Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
F2F10 Minutes
DRAFT -- Currently Under Review
See F2F10.
See also: IRC log
- Present
- Michael Kifer, Harold Boley, Adrian Paschke, Igor Mozetic, Sandro Hawke, Gary Hallmark, Andreas Harth, Jos de Bruijn, John Hall, Christian de Sainte Marie, Chris Welty, Axel Polleres
- Remote
- Dave Reynolds, Mike Dean, Hassan Aït-Kaci
- Chair
- Chris Welty and Christian de Sainte-Marie
- Scribe (day 1)
- Michael Kifer, Harold Boley, Adrian Paschke, Igor Mozetic, Gary Hallmark
Day 1
(No activity for 10 minutes)
(Scribe changed to Michael Kifer)
Sandro Hawke: last call means we are done
Sandro Hawke: after DTB is at last call, we can go for CR (candidate implementation). After that, we are not supposed to make any substantive changes to BLD.
At this point, we call for implementation
Christian de Sainte Marie: "Substantive" changes are not allowed to be made after a call for implementations.
Sandro/Jos/csma: Example: changing the presentation syntax is a substantive change.
(No activity for 7 minutes)
ACTION: jos add explanatory text to SWC and reply to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-comments/2008May/0000.html asking if it explains the matter sufficiently.
ACTION: jdebruij2add explanatory text to SWC and reply to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-comments/2008May/0000.html asking if it explains the matter sufficiently.
ACTION: jdebruij2 add explanatory text to SWC and reply to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-comments/2008May/0000.html asking if it explains the matter sufficiently. due wednesday
discussion of Dan C's comments about use/mention of IRIs in RIF. Jos will respond to him.
discussion of Dan C's comment on the fact that BLD does not allow the same symbol to be used in different contexts. This will be a problem for merging of rules (one set may have a predicate as a 2-ary thing and in another as a 3-ary thing, for example).
Decided (guest): to keep discussing this issue.
(No activity for 9 minutes)
(No activity for 10 minutes)
ACTION: Jos to add section to SWC which guides people familiar with W3C Semantic Web specs about the surprising differences, eg rif:iri - due Wednesday
ACTION: jdebruij2 to add section to SWC which guides people familiar with W3C Semantic Web specs about the surprising differences, eg rif:iri - due Wednesday
Discussion of Jeremy's comments about rif:text, rif:iri. Decided: will add clarifications.
(No activity for 13 minutes)
(No activity for 9 minutes)
discussion of Dave R's comments. Most are editorial, which weren't discussed. Others will be discussed elsewhere (eg, in the FLD/BLD parts of the agenda).
(No activity for 31 minutes)
(No activity for 6 minutes)
(Scribe changed to Harold Boley)
Implementations
Gary Hallmark: ORACLE UCR Use Case 1
Conclusion of rule uses a frame.
Christian de Sainte Marie: Modeled as a frame only because a little easier?
Gary Hallmark: OBR's best mapping of BLD goes to a frame because of its bean notion.
Harold Boley: Use a frame as a conjunction?
Gary Hallmark: Can also use Group to attach conclusion results.
... splitting the And in the then part into two rules.
Jos de Bruijn: For only constants as slot fillers, frames could be used.
Christian de Sainte Marie: Why nesting of <And> <formula> <And>?
Gary Hallmark: Because of the principles of our general XML generator. Could be optimized away for the special case of BLD.
Sandro Hawke: What about the other direction?
Gary Hallmark: Yes. But will need to be worked out.
... We avoid showing durations to end users.
... For ex., days-between in OBR is not exposed to users.
Christian de Sainte Marie: Implementations should have access to such built-ins.
Michael Kifer: rif:new should really be rif:local (because rif:new is not unique).
... If it's a generator, it should be local.
... We need a standard way for handling skolems (via rif:local).
... Problem: The same symbol cannot be used in different contexts.
... Could change the definition of well-formedness. Not allow these skolems in equalities.
Gary Hallmark: Round-tripping with OBR would be a problem.
Sandro Hawke: Sent email about this last week.
Christian de Sainte Marie: 'Hidden conjunction" forbidden?
... multiple slots of a frame in the head.
... normally there is no conjunction in the head.
Michael Kifer: Right, maybe we should allow conjunction in the head, like disjunction in the body.
Christian de Sainte Marie: Can we change the document?
Michael Kifer: Cannot guarantee change will not introduce errors.
PROPOSED: BLD will include Conjunction in the rule head
PROPOSED: BLD will include Conjunction in the rule head (the "then" part)
0
RESOLVED: BLD will include Conjunction in the rule head (the "then" part)
Harold Boley: May increase the burdon on BLD implementers to claim they have a direct (without rewriting) implementation of BLD.
DTB review & publication
Axel Polleres: Symbol Spaces
Sandro Hawke: Maybe first motivate them before going into the mat.
s/ mat./ math./ (failed)
Sandro Hawke: The doc now doesn't use Curies?
Axel Polleres: It does (now).
Sandro Hawke: Keep Fcts and Preds in the same namespace?
Axel Polleres: builtin-functions vs. builtin-predicates.
... different semantics.
Jos de Bruijn: But user does not see this.
PROPOSED: func: and pred: collapse to one, http:/www.w3.org/2007/rif-builtin#
Axel Polleres: Right.
Christian de Sainte Marie: What's the drawback of having two namespaces?
Jos de Bruijn: It's just more (unnecessary) namespaces.
Sandro Hawke: You have to remember both.
Axel Polleres: If we added a type Boolean, then we could consider collapsing the Fct and Pred namespaces.
Jos de Bruijn: Did we not decide that we will not have to versions (Fct and Pred) of the same builtin?
PROPOSED: keep the two namespaces, pred: and func: ....
Igor Mozetic: Whenever we tried to 'simplify' things in this way, it turned out there were later some complications. So we should keep the separation.
PROPOSED: remove language about all the subtypes of xsf:string
PROPOSED: remove language about all the subtypes of xsd:string being required
RESOLVED: remove language about all the subtypes of xsd:string being required
PROPOSED: instead of all-subtypes-of-decimal, have just Decimal, Integer, Long, .....
(No activity for 20 minutes)
(No activity for 33 minutes)
(Scribe changed to Adrian Paschke)
Continue DTB discussion
Axel Polleres: Goal for outsourcing into a seperate document to define the supported datatypes
Axel Polleres: Current DTB says it defines the supported BLD datatypes
Chris Welty: My understanding was that it is common to all RIF dialects
Sandro Hawke: Each dialect will have a subset of the DTB datatypes and builtins
Michael Kifer: or a superset
Sandro Hawke: DTB has to grow if new datatypes are needed in standardized dialects
Axel Polleres: it was moved / copied from FLD
Michael Kifer: yes, it has been copied from FLD to DTB
Chris Welty: It is a maintenance problem to add all new standard datatypes and builtins to DTB?
Sandro Hawke: only datatypes and builtins from standardize RIF dialects
Chris Welty: we agreed if a standard dialect needs a datatype or builtin function it needs to be in DTB
Michael Kifer: dialects may support additional datatypes
Jos de Bruijn: we only talk about standardized dialects
Michael Kifer: we would have mandatory and optional datatypes
Chris Welty: put it in core
Harold Boley: DTP is in some sense parallel to FLD
Michael Kifer: Organize built-ins in groups in DTB
Michael Kifer: let's organize them in groups and link to them from BLD
Sandro Hawke: organize them in levels, e.g. numeric built-ins level 1, level 2
PROPOSED: DTB will provide the menu of datatypes and builtins which diallect dialections can use, by reference, when they state which datatypes and builtins must be supported by implementations.
Michael Kifer: change to ... built-in predicated required by the RIF BLD
PROPOSED: DTB will provide the menu of datatypes and builtins which diallects can use, by reference, when they state which datatypes and builtins must be supported by implementations.
PROPOSED: 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.
+1
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.
ACTION: axel to edit DTB to reflect its changed role with regard to DTB (eg in the Abstract)
(No activity for 6 minutes)
Adrian Paschke: We need durations to implement some of the use cases
PROPOSED: add year-month and day-time duration, but NOT duration, to BLD.
PROPOSED: add year-month and day-time duration, but NOT duration, to BLD, as in http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-operators/#dt-yearMonthDuration
PROPOSED: add year-month and day-time duration, but NOT duration, to BLD (and of course DTB), as in http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-operators/#dt-yearMonthDuration
PROPOSED: add xs:dayTimeDuration and xs:yearMonthDuration, but NOT duration, to BLD (and of course DTB), as in http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-operators/#dt-yearMonthDuration
PROPOSED: 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 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
ACTION: axel to add the new duration subtypes to DTB
ACTION: kifer to make sure BLD includes the appropriate normative reference to DTB to reflect the inclusion of the duration subtypes
Chris Welty: Gary's numeric remark
Gary Hallmark: less_than_or_equal ...
Axel Polleres: you typically have general builtins such as > < <= ...
Gary Hallmark: I only need numeric_greater_than_or_equal ... less_than_or_equal
Chris Welty: short cuts such as >= <= !=
PROPOSED: add builtin predicates to BLD and DTB: <= >= and != for numeric values (they amount to shortcuts, to avoid disjunction).
+1
PROPOSED: 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).
+1
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).
