We'll use UML to help people visualize our abstract syntax. We'll say "these are graphical views of the abstract syntax using UML notation"
Telecon 20 Feb Resolutions:
- webizing will be stalled for after WD1.
Telecon 6 February 2007 Resolutions:
- RESOLVED: March 13 and 20 telecons will be at 4pm CET time (1500 UTC, 11am US Eastern)
RESOLVED: Close issue 5
RESOLVED: Close issue 7
- RESOLVED: 1st CORE WD will have only placeolders/section titles for "OWL Compatibility" and "RDF COmpatibility"
- RESOLVED: 1st WD will include a MOF-UML diagram and a BNF for the syntax (clearly labelled as being for illustration/explanation purposes only)
- RESOLVED: 1st WD will contain XML examples, stripe-skipped and clearly labelled as being for illustration purposes only
Telecon 30 January 2007 Resolutions:
- RESOLVED: we'll maintain the XML syntax(es) of RIF in the 2-step process, where step one will use asn06 (contingent on asn06 being defined as a subset of OWL Full or some other standard formalism) and step 2 is the precisely specified mapping from asn06 to XML (striped or stripe skipping or whatever).
F2F4 4-5 November 2006 Resolutions:
- The RIF CORE will be positve Horn.
- RIF Core will be based on current model theory with suitable extensions
- RIF core must have a clear and precise syntax and semantics. Each standard RIF dialect must have a clear and precise syntax and semantics that extends RIF core.
- For standard RIF dialects, model theories will be normative; in their absence it will be proof theories; in the absence of both it will be operational semantics.
- The RIFWG will define useful RIF dialects in Phase 1, e.g. including negation, not necessarily in a Rec
- new requirements:
- RIF should support the ability to merge rule sets
- RIF will support the identification of rule sets
- RIF will use URIs as in RDF (see below)
- RIF will provide a framework for defining RIF dialects
- RIF must have a standard core and a limited number of standard dialects based upon that core
- The implementability, semantic precision, standard components, and translator requirements will be treated as "general" (ie not specific to use cases)
- RIF will use URIs (IRIs) in the style of RDF and OWL, using them to identify at least: globally named predicates, functions, datatypes, constants (OWL individuals, not literal values), rules, and rulesets.
- Translators to and from languages which do not use URIs as names will need to use a name-mapping system (such as namespace prefixes)
- RIF does not mandate any particular mapping scheme. It will provide a metadata vocabulary to allow translators to record the mapping if they choose to.
- For example, in rule systems where the predicates refer to fields of java objects the metadata annotations might be used to carry the java fully-qualified classname and field name.
- For RIF these are purely annotations, any use of them for carrying semantic information steps outside of RIF.