This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.


From RIF
Jump to: navigation, search

Working Group 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.

Resolutions from 17 February Agenda Minutes

  • RESOLVED: RIF-RDF combinations are not defined in case rif:iri or rdf:text are used in the imported RDF graphs.
  • RESOLVED: Change the test cases to "import rejection tests" and close issue-90.

Resolutions from 10 February Agenda Minutes

  • RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-63 with the understanding that the Group construct is sufficient.
  • RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-65 with the understanding that PRD does not add specific syntax to specify halting tests.

Resolutions from 27 Jan 2009 Agenda Minutes

Resolutions from F2F12, 14-15 January 2009, hosted by Oracle in Portland, OR. Minutes day one, day two

  • RESOLVED: approve test case RDF_Combination_Blank_Node for BLD, Core, PRD, and Safe-Core.
  • RESOLVED: Approve test case RDF_Combination_Constant_Equivalence_2 (for all dialects, and it's Safe).
  • RESOLVED: Approve test case RDF_Combination_Constant_Equivalence_3 (for all dialects, and it's Safe).
  • RESOLVED: Approve test case RDF_Combination_Constant_Equivalence_Graph_Entailment_2 but be sure to make it clear that this is a different kind of test case, about RDF entailment. (Current wiki template does not properly show that.).
  • RESOLVED: Approve test case RDF_Combination_Member_1 for all dialects (BLD, Core, CoreSafe, PRD).
  • RESOLVED: Close issue-39, saying ruleset-imports is in Core, and we're not going to define an "includes" at this time (in part because we don't know what it might mean). 'Imports' ends up in PRD, where it's not ideal, but not really harmful. Some version of PRD may do a more sophisticated import at some point.
  • RESOLVED: PRD will not address interop with RDF and OWL directly -- there is no work to do there. SWC will instead be updated to be phrased in terms of [safe] Core, so it can be (in most ways) inherited for PRD.
  • RESOLVED: Close issue-82, given understandings in discussion so far today. Core as specialization of PRD is just work to do. Yes, safeness restriction will resolve backward chaining problem (action on Jos). Does Core compatibility with RDF+OWL extend to PRD? only to the extend that's automatic through Core.
  • RESOLVED: Close issue-48. membership (#) in Core facts and conditions. subclass (##) not in Core.
  • RESOLVED: close issue-68 with no Named-Argument Uniterms (NAU) in Core or PRD.
  • RESOLVED: Close issue-72 saying "No" (Option D). (Nothing like skolem functions in Core.) We regret we were unable to find a good design to address this need.
  • RESOLVED: Close issue-33 with the understand that our mechanisms for accessing RDF and XML data sources, and using externals, will be sufficient.
  • RESOLVED: Close issue-78. The only Externals in BLD (and Core, and PRD) will be Predicates and Functions. No external frames, no external equality, etc.
  • RESOLVED: Close issue-69; there will be a Core schema, included in BLD and PRD schemas. see ACTION-692.
  • RESOLVED: Close issue-46; no decision to make at this time. If someone produces a proposal for modules, we may consider it.
  • RESOLVED: Add xsd:nonNegativeInteger, xsd:anyURI, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary to RIF Core. In RIF, the xsd numeric types will have disjoint value spaces (as in XSD1.1, unlike current OWL 2 drafts)-- we'll push for OWL to change and assume they will. [The owl:* types will be decided separately. Value spaces of Binaries will be decided separately. When those are decided, it will close issue-81].
  • RESOLVED: Add owl:real and owl:realPlus to RIF Core, BLD, PRD.

Resolutions from 6 January 2009 Agenda Minutes

  • RESOLVED: add isLiteralOfType and isLiteralNotOfType (Changing guards to return true only for literals that are/are not of the type, false for non-literals) and remove specific type-named guards (e.g. isInteger, isNotInteger). Closing ISSUE-79 and the membership/non-membership part of ISSUE-80.

Resolutions from 9 December 2008 Agenda Minutes

  • RESOLVED: Replace in UCR the requirement on Rule language coverage by the following statement: Because of the great diversity of rule languages, no one interchange language is likely to be able to bridge between all. Instead, RIF provides dialects which are each targeted at a cluster of similar rule languages. RIF must allow intra-dialect interoperation, i.e. interoperability between semantically similar rule languages (via interchange of RIF rules) within one dialect, and it should support inter-dialect interoperation, i.e. interoperation between dialects with maximum overlap.
  • RESOLVED: Publish