Sandro Hawke: have an editor from OWL and RIF to discuss about rif:text or using a owl datatype
Christian de Sainte Marie: BLD requires rif:text, so we have a dependency to a document which does not exist if me move it to another document
Chris Welty: keep in DTB
Harold Boley: add an editors note about it
ACTION: Harold to add AT RISK editor's note in BLD explaining that the IRI identifying rif:text might change.
Axel Polleres: Casts from rif:iri as defined in XML Schema
ACTION: Chris to open issue on casts to/from rif:iri
Jos de Bruijn: cast functions are not defined, yet
Axel Polleres: see section 4.3
ACTION: Axel to change editor's note on casting rif:iri to normal open-issue style, link to new issue on it.
ACTION: Axel to convert text about concat2, etc, into an editor's note about how the handling of arities is a strawman proposal not yet agreed upon by WG.
ACTION: axel comment out DTB 4.7 or otherwise make sure it doesn't end up in BLD
(No activity for 5 minutes)
PROPOSED: Publish DTB as a FPWD once changes decided so far today are made (and reviewed by ...someone...)
PROPOSED: Publish DTB as a FPWD once changes decided so far today are made (and reviewed by ...someone...)
PROPOSED: Publish DTB as a FPWD once changes decided so far today are made (and reviewed by Chris)
+1 (REWERSE)
RESOLVED: Publish DTB as a FPWD once changes decided so far today are made (and reviewed by Chris)
(No activity for 10 minutes)
(Scribe changed to Igor Mozetic)
striping, typed-tagged XML aka Rigid RDF
we have nearly full-striped syntax, why not move further?
pro: small step, gives RDF compatibility
pro: fallback mechanism is RIF
pro: more implementers can support
con: even more verbose
Christian de Sainte Marie: main objective is not fully-stiped, but RDF compatible synta
con: "marketing" issue (some don't want RDF)
pro: "marketing" issue (if there is no dependency, then RDF compatibility is a plus)
Christian de Sainte Marie: for Alex - changing rigid RDF to typed-tagged-XML would solve his opposition
dependency on RDF namespace is _not_ RDF dependency
Sandro pro: it is self describing
Sandro Hawke: self-describing = deserialization back into "objects"
proposed changes by Sandro:
... add rdf:parseType=Collection to args
Christian de Sainte Marie: this proposal breaks full striping but we need RDF compatibility
... 2) add name under Var
... change from not-striped to striped
... 3) add value role under Const
Michael Kifer: issue is with symbolspace that are not datatypes
Michael Kifer: RDF friendliness brings semantics into syntax
Jos de Bruijn: we need to specify order in the syntax anyway
... 4) rif:iri inside Const is serialized differently
... add 4) uses native RDF support
... add 4) rif:iri and rif:text would disapear from XML serialization
Sandro Hawke: the only change is in the serialization, not in PS
Christian de Sainte Marie: an RDF parser will get RDF triples, not rules
Michael Kifer: is affraid that RDF semantics will be assumed
Christian de Sainte Marie: if this change is zero-cost it is advantageous for the community
... since people will get RDF triples for free and do whatever they want
... Sandro: 5) role tags may have to be in alphabetical order
Sandro Hawke: one can load RIF doc into triple store and extract rules by querying it
changes would require the following in BLD document:
translation tables, examples, XML schema
(Scribe changed to Gary Hallmark)
Conformance
Michael Kifer: must preserve entailments
Christian de Sainte Marie: but editors don't entail anything
Chris Welty: semantic v. syntax
Michael Kifer: editor doesn't actually DO anything
Sandro Hawke: e.g. biz rule editor imports rif into GUI
Jos de Bruijn: syntax checkers need to validate syntax
Michael Kifer: bijective mapping between 2 languages
... entailments include datatype conformance
Sandro Hawke: what if we encounter a datatype not in BLD?
... that would be an extension of BLD
... syntax check may pass
Jos de Bruijn: rule processor has set of datatypes, and can talk about differences w.r.t. DTB
Sandro Hawke: how to include xs:int in a rif document
... should it convert to xs:decimal, or ignore, or warn?
... should warn or reject
Jos de Bruijn: if conversion is lossless, then it is supported
Michael Kifer: must be in DTB to have a semantics
in the above, "datatype" also includes associated builtins
Michael Kifer: could separate syntactic and semantic conformance
... syntactic subset can be larger
Sandro Hawke: hopes entire languages are translated to RIF, implying many extensions
... allows roundtripping
Christian de Sainte Marie: must be able to add (non-std) extensions to make RIF usable
Michael Kifer: don't require all datatypes are listed in DTB to have a valid RIF document
Christian de Sainte Marie: any other notions of conformance?
Jos de Bruijn: basic notion should be entailment
... first, a RIF consistency check (has a model)
Christian de Sainte Marie: but I can have an inconsistent RIF document
Jos de Bruijn: datatype conformance should be like OWL. Must support DTB, reject others
... for semantic conformance
Michael Kifer: distinguish producers from consumers
Christian de Sainte Marie: given agreement on datatypes (even if not in DTB), entailments are preserved
Michael Kifer: what does it mean to agree?
Jos de Bruijn: must decide what to do about datatypes not in DTB
Chris Welty: conformance defined for a single RIF processor, not for a communicating pair
Michael Kifer: for producer, must be mapping into RIF, and have right entailments
... for consumer, must reject datatypes you do not understand (which must not be in DTB)
(No activity for 8 minutes)
much discussion formalizing the conformance statement...
Dave Reynolds: must a consumer be a complete BLD implementation?
Sandro Hawke: yes
Dave Reynolds: concerned about equality
Christian de Sainte Marie: equality in head may be "at risk"
Dave Reynolds: used to have a notion of BLD being a superset
... a conformant impl could be a subset
Christian de Sainte Marie: is this the notion of profiles?
Christian de Sainte Marie: maybe we'll need profiles since we no longer have CORE
Christian de Sainte Marie: maybe solution is to remove equality from BLD
Sandro Hawke: if we need a dialect between CORE and BLD, we'll create one (but I hope not)
... e.g. mini-BLD
Christian de Sainte Marie: if we don't get implementations, we'll have to revisit
Christian de Sainte Marie: does marking some hard things as "at risk" satisfy Dave?
Dave Reynolds: yes
Chris Welty: maybe the conformance statement is "at risk"
Michael Kifer: could have levels of conformance, and lower the bar as needed
Sandro Hawke: let's talk about syntax extensibility
... must reject syntax you don't understand
... is somewhat counter to the XML philosophy
... but can't ignore NOT, e.g.
... and we don't require "fallback" processing
Naming
Sandro Hawke: doesn't like upper/lower
Christian de Sainte Marie: in PRD, object/class and subclass/class
Christian de Sainte Marie: wants different tags for different content
... makes PS->XML mapping easier
... because it is not context dependent
Sandro Hawke: sub/super for SubClass
Harold Boley: instance/class for Member
Hassan, I though you don't like abbrevs
ACTION: Harold update BLD to change lower/upper to instance/class and sub/super.
Chris Welty: doesn't like '->' in frames
... too much like implication
... also -> used for named args
Christian de Sainte Marie: but PS is tomorrow
Christian de Sainte Marie: prefer attribute instead of key
... for the frame case
Harold Boley: principle of context-independent role names not maintainable in FLD
Hassan Aït-Kaci: XML tags should be independent of BNF
... distinguish grammar from language
... former is not unique
... in prototype, had to modify EBNF for jacc, and this ripples through the XML mapping if they are linked
Harold Boley: many XML tags have a different PS token, e.g. ?/Var, ^^/Const
Day 2
See also: IRC log
- Scribes
- Andreas Harth, John Hall, Axel Polleres, Adrian Paschke
(Scribe changed to Andreas Harth)
Agenda review
this session: presentation syntax, especially shortcuts
Christian de Sainte Marie: Issue 56
Jos de Bruijn: which shortcuts to define
Axel Polleres: sent out proposal yesterday about grammar
Presentation syntax
Axel Polleres: do we want to have string lang tag? his proposal is to use grammar from sparql spec
Jos de Bruijn: just use absolute IRIs not relative IRIRefs
Jos de Bruijn: in the definition, all w3c standards have full IRIs in their spec
Chris Welty: rif doesn't need to know about curis
... do preprocessing to expand iris
Axel Polleres: basically just added the lang tag, ok to use iri, ok to use prefix def in presentation syntax
... still open are string and escaping, we should use the sparql syntax here as well
Axel Polleres: syntax allows to only write the prefix, which is just resolved to the iri of the prefix
Christian de Sainte Marie: decision to make: does it make sense, whether to use iri or iriref, how to address escaping
... any objections?
Michael Kifer: not use anglebrackets
Axel Polleres: we addressed that in the last telecon, just added last line
Michael Kifer: problem is in one place it's really an iri, in other place it's just a marker
Mike Dean: should have ways to use curis and iris
Christian de Sainte Marie: issue is string^^<IRI>
... for const
Michael Kifer: here, it's just a symbol that looks like a iri but it's just a constant
Christian de Sainte Marie: it's mentioning the iri but not using it
Michael Kifer: symbol space is not identified by iri, but just a symbol
Christian de Sainte Marie: you want a different syntax for the different roles of an iri?
Axel Polleres: do we open a can of worms here? for sake of readablilty, i'd buy the conceptual ambiguity
Axel Polleres: with current proposal we're compatible with n3 syntax
Michael Kifer: the aliases are not required to be iris
Christian de Sainte Marie: need to change it either in bld or here
Christian de Sainte Marie: must the aliases be iris or not?
Michael Kifer: curis could be still too long
PROPOSED: remove aliases for datatypes in BLD
PROPOSED: remove aliases for symbol space identifiers in BLD
PROPOSED: remove aliases for symbol space identifiers in RIF
Sandro Hawke: does that leave us with this syntax? still possible that say two datatype iris are equal?
Christian de Sainte Marie: any more questions?
RESOLVED: remove aliases for symbol space identifiers in RIF
Axel Polleres: next: string with lang tag
Christian de Sainte Marie: Const ::= .... | STRING LANGTAG
Christian de Sainte Marie: lang tag in rif:test is mandatory
Chris Welty: no shortcut for non-lang-tagged strings?
Sandro Hawke: there should be
PROPOSED: add Const ::= STRING LANGTAG (allowing "chat"@en as short for "chat@en"^^rif:text) and "Const ::= STRING" (allowing "chat" as short for "chat"^^xs:string).
Michael Kifer: when we lateron introduce modules @ is the right symbol for it
Michael Kifer: how often we use that bit in the presentation syntax?
Jos de Bruijn: for the examples in the doc
Gary Hallmark: we have shortcuts for obscure features, but not for strings and integers
PROPOSED: modify Presentation Syntax to incliude "Const ::= STRING" (allowing "chat" as short for "chat"^^xs:string).
PROPOSED: modify Presentation Syntax to include "Const ::= STRING" (allowing "chat" as short for "chat"^^xs:string).
RESOLVED: modify Presentation Syntax to include "Const ::= STRING" (allowing "chat" as short for "chat"^^xs:string).
Christian de Sainte Marie: any objection?
topic now: abridged presentation syntax
Christian de Sainte Marie: in minutes there's a table for abridged syntax
Sandro Hawke: how to distinguish between integer and long?
Axel Polleres: for numerical literals the sparql spec could serve as example
Axel Polleres: double not in symbol spaces
PROPOSED: add xsl:double as a required symbol space
Jos de Bruijn: why add double?
Gary Hallmark: important for lot of engineering applications
RESOLVED: add xsd:double as a required symbol space
PROPOSED: add shortcut e notation for double
sorry :)
s/shortcat/shortcut (succeeded, 3 lines ago)
discussion about grammar
Sandro Hawke: why do we need long in presentation syntax and datatypes
Chris Welty: get positive negative integer and decimals
Axel Polleres: we can add hooks to link into the sparql grammar
Michael Kifer: prefered to be self-contained, what if sparql changes?
PROPOSED: import NumericLiteral from SPARQL http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#rNumericLiteral giving us INTEGER, DECIMAL, and DOUBLE.
PROPOSED: import NumericLiteral from SPARQL http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#rNumericLiteral giving us INTEGER, DECIMAL, and DOUBLE to the Presentation Syntax
PROPOSED: reuse NumericLiteral from SPARQL http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#rNumericLiteral giving us INTEGER, DECIMAL, and DOUBLE to the Presentation Syntax
RESOLVED: reuse NumericLiteral from SPARQL http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#rNumericLiteral giving us INTEGER, DECIMAL, and DOUBLE to the Presentation Syntax
Christian de Sainte Marie: open is rif:local by default?
Michael Kifer: starts with letter or underscore
PROPOSED: modify presentation syntax so that identifiers (as in C or Java - starting with letter or underscore, allowing digits later), are shortcut for rif:local
Michael Kifer: followed by alphanumeric
Sandro Hawke: most languages set aside a set of keywords for this
Gary Hallmark: is not code, but presentation syntax
Michael Kifer: keywords start with dollar sign?
Sandro Hawke: leave out rif:local shortcuts?
PROPOSED: modify presentation syntax so that alphanumeric identifiers starting with "_" are shortcut for rif:local (so _foo is short for "foo"^^rif:local)
Harold Boley: other character than underscore, use dot like in linux
Sandro Hawke: code convention in java and c for local variables
Michael Kifer: appreciate the point that "_" prefix represents local things, but in programming languages it's part of the name
... maybe single quotes?
RESOLVED: modify presentation syntax so that alphanumeric identifiers starting with "_" are shortcut for rif:local (so _foo is short for "foo"^^rif:local)
Christian de Sainte Marie: next: lang tag and string
... proposal is to have lang tag seperated from string
PROPOSED: modify Presentaton Syntax adding Const ::= STRING LANGTAG (allowing "chat"@en as short for "chat@en"^^rif:text)
Michael Kifer: concern that @ symbol could be used for modules
Hassan Aït-Kaci: sometimes we use rif:id, sometimes &rif;id
Christian de Sainte Marie: in this session we talk about presentation syntax
Jos de Bruijn: problem here is we would define iris for languages which is in an rfc and can change
Sandro Hawke: ok, we could define it openly as a pattern
Christian de Sainte Marie: rif:text might disappear into a document common for rif and owl
Christian de Sainte Marie: we don't discuss that further now
Christian de Sainte Marie: next topic irirefs vs iris
... irirefs or absolute iris
Jos de Bruijn: issue with relative iris: you need a base iri to resolve relative iris to absolute iris
... need mechanism to specify base iris if we stay with irirefs
... benefit of irirefs is that
... they're shorter
Axel Polleres: relatively simple, could have a base iri in the preamble
PROPOSED: IRIs in the XML syntax can be relartive-IRIs (they need not be absolute)
PROPOSED: IRIs in the XML syntax can be relative-IRIs (they need not be absolute)
Dave Reynolds: where exactly use relatvie iris in the XML?
Sandro Hawke: thought about const but maybe there's other places too
Christian de Sainte Marie: table that queston for xml syntax, but focus on presentation syntax
PROPOSED: In Presentation Syntax, the IRIs in rif:iri Consts can be relative. A "base" directive will be added to the preamble.
Dave Reynolds: why does that matter when describing examples
... n3 does not have base directive?
Axel Polleres: propose to adopt syntax proposal from sparql - use backlash to escape quotes inside strings
PROPOSED: Adopt SPARQL convention for using backslash to allow quotes within quoted strings.
PROPOSED: Adopt SPARQL convention for using backslash to allow quotes (and cr, lf, tab, etc) within quoted strings.
PROPOSED: Adopt SPARQL convention for using backslash to allow quotes (and cr, lf, tab, etc) within quoted strings (in Presentation Syntax).
RESOLVED: Adopt SPARQL convention for using backslash to allow quotes (and cr, lf, tab, etc) within quoted strings (in Presentation Syntax).
Michael Kifer: where we should elaborte on the escaping?
(No activity for 14 minutes)
(Scribe changed to John Hall)
PROPOSED: Close Issue 56 as addressed by the resolutions this morning.
Axel Polleres: sent out email summarizing presentation syntax
Chris Welty: proposal - move on
Christian de Sainte Marie: did not close resolution
RESOLVED: Close Issue 56 as addressed by the resolutions this morning.
Chris Welty: closed Issue 56
Christian de Sainte Marie: issue - Jeremy C - not consider RDF entailment
Christian de Sainte Marie: comment 5 in JC email 2
Christian de Sainte Marie: no discussion today - move on, no change
Christian de Sainte Marie: JC email 1
Christian de Sainte Marie: coment 15
Chris Welty: point of confusion - is IP a subeset of IR?
Jos de Bruijn: making it a little easier doe not justify changing
Chris Welty: just changing our view
Chris Welty: leave it
Jos de Bruijn: leave things as they are - Jos already has an action
Christian de Sainte Marie: JC email 2, comment 19
Christian de Sainte Marie: DL safeness at risk
Jos de Bruijn: JC was referring to something else
... is OK
... not sure that DL safeness restrictions is what people need
Chris Welty: not what this comment is about
Jos de Bruijn: what we discussed yesterday
Chris Welty: ref to Jos comments in document
Chris Welty: csma: marj DL safeness at risk?
s/marj/mark/ (failed)
Chris Welty: action Jos to mark 3.1.1
ACTION: Jos to mark 3.1.1 at risk
Christian de Sainte Marie: drop section 6.2
... from Dave
ACTION: jdebruij2 to mark SWC section 3.1.1 as "AT RISK", with explanation.
Jos de Bruijn: not strongly in favour of keeping it
... or against
Christian de Sainte Marie: what is status of DLP in OWL-R?
Sandro Hawke: pretty good
Christian de Sainte Marie: mark is as at risk?
Jos de Bruijn: can't do that
Christian de Sainte Marie: couild remove it later
s/couild/could/ (failed)
Jos de Bruijn: if OWL-R is well-designed, could be embedded in RIF
Sandro Hawke: not sure
.. keep 6.2
Chris Welty: no change
Christian de Sainte Marie: Dave 7.1, profiels for imports
s/profiels/profiles/ (failed)
Jos de Bruijn: section 4.2
... more general isue is that you can specify different profiles but have to pick one
... we now pick the highest
... could have one for the entire document
... if profiles for RDFS and OWL-FULL, OWL-FULL takes precedence, RDFS is not valid
Dave Reynolds: if importing under two profiles, find the lowest one that is higher than both
... if not, abort
Jos de Bruijn: agree
... updated to adopt proposal - see Wiki version
Dave Reynolds: OK with rewording
Igor Mozetic: some built-in predicates
Jos de Bruijn: need to be updated
... and need to write down the proofs
Chris Welty: what built-in predicates?
Jos de Bruijn: detecting il--typed literals
s/il/ill/ (failed)
Christian de Sainte Marie: is informative - can be changed after last call
Christian de Sainte Marie: show stopper for last call?
Jos de Bruijn: no
Chris Welty: editor's note 2.1.2
Jos de Bruijn: resolved
Chris Welty: end of 3.1.1 - remove and mark as 'at risk'
Jos de Bruijn: 6.1.7 - section to be removed
Jos de Bruijn: syggest removing note in 6.2.3.1
.. 6.2.3.2 remove note?
... will add text
Christian de Sainte Marie: any other features at risk?
Jos de Bruijn: OWL DL annotation entailment 3.2.2.3
Chris Welty: what is problem?
... keep it
Christian de Sainte Marie: marking at risk means we can remove it
... if there is a risk that some implementer will complain, mark as at risk
Jos de Bruijn: leave it - we don't require them to implement
ACTION: csma to review changes
PROPOSED: Public SWC as LAST CALL Working Draft, after changes agreed upon this session are made (and checked by CSMA)
PROPOSED: Publish SWC as LAST CALL Working Draft, after changes agreed upon this session are made (and checked by CSMA)
PROPOSED: Publish SWC as LAST CALL Working Draft, after changes agreed upon this session and yesterday are made (and checked by CSMA)
Jos de Bruijn: also changes from yesterday
+1 (OMG
RESOLVED: Publish SWC as LAST CALL Working Draft, after changes agreed upon this session and yesterday are made (and checked by CSMA)
NAMING CONVENTIONS
BLD document
Chris Welty: agreed only to change upper and lower
... discussing for named arguments and frame slots - different content
Harold Boley: leave as is
Chris Welty: ... easy to handle in XSD
Sandro Hawke: declare - has variable
... quantified variable?
Harold Boley: has class name inside
Chris Welty: declares?
Sandro Hawke: never mind
Gary Hallmark: not happy with Expr
Gary Hallmark: Function for Expr, Predicate for Atom
... Atom is jargon
Sandro Hawke: Equal roles should be left and right
Christian de Sainte Marie: is symmetric
Harold Boley: prefer not to go back to left and right
Sandro Hawke: do not want to get your rules back from RIF with equalities flipped
Chris Welty: discussion was that equality is symmetric, and we didn't want to force people to choose left and right
PROPOSED: shall we switch from Equal/side/side to Equal/left/right ?
leave as is
Hassan Aït-Kaci: email on XML tagging
Sandro Hawke: not about naming
Chris Welty: we just have to be sure that we get it right - we use it when it will work
Harold Boley: have to declare twice - as namespace and entity
Chris Welty: not relevant to this session's topic
Christian de Sainte Marie: also need to look at section 4.2
Christian de Sainte Marie: change name of 'implies' for less-overloaded name
... is not an implication (in logical sense) is some roles
... something like 'conditional'?
Gary Hallmark: could they all be nouns?
s/is some/in some/ (failed)
Christian de Sainte Marie: Change 'manner' to 'profile'
... change 'implies' to 'conditional'
Sandro Hawke: 'payload' to 'content'
'manner' to 'profile' unanimous
ACTION: Harold to change "manner" to "profile"
'implies' to 'rule' not decided
'payload' to 'content' majority against
'address' to 'location' majority for
ACTION: Harold to change "address" to "location" for Imports, in BLD.
Christian de Sainte Marie: small objection to 'rule' for 'implies' - if rule has name, it will be far away from tag 'rule'
Christian de Sainte Marie: did we address all parts of Issue 49?
PROPOSED: Close Issue 49 with decisions made so far today
RESOLVED: Close Issue 49 with decisions made so far today
RESOLVED: close Issue 49
PROPOSED: close Issue 54
PROPOSED: Close Issue 54 with at-risk label as decided this morning.
RESOLVED: Close Issue 54 with at-risk label as decided this morning.
RESOLVED: close Issue 54
PROPOSED: Close Issue 60 as decided this morning -- if they are incomparable it's an error
RESOLVED: Close Issue 60 as decided this morning -- if they are incomparable it's an error
PROPOSED: Go to lunch
(No activity for 63 minutes)
(No activity for 11 minutes)
BLD review
(Scribe changed to Axel Polleres)
BLD review
Dan's comments on.
Christian de Sainte Marie: What about Dan's comment on arity of predicates?
Sandro Hawke: Problematic on merging rulesets where one uses p with arity n and the other uses p with arity m.
Christian de Sainte Marie: if it is an IRI it should have the same arity, if it is a local name, then it is in fact different names.
... answer to dan: this is not a problem, i.e. conflicts on using the same iri with different arities is intended.
Michael Kifer: not sure.
PROPOSED: 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.
... for example in PROLOG it is quite common to use the same predicates.
Chris Welty: yes, but we disallow that.
Christian de Sainte Marie: What do we do on rif:locals on merging? General problem.
Jos de Bruijn: This is - for the import mechanism - well-defined.
Michael Kifer: We defined import, but nor merging.
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.
Chris Welty: who is responding to Dan?
... I will start the wiki page for the response right now.
Adrian Paschke: propose to wait until tomorrow and will respond then, together with UCR responses.
ACTION: AdrianP to respond to Dan2 (about well-formedness)
ACTION: Adrian to respond to Dan2 (about well-formedness)
ACTION: apaschke to respond to Dan2 (about well-formedness)
Christian de Sainte Marie: 3 comments from Jeremy on rif:iri. OWL is unconvinced by rif:iri and rif:text.
Sandro Hawke: I think this is satisfied by our presentation syntax resolutions.
... but we need to respond.
Jos de Bruijn: I will write these responses.
Christian de Sainte Marie: next, dave has a comment on equality terms appearing in externals.
... the answer to the question is yes: it is deliberate and legal.
Dave Reynolds: but why then disallow External in the head?
Christian de Sainte Marie: So, shall we allow any External in the head or diallow any Externals in the head?
Michael/josb: that would be a void restriction, because it can't be amulated.
s/can't/can/ (failed)
Christian de Sainte Marie: Dave's comment on BLD XML.
... this about the XSD version.
... so, only about datatypes.
Dave Reynolds: my comment is about the *XML* version.
Christian de Sainte Marie: objections against saying that we refer to XML 1.0?
PROPOSED: We'll use XML 1.0 (not XML 1.1)
Jos de Bruijn: isn't there a possibility to allow people to use their preferred XML version?
Chris Welty: We are not gonna try to solve that problem, if people can make it work with XML1.1, then it is fine.
PROPOSED: We'll use XML 1.0 (not XML 1.1) for the XML syntax for BLD.
Jos de Bruijn: what is the difference?
Sandro Hawke: fixed reference to unicode in XML 1.0.
... 1.1 more open to speak "different languages".
Gary Hallmark: there's a recomendation to use 1.0 unless features of 1.1 really needed.
Sandro Hawke: let's get back to that later, I will gtry to get an answer within the hour.
Christian de Sainte Marie: comment from Dave on compact IRIs in the XML syntax.
... compact IRIs are not approproate in the XML, because there they are real QNames (?)
Harold Boley: Once we have presentation syntax with prefixes, and entities in the XML, that should be fine.
Michael Kifer: prefix definition will be in BLD, Consts will be in DTB.
... (the pres. syntax)
ACTION: Harold to update all examples for Presentation Syntax and XML syntax for curies and entities. Also add Prefix to presentation syntax.
Chris Welty: The XML syntax should be valid XML... full stop.
Christian de Sainte Marie: Dave wants a full XML document as an example.
Harold Boley: that will be a byproduct of my action.
... I always use the official W3C validators for XML in the examples.
Christian de Sainte Marie: more comments form Dave on the schema.
... 1) rif:type should be used rather than just type.
... 2) rif:type should be resticted to anyURI rather than xsd:string.
Christian de Sainte Marie: Any drawback in qalifying "type"?
Chris Welty: is this the only attribute?
Christian de Sainte Marie: Who's in favor f qualifying attributes?
Sandro Hawke: makes XML more readable... attributes don't need a def namespace.
who in favor of qualifying?
0 yes, 4 against, 7 undecided.
PROPOSED: in the RIF XML syntax (as long as we stick with this non-RDF style), attributes will have no namespace (so that we can avoid "rif:" in documents)
PROPOSED: 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: 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)
Andreas Harth: RDF or XSLT use that differently... there seems not to be an agreed treatment.
Christian de Sainte Marie: next one. Dave suggests 2) rif:type should be resticted to anyURI rather than xsd:string.
... content of the type cannot be a number, must be a IRI.
Sandro Hawke: slight hesitation for anyURI vs. IRI.
... but that could just be a bugfix.
ACTION: Harold to change type of "type" attribute to xs:anyURI (from xs:string)
Jos de Bruijn: in XML Schema datatypes 1.1 anyURI is also used for IRIs.
Christian de Sainte Marie: my own comments on BLD.
... Equal, Member, Subclass should not be allowed to be External.
...also Frame. Suggestion: limit External to ATOMIC.
... discussing External terms in property position in Frames.
Michael Kifer: We can disallow some things in External.
Discussion about the respective parts of the BLD grammar.
Christian de Sainte Marie: currently Externals allowed in slotname position in Frames in BLD.
Chris Welty: Should this now be restrictd?
s/td/ted/ (failed)
Christian de Sainte Marie: Still usure about External(Frame)
Michael Kifer: The semantics is precisely defined.
Christian and Michael trying to clarify what an External Frame actualy means.
... we agreed to disallow external Equal, Member, Subclass.
PROPOSED: Replace Exterman(ATOMIC) with External(ATOM_BASE or FRAME) ... ?
... External Frame still under discussion.
Sandro Hawke: doubts about External used as extension mechanism
Axel Polleres: I thought the set of external schemas is FIXED per dialect.
Michael Kifer: no.
... that is an extension mechanism.
Axel Polleres: RIF FLD says "RIF dialects are always associated with sets of coherent signatures"... I am confused now.
Discussion is whether defining an own external Schema is a new dialect, i.e. an extension, or no.
Igor Mozetic: External could be a SPARQL query, yes?
Michael Kifer: If you add some datatypes or externals, then you have a bigger dialect than BLD.
Sandro Hawke: Right.
Michael Kifer: It is like a blackbox.
... external Equal would be possible to define, but wouldn't make sense to use, actually.
PROPOSED: Change External(ATOMIC) to External(ATOM) or External(Frame).
Chris Welty: broken link in BLD to "coherent set of such schemas associated[...]"
PROPOSED: Change External(ATOMIC) to External(Atom) or External(Frame).
0.0
0.0 (not sure why external frames needed and not just External(Atom) )
PROPOSED: Change External(ATOMIC) to External(Atom).
PROPOSED: Change External(ATOMIC) to External(Atom) or External(Frame) and add text explaining how External frames are supported by the semantics.
+1
RESOLVED: Change External(ATOMIC) to External(Atom) or External(Frame) and add text explaining how External frames are supported by the semantics.
ACTION: Kifer to add text explaining external frames
Christian de Sainte Marie: Next. Christian's comment on NAU limitation
s/NAU/named argument uniterms/ (failed)
clarified.
Christian de Sainte Marie: How can we create new symbols when inferring a new frame?
... proposals: rif:new, skolem terms, existentials in the head.
Sandro Hawke: writing a translator form N3 to rif needs existentials in the head.
Christian de Sainte Marie: What was your concrete example?
... email?
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/0158.html
Sandro Hawke: Skolemizing would be a fallback.
Adrian Paschke: not the same.
Igor Mozetic: the only problem with skolemization is round-tripping.
Christian de Sainte Marie: What about having that in a builtin?
Michael Kifer: not possible as a builtin.
... rif:new should be symbol not a constant (not an external) that each time you use it is interpreted differently.
Discussion skolem function vs. new constant ongoing.
Chris Welty: What about making skolem funcs a special datatype.
...?
Michael Kifer: It could be a subsymbolspace of rif:local
Dicussion of whether something like gensym is possible.
+1 to +1 of jos.
Shall we go on? Don't see this being resolved soon. We had more promising discussions being cut off today already
Christian de Sainte Marie: We are starting to run in circles.
... if we decide we want this, it will delay. Is it worth?
many no's.
break now.
20min until 4.
(No activity for 15 minutes)
scribe???
still me? :-)
(Scribe changed to Adrian Paschke)
BLD open issues
Chris Welty: compliance definition for BLD
Michael Kifer: separate document for compliance
Michael Kifer: put it in the overview
Chris Welty: last call document needs conformant statement
Sandro Hawke: agree conceptually it could go into another document
Sandro Hawke: but for now it might be in BLD
Harold Boley: what about FLD
Chris Welty: put it in BLD for now
PROPOSED: add the text on http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Conformance (more or less) to BLD, probably near the next....
Sandro Hawke: statement about syntactic RIF consumer , RIF producer compliance
Dave Reynolds: question: is schema validation actually enough to validate conformance?
Michael Kifer: well-formed vs. semantically correct use
Sandro Hawke: RIF consumers must reject a BLD document if .... constraints are not met
Sandro Hawke: for rule engines as consumers we should say something about when a BLD document needs to be rejected
Sandro Hawke: for example a BLD document which use e.g. a new construct ActionRule; a consumer must throw an error
Sandro Hawke: it can not silently ignore it
Chris Welty: you want this strict dialect conformance?
Sandro Hawke: right
Chris Welty: we could label it strict conformant and conformant
Chris Welty: strict conformance is exclusive; conformance is inclusive
Sandro Hawke: we need strict conformance, otherwise people will abuse BLD
Michael Kifer: conformance and loose conformance
(No activity for 7 minutes)
PROPOSED: accept the conformance statement on http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Conformance for BLD, up to the separator line.
0
RESOLVED: accept the conformance statement on http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Conformance for BLD, up to the separator line.
RDF discussion
PROPOSED: The normative exchange syntax for RIF will be glass etchings.
XML Syntax -- type tagging and RDF/Compatibility
Chris Welty: type-tagging syntax
Chris Welty: XSLT transformation from current XML syntax to rigid RDF syntax
Sandro Hawke: some people are allergic using RDF name space
Chris Welty: current syntax is ordered
Chris Welty: so we would need to add parsetype collections to get rid of the order for RDF
Chris Welty: if you translate into RDF and back the order is lost
Sandro Hawke: sure. if you use a triple store the order is lost
Christian de Sainte Marie: but this is your (user) problem
Christian de Sainte Marie: you are not forced to use it
Michael Kifer: What is the problem with the XSLT solution
Christian de Sainte Marie: RDF tools can not directly parse a BLD document
Christian de Sainte Marie: so you loose a litte bit of openness
Sandro Hawke: you still need to add parsetype collection
Michael Kifer: XSLT will do that
Christian de Sainte Marie: Would you need a different XSLT if you have user-defined functions etc.
Harold Boley: No. You covered BLD and it can be mirrored by XSLT
Sandro Hawke: it does not provide anything. It does not scale with dialects
Michael Kifer: We give an example and they can modify the XSLT example
Sandro Hawke: How to find this XSLT?
Michael Kifer: they publish it
Sandro Hawke: does not solve anything
yes, grddl could be a dialect and maybe module solution
Sandro Hawke: I want to use frame rules
Harold Boley: it is like meta programming
Chris Welty: only positional arguments can not transformed into frames
Gary Hallmark: so let's get rid of positional arguments and name them
Harold Boley: we had a breakout session about this and slides exsist
Sandro Hawke: I want frame rules in RIF
Chris Welty: the only problem is the order
Sandro Hawke: the two options are use numbers on the arguments or have some ordered flag
Michael Kifer: numbers are a general solution
Igor Mozetic: follow the principle object-oriented XML
Gary Hallmark: isn't is possible to have flag which says if it ordered or not
Sandro Hawke: two questions: how to implement the ordering and do we use rdf namespace to implement a solution
Gary Hallmark: people really don't want rdf namespace
Gary Hallmark: so use a flag attribute
Sandro Hawke: yes it solves the frame rule problem and makes me happy
Michael Kifer: solves the parsetype problem
Sandro Hawke: we still have the problem with RDF datatypes
Igor Mozetic: let's handle these two issues separated
Igor Mozetic: if we talk about OO XML XSLT can make it RDF readable
Christian de Sainte Marie: requiring XSLT to make it RDF parsable is exactly the same as if we have no RDF compatibility
Harold Boley: we already have Const and Var
Michael Kifer: It is not clear why we need this rdf:value
PROPOSED: we'll have an "object-oriented" / "type-tagged" /"self-describing" XML, so that frame-rules can operate on RIF documents. Requires something like numbering arguments or rdf:parsetype="collection" or ordered="yes".
like ordered="yes"
+1
PROPOSED: we'll have an XML such that frame-rules can operate on RIF documents. Requires something like numbering arguments or rdf:parsetype="collection" or ordered="yes".
I understand it like <Atom ordered="yes">...</Atom>?
Harold Boley: why do we not the oid of a frame, it think named arguments would do it
PROPOSED: 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".
s/Atom/Frame/ (failed)
+1 for ordered="yes"
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".
s/Frame/Atom/ (failed)
PROPOSED: use an RDF/XML-compatible syntax for RIF (more-or-less following the suggestions of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/0099.html)
-1
PROPOSED: use an RDF/XML-compatible syntax for RIF (more-or-less following the suggestions of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/0099.html) provided it does not make RIF implementations need to know anything about RDF.
Harold Boley: You could easily transform the stripped version into a version with stripe skipping, e.g. XSLT would remove the slots
Adrian Paschke: you then would have a much more compact representation
(No activity for 8 minutes)
(No activity for 5 minutes)
PROPOSED: we will NOT use an RDF/XML-compatible syntax for RIF
Christian de Sainte Marie: it is not fully stripped
Christian de Sainte Marie: no, I retracted to what I said
Harold Boley: We could also put it on <Atom>
Chris Welty: put ordered attribute on Atom
Harold Boley: we could have convention that arguments and members of lists are ordered, by default
Sandro Hawke: it is not simpler
PROPOSED: use an XML attribute rif:ordered="yes" (as exemplified above) which works like rdf:parseType="Collection" (and rif:type attribute gets qualified again.)
PROPOSED: 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: 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.)
Metadata
Harold Boley: explains proposal for metadata
Jos de Bruijn: Why isn't identifier simply and IRI?
Michael Kifer: yes, it can be an iri
Sandro Hawke: Curries?
Jos de Bruijn: Link between metadata and identifier?
Harold Boley: now it is totally decoupled
Jos de Bruijn: what is the advantage?
Michael Kifer: it gives you more freedom, refer to other pieces to metadata
Sandro Hawke: in the example is pd identifier for the group?
Jos de Bruijn: it is the identifier of the frame not of the group
Michael Kifer: there is no formal relation
Christian de Sainte Marie: I would like to say that a certain rule is called "cmp" in a group of rules containing only one rule
Harold Boley: we allow crossreferences between metadata
Jos de Bruijn: I dissagree with the snapshot proposal
Jos de Bruijn: with the new proposal we can identify rules, so it overcomes my issue
Harold Boley: it is open how deep it will go ; could be on var
Sandro Hawke: id and meta roles; optional
Harold Boley: XML syntax is given in the end of document
Christian de Sainte Marie: compatibility with PRD, a rule set will have parameters, how do I distinguish a group with and without parameters
Sandro Hawke: you make different groups
Michael Kifer: it has nothing to with metadata, currently group has no parameters
Christian de Sainte Marie: Group can be used in other dialects, PRD
Christian de Sainte Marie: Currently in PRD you have ruleset, we could use the same syntax
Sandro Hawke: it is orthogonal to metadata
Gary Hallmark: Why is it a formula?
Sandro Hawke: Metadata could be in a separate document
(No activity for 89 minutes)
(No activity for 88 minutes)
(No activity for 6 minutes)
(No activity for 11 minutes)
Day 3
See also: IRC log
- Scribe
- Igor Mozetic, Gary Hallmark, Andreas Harth, Axel Polleres
(Scribe changed to Igor Mozetic)
PROPOSED: Close Issue 34 as addressed by text currently in BLD
PROPOSED: Close Issue 34 as addressed by text currently in BLD at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#Conformance_Clauses
+1
RESOLVED: Close Issue 34 as addressed by text currently in BLD at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#Conformance_Clauses
BLD left-overs from yesterday
How to order args in XML syntax (ordered="yes")
Harold Boley: multiple children under a role should be ordered by convention
Why using convention instead of being explicit?
Sandro Hawke: is the above ordered or not?
Sandro Hawke: his proposal http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Signalling_Ordering
Sandro Hawke: one needs a flag to indicate order
show of hands: 1 prefers the second option, the rest the first
Gary Hallmark: explicit ordered="yes" affects semantics
Igor Mozetic: what if we have explicit ordered="no" and the rest is assumed ordered?
Sandro Hawke: not sure
PROPOSED: RIF adopts an Object Oriented XML with the following Ordering Criteria : The child elements (roles) of class tags are unordered; the child elements roles are ordered. The only roles where this matters are the non-unary ones: args and slot. Editorss Note: This is at-risk and can be replaced by an ordered="yes" attribute.
PROPOSED: RIF adopts an Object Oriented XML with the following Ordering Criteria : The child elements (roles) of class tags are unordered; the child elements of roles are ordered. An XML attribute ttxml:collection="yes" is used on for emphasis (optional if there are two or more child elements)
PROPOSED: 1 prefers inexplicit convention, majority explicit order
Gary Hallmark: keep it simple!
PROPOSED: we use "ordered=yes" to indicate ordered arguments in XML
PROPOSED: who prefers rif namespace: 4 yes vs. 4 no
PROPOSED: RIF will use rif:ordered="yes". This item will be marked "at risk", saying the name and XML details on this bit may change.
no objections
+1
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.
Christian de Sainte Marie: concern about datatypes extensibility
Michael Kifer: vars can have symbol spaces in the future dialects
Christian de Sainte Marie: agrees with Dave
Axel Polleres: we could have shortcuts in XML
strawpoll on http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Terse_consts: 5 vs 5
Christian de Sainte Marie: stick with current
+1 for Harold
PROPOSED: Close Issue 55, with decisions made so far this meeting.
tabled for after break
metadata
meta as frame conjunction, not arbitrary formula
otherwise the same proposal as by Harold
the short form is an alternative proposal
the short form covers the comments
Dave, between the two options above
Sandro Hawke: extensions are just extensions of Classes, not roles
PROPOSED: 7 for option 1, 2 for option 2, nobody objects to either
PROPOSED: Adopt the XML syntax for metadata in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/0036.html, using conjunction-of-frames instead of all formulas.
Christian de Sainte Marie: return to the AT RISK features
(Scribe changed to Gary Hallmark)
Dave Reynolds: problem with shortcut is metadata mixed with rule markup
Christian de Sainte Marie: also, shortcut limits metadata to be about container only
Jos de Bruijn: also, how to do structured metadata
PROPOSED: Adopt the XML syntax for metadata in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/0036.html, using conjunction-of-frames instead of all formulas.
no supporters for Dave's suggestion
PROPOSED: 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: 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.
Christian de Sainte Marie: any objection to put metadata on all Class elements?
Jos de Bruijn: so you can put IDs on Const?
... it may be an IRI already
Sandro Hawke: Const could be Plancks constant (worthy of a comment)
PROPOSED: the <id> and <meta> elements can occur under any Class element (this matter is underspecified in 0036, and previous resolution).
Jos de Bruijn: oid of meta frames can be anything
RESOLVED: the <id> and <meta> elements can occur under any Class element (this matter is underspecified in 0036, and previous resolution).
PROPOSED: Close Issue 51 (metadata syntax and rule identification) give the decisions made so far this meeting.
Dave Reynolds: IDs can be any Const, maybe should limit to IRI
Sandro Hawke: nice to have locals
... also nice to have existential to avoid having ot invent locals to nest frames
Dave Reynolds: doesn't like having number as ID of element
Andreas Harth: can I refer to rules from another doc? answer: yes
RESOLVED: Close Issue 51 (metadata syntax and rule identification) give the decisions made so far this meeting.
Christian de Sainte Marie: what about comments?
Sandro Hawke: rdfs:comment
... don't use xml comments, they are ignored
Michael Kifer: should list recommended metadata property names
... and include one for comment
PROPOSED: Close Issue 58 (Comments) by suggesting people use Dublin Core for metadata (http://dublincore.org/documents/1999/07/02/dces/) eg dc:comment
Sandro Hawke: point people at dublin core (also has comment)
(No activity for 6 minutes)
(No activity for 5 minutes)
Chris Welty: owl points people to list of other properties for metadata (annotations)
PROPOSED: Close Issue 58 (Comments) by suggesting people use Dublin Core, RDFS, and OWL for metadata, along the lines of http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Annotations
... rdfs:comment, etc.
... dc:creator, dc:description, dc:date, etc
PROPOSED: Close Issue 58 (Comments) by suggesting people use Dublin Core, RDFS, and OWL for metadata, along the lines of http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Annotations -- specifically owl:versionInfo, rdfs:lable, rdfs:comment, rdfs:seeAlso, rdfs:isDefinedBy, dc:creator, dc:description
PROPOSED: 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 (when creator is an object, not a string).
Andreas Harth: foaf:maker is better than dc:creator because range is IRI not just string
PROPOSED: 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
Chris Welty: these are just suggestions. users can also invent new ones if they like
PROPOSED: 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 the metadata section of BLD.
Michael Kifer: where does this info go. we have no metadata section
PROPOSED: 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 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).
ACTION: Harold to add metadata syntax and commentary to BLD.
Michael Kifer: above are alternatives for presentation syntax
Sandro Hawke: prefers round or curly braces to pointy ones
ACTION: kifer to metadata to mathematical description
PROPOSED: close Issue 55 (striping and xml syntax and rdf/xml syntax compatibility) addressed by decisions made so far this meeting
RESOLVED: close Issue 55 (striping and xml syntax and rdf/xml syntax compatibility) addressed by decisions made so far this meeting
Jos de Bruijn: metadata target is ambiguous in presentation syntax, e.g. (* comment *) ?o[s->v] could apply to frame or oid
Harold Boley: could enclose target in the (* *)
Michael Kifer: could add regular parens to disambiguate
Jos de Bruijn: could define precedence for comment "operator"
Sandro Hawke: comment has lowest precedence
Sandro Hawke: don't have to formalize precedence until/unless we formalize rest of PS
Michael Kifer: issue with Harold's proposal is most of the time the *) is far away from the (*
PROPOSED: we don't need to settle things like precedence in the PS for now. we're fine.
PROPOSED: move Issue 57 (xml syntax extensibility) out of critical path
RESOLVED: move Issue 57 (xml syntax extensibility) out of critical path
Metadata suvivability
Sandro Hawke: metadata in RIF should be put in comments in target language
Christian de Sainte Marie: comments could be less survivable
PROPOSED: We say metadata (including comments) SHOULD survive the translation from-and-back-to RIF
Chris Welty: but we don't distinguish comments from other metadata
Christian de Sainte Marie: don't care about XML comments
PROPOSED: We say metadata SHOULD survive the translation from-and-back-to RIF
RESOLVED: We say metadata SHOULD survive the translation from-and-back-to RIF
Christian de Sainte Marie: should preserve metadata even if you don't understand it
ACTION: Harold to put this in Conformance section of BLD
PROPOSED: closs Issue 59 as discussed in this meeting
RESOLVED: close Issue 59 as discussed in this meeting
Relative IRIs
Harold Boley: related to Prefix:
Sandro Hawke: base and prefix are separate issues
... base overrides location of document
Chris Welty: base is for unprefixed IRIs
Axel Polleres: base is not required, but prefix is required
Sandro Hawke: relative IRIs work well for imports
Michael Kifer: don't need both base and prefix
... relative IRIs most useful when no base is specified
Michael Kifer: need to define semantics
Chris Welty: its a preprocessing step
Jos de Bruijn: shares michaels concern
Dave Reynolds: presentation syntax should use absolute IRIs with curies. relative IRIs are in XML only
Jos de Bruijn: how to map a relative IRI to domain of interpretation
we seem to agree that relative to absolute expansion is a preprocessing step
Sandro Hawke: wants relative IRIs in PS because of PS->XML mapping
... i.e. roundtrip between XML and PS
PROPOSED: In Presentation Syntax, the IRIs in rif:iri Consts can be relative. A "base" directive will be added to the preamble.
PROPOSED: In Presentation Syntax, the IRIs in rif:iri Consts can be relative.
RESOLVED: In Presentation Syntax, the IRIs in rif:iri Consts can be relative.
ACTION: kifer to put relative IRI handling, with base directive, in BLD
ACTION: Harold to update BNF with base directive for relative IRI handling in PS
XML 1.0 or 1.1
Chris Welty: xml 1.1 may have issues with normalizing strings
PROPOSED: We'll use XML 1.0 (not XML 1.1) for the XML syntax for BLD.
Sandro Hawke: advice from experts is to use 1.0
... use 1.0 "as amended" to pick up new unicode chars
PROPOSED: We'll use XML 1.0 as amended (not XML 1.1) for the XML syntax for BLD.
PROPOSED: 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: We'll use XML 1.0 as amended http://www.w3.org/TR/xml (not XML 1.1) for the XML syntax for BLD.
Michael Kifer: back to metadata disambiguation - propose to attach metadata no lower than FORMULA
ACTION: Harold to add XML 1.0 statement to BLD
at risk
ACTION: Sandro come up with style for "At Risk" comments in document.
Christian de Sainte Marie: rif:text, rif:ordered at risk
Chris Welty: equality?
Christian de Sainte Marie: at risk in head at least
Michael Kifer: in body its just identity (easy)
PROPOSED: make equality-in-the-head (that is, equality that is more than syntactic sugar) a feature-at-risk.
PROPOSED: make equality-in-the-head a feature-at-risk.
RESOLVED: make equality-in-the-head a feature-at-risk.
Christian de Sainte Marie: conformance clause at risk?
Christian de Sainte Marie: at risk because of "strict mode"
PROPOSED: Mark "at risk" the strictness part of the conformance clause
RESOLVED: Mark "at risk" the strictness part of the conformance clause
Chris Welty: reminder that we can't make substantive changes to non-at-risk parts of the doc after last call
Sandro Hawke: a redo of last call costs at least 4 weeks extra review time
PROPOSED: Advance BLD to Last Call, pending satisfactory completion of the editors decided at this meeting.
PROPOSED: Advance BLD to Last Call, pending satisfactory completion of the edit decided at this meeting.
are we ready for Last Call?
PROPOSED: Advance BLD to Last Call, pending satisfactory completion of the edits decided at this meeting.
we scroll thru the BLD doc, making sure all editors notes are taken care of
ACTION: kifer to make editorial changes associated with DTB links in BLD and remove editor's notes
Christian de Sainte Marie: the xml syntax translation table needs editorial work, but not a problem for last call
PROPOSED: Advance BLD to Last Call, pending satisfactory completion of the edits decided at this meeting.
Christian de Sainte Marie: who is the reviewer
Sandro Hawke: we all can be
RESOLVED: Advance BLD to Last Call, pending satisfactory completion of the edits decided at this meeting.
(Scribe changed to Andreas Harth) agenda planning
prd
Christian de Sainte Marie: changes since last time
... tightened up overview, removed diagrams in syntax section
... added running example
Sandro Hawke: i'd benefit from a five-ten minute summary what prd is
Christian de Sainte Marie: not an attempt to improve pr language, but on common serialisation format
... tried to use the same syntax as bld, but not the case everywhere (some could be expressed in bld, some cannot)
... operational semantics is being described in terms of states and transitions
... proposed table to convert xml syntax to presentation syntax
... i think we can do without presentation syntax in prd
... semantics specified using plodkin-style system
... next are rule instantiation, conflict resolution,and halting test
... useful to describe the semantics in three-step system rather than just one function
... method to resolve conflicts differs from system to system, other methods are shared between systems
... conflict resolution requires some discussion
... halting test also differs across systems
Harold Boley: question about three-step approach - is it applied to single rule or the entire process?
Christian de Sainte Marie: describing the transition from one step to another step describes the semantics
Harold Boley: could finite state machines or finite automata also used?
Christian de Sainte Marie: number of states is not necessarily finite
Harold Boley: datalog's not necessarily finite if your alphabet is infinite
Gary Hallmark: here we can define new things
Chris Welty: let's look at the reviews, start with gary's
Michael Kifer: question regarding halting test
... assume you have core, have a test to stop after five applications, you may end up without a model?
Christian de Sainte Marie: yes
... if you have only assert in conlusion and no negation in condition, per default it should halt when you have minimal model
Michael Kifer: is there some generally accepted way to explain that?
Christian de Sainte Marie: given that description of semantics you cannot use fixpoint as a test, halt is when you have no transition any more
Harold Boley: result is a set of facts? you consider only the final configuration but not the actions?
Christian de Sainte Marie: same as when you're looking at brd ruleset, you're only interested in the model
... actions not covered in the semantics yet, we have to discuss that
... i wrote down the common points of pr systems, left out other things
Harold Boley: in the current version only working memory can be changed
Christian de Sainte Marie: nice property of semantics is that it's very compact
... execute might be difficult (e.g. what transition is a print?)
Gary Hallmark: if x != 0 inc(x) and start with x=1 the system will never terminate, if true inc(x) will only fire once in my system
Christian de Sainte Marie: discussing gary's comment
Chris Welty: what about syntax?
Christian de Sainte Marie: derive presentation syntax from xml (bld is organised the reverse way)
Gary Hallmark: should the organisation of prd follow the bld document?
Christian de Sainte Marie: not necessarily, easier to go from xml to presentation syntax
Chris Welty: issue is presentation not how syntax was derived
... do you use the presentation syntax at all?
Gary Hallmark: 1.3.2 example has different presentation syntax than defined
Christian de Sainte Marie: syntax is not yet defined in the beginning, just use a rule syntax
Chris Welty: let's first identify and collect issues, then resolve
Christian de Sainte Marie: if we use imply in bld we'll use it in prd as well
... forall can be nested in prd
... constraints on variable can be imposed in the forall
Chris Welty: is that necessary?
Christian de Sainte Marie: not really, in pr system the evaluation of clauses must be ordered, but they really have different scope
... could flatten everything and then reconstruct
... but representation of rules should preserve optimisations that use forall ordering
... but community undecided on that
Chris Welty: any points or issues that should be resolved before 1st wd
Gary Hallmark: need some vision of a core which can span all rule languages
... currently bld and prd does not have any intersection
... syntax side-by-side comparison would be a first step towards common core
s/comparision/comparison (succeeded, 1 lines ago)
Christian de Sainte Marie: two goals: i) get pr community interested (those people do not care about bld)
... ii) but also interoperate with other kind of rules
... pr community will not read bld
... proposal is to have table with similarities and overlaps in seperate section
Gary Hallmark: would nice to have the core more explicit
Christian de Sainte Marie: will align syntax
Adrian Paschke: core with both syntactic and semantic overlap is desirable
... syntax should be aligned
Christian de Sainte Marie: forall is the only point where there's considerable differences, will update tagnames to current ones
Gary Hallmark: write pattern and tests as conjunction into one formula
Christian de Sainte Marie: i want to target only the pr community
Gary Hallmark: i'd like to use that standard to bridge logic and production rule communities inside oracle
Christian de Sainte Marie: need that for if-then-else
Gary Hallmark: it's a trivial rewrite using a negation
Christian de Sainte Marie: there's no negation in bld
Chris Welty: would an editor's note on nested forall's suffice for now?
Christian de Sainte Marie: there should even be a specific request for comments from reviewers
Chris Welty: if we align syntax, table with overlap between prd and bld, and add editor's note to ask community for comments, can we go to first wd?
Gary Hallmark: re order, you could have a policy that rules can only fire once
Christian de Sainte Marie: order related to age of rule could be another policy
ACTION: csma align syntax, table with overlap between prd and bld, and add editor's note to ask community for comments
ACTION: csma to work out policies for pick (refraction, recency, priority, sequential)
Gary Hallmark: it's also common to give a limit on cycles
ACTION: gary and adrian to review draft working draft
Adrian Paschke: we have not discussed update and execute
Christian de Sainte Marie: propose to table update
... say to say we have execute but semantics not defined yet
Gary Hallmark: could even remove update
Christian de Sainte Marie: would be nice if we have assign
... with assign you can remove old value and use a new one
Gary Hallmark: assign used to synchronise working memory with external storage
Gary Hallmark: only have assert and remove for now, execute would need to be integrated with external functions
ACTION: csma to remove UPDATE, EXECUTE and ASSIGN from PRD
PROPOSED: Publish PRD as a FPWD, given the editorial changes decided so far this meeting (after confirmation of edits by Gary and Adrian).
Christian de Sainte Marie: the prr group uses remove
ACTION: csma to change REMOVE to RETRACT
PROPOSED: Publish PRD as a FPWD, given the editorial changes decided so far this meeting (after confirmation of edits by Gary and Adrian).
RESOLVED: Publish PRD as a FPWD, given the editorial changes decided so far this meeting (after confirmation of edits by Gary and Adrian).
WG Futures
administration, future of working group
Sandro Hawke: future meetings, extension request, publication details
Chris Welty: schedule for DTB?
Axel Polleres: end of the week
Jos de Bruijn: swc by monday
... June 2
Christian de Sainte Marie: swc review by june 6
ACTION: chris review Axel's changes to DTB
Michael Kifer: BLD until June 16
Chris Welty: working group review of BLD by June 23
Michael Kifer: reivew DTB by June 16
s/reivew/review/ (failed)
Christian de Sainte Marie: changes to PRD by June 2
Gary Hallmark: review by June 4
Adrian Paschke: review by June 6
Sandro Hawke: do you make changes to FLD as welL?
Michael Kifer: yes
Michael Kifer: FLD by June 16
Chris Welty: reviewing FLD by June 23
Sandro Hawke: publication date of June 23rd-ish?
future of WG
Chris Welty: need to ask for another extension - how long before everything's moved to rec?
Sandro Hawke: jos, when are you changing level of participation?
Jos de Bruijn: want to bring bld, swc, dtb to rec, not so much involved with future dialects
Sandro Hawke: need to get bld and swc to recommendation, get implementatons and test suite
... want to fld and dtb torec
Jos de Bruijn: dependencies between bld and dtb
Sandro Hawke: certainly need to be stable
Jos de Bruijn: dtb is essentially part of bld
Sandro Hawke: want to consider to all get them to rec
Chris Welty: no document on fallback mechanism yet, can we take that to rec realistically?
Sandro Hawke: we should try
... UCR could be a note
Adrian Paschke: interested in events, reaction dialect
Christian de Sainte Marie: must make sure the prd can be extended to events
Adrian Paschke: some reaction rules build on logical formalism, others to pr
Chris Welty: i'm nervous about prd a chair being an editor
... need more participation from the pr community
Chris Welty: discussion about more pr involvement during next telecon
Christian de Sainte Marie: want to re-inforce: wrote and rewrote the draft three times because nobody else wanted to do it
Chris Welty: who's doing the work on core?
Christian de Sainte Marie: we should make clear that core specifies the fragment that is implementable in both logical and production systems
Michael Kifer: can't that be an appendix on BLD, we've had that before?
Chris Welty: core should be core document
Axel Polleres: why not just a document to restrict bld?
... many things were outsourced to dtb
... what's the use of bld then?
Michael Kifer: takes a long time to specify a dialect, way to go is to restrict one dialect
Sandro Hawke: why not have bld and prd editors write two pages to restrict their dialect to core?
Sandro Hawke: i'm tempted to go for 18 months instead of one year
Chris Welty: would prefer to scope work to fit into one year
Chris Welty: why not move core and fallback to wd?
Sandro Hawke: but there's no unity to rif without those
Christian de Sainte Marie: why not commit somebody to combine the specialisations into core? adrian would know both camps
Harold Boley: could we move the name fallback mechanism to interoperation mechanism?
Harold Boley: would not mind downgrading core and fallback mechanism to wd
Michael Kifer: other ways to achieve unity via a framework
Chris Welty: how about merging the two into core and interoperability
Gary Hallmark: how about test cases?
Sandro Hawke: implied in the documents
Sandro Hawke: merged core and fallback mechanism documents in wiki
Michael Kifer: we'd need lpd in
Chris Welty: 18 months is a long commitment for a chair
Christian de Sainte Marie: same as
Michael Kifer: what's the process (e.g. for adding events) if the group is finished
Christian de Sainte Marie: at some point need to terminate group to re-charter it
Sandro Hawke: there's wg's like css that run for twelve years now, others like owl finished, paused, and were re-established
(Scribe changed to Axel Polleres)
Chris Welty: I would like to opt for one year.
PROPOSED: The WG requests a 1-year request, with the work plan/description http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Extension_Request_2008
Chris Welty: What we have looks like a realistic plan.
Harold Boley: with which events should we align?
... RR, business rules, etc.
PROPOSED: The WG requests a 1-year extension, with the work plan/description http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Extension_Request_2008
+1 (DERI)
RESOLVED: The WG requests a 1-year extension, with the work plan/description http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Extension_Request_2008
UCR
Chris Welty: igor, you reviewed it?
Sandro Hawke: we also need to talk about f2f schedule then.
Adrian Paschke: completely restructured the draft according to our discussions.
... compacted CSFs removing discussions, pictures, etc.
that was section 3.
s/3/2/ (failed)
now Section 3.
Section three outlines the documents.
Sandro Hawke: Isn't this kind of like the reader's guide we need anyway?
Michael Kifer: Is it still "Use Cases and Requirements"?
Jos de Bruijn: this section is neither UC nor R.
Chris Welty: could go into a separate overview/guide document.
Adrian Paschke: Section 4
Axel Polleres: abridged syntax now in DTB
... should be pointed at.
Discussion about syntax in the examples.
... Escpecially about :- vs. <-
Chris Welty: This needs to be changed to RIF PS.
Christian de Sainte Marie: ad overfull boxes on the drafts, you should use colons for intention, then it works.
Adrian Paschke: Use cases will be updated. next section Requirements.
... distinction between phase 1 and phase 2 changed to "general requirments" and "objectives" which we could address but we do not promise.
ChrisW/Sandro: Objectives should rather be "future requirments" or "desiderata" or "wishes".
Chris Welty: you think XYZ June is realistic deadline?
Adrian Paschke: yes.
Chris Welty: We need UCR on the Tele conf agenda in two weeks.
ACTION: csma put UCR (esp. requirements) on agenda
s/XYZ/16/ (failed)
Sandro Hawke: requirements should not have been changed.
Adrian Paschke: I only restructured.
Igor Mozetic: We should have an example with blanknodes in the head/skolemization, to indicate limitationes.
Adrian Paschke: this is basically UC1, could be another example there.
Sandro Hawke: we should have a one-paragraph version of each UC aside vidually.
Christian de Sainte Marie: check whether this is already there, we had that request already.
Harold Boley: Maybe move things to an appendix?
Adrian's gonna look at making the UCs shorter along these lines.
(No activity for 12 minutes)
AxelPolleres has joined #rif
(No activity for 12 minutes)
future F2Fs.
Chris Welty: We have 4 possible dates in October.
TPAC, ISWC, RuleML, RR, Orlando or Karlsruhe or Mandelieu.
Christian de Sainte Marie: we have september dificulties typically with people on teaching assignments.
Jos de Bruijn: I am travelling secnd half of Sept.
Chris Welty: at least one person opposing TPAC, Oct 23-24
Christian de Sainte Marie: We might consider have one more in between.
... last week of august.
Sandro Hawke: I can host any of the august meetings.
Gary Hallmark: I could try in Oregon.
Suggested dates 28-29 August.
... for both those options.
Portland pro: 4, Boston pro: 5.
Sandro Hawke: I have to back off 29th, that is a bad time for MIT.
... will change for alternatives.
s/change/check/ (failed)
Sandro Hawke: back to previous state: 28-29 IS ok for MIT.
FLD
?
ACTION: Gary confirm hosting offer for Aug 28-29
ACTION: Sandro confirm hosting offer for Aug 28-29
FLD
Discussion (guest): FLD should not *require* other dialects to be derived from FLD by spezialization but that should be weakened to "expected" or alike.
Christian de Sainte Marie: it is ambiguous whether the PS normative or not.
I don't know whether this is also in BLD or FLD, but I removed this in DTB: "The compact URI notation is not part of the RIF-BLD syntax." Likewise, I think all things which say that the PS is not normative should be removed.
(that was not a scribecomment but a personal one)
Discussion on that the EBNF does not represent the Presentation syntax, since it misses some constraints of it.
Michael Kifer: we will not change this, but add a clarifying text.
Christian de Sainte Marie: before going to WD, do we need more reviews?
Chris Welty: I think we need to have it reviewed once again.
Christian de Sainte Marie: let's ask for reviews and then decide for publication.
Chris Welty: we have only June 16-23 for the reviews.
Jos and ChrisW will review FLD
ACTION: chris to review FLD [june 23]
ACTION: jos to review FLD [june 23]
ACTION: jdebruij2 to review FLD [june 23]
PROPOSED: conditional on reviews by Jos and Chris, publish FLD as 2cnd WD
+1 (DERI)
RESOLVED: conditional on reviews by Jos and Chris, publish FLD as 2cnd WD
PROPOSED: BEER!
+0.5 (Bulmers)
RESOLVED: BEER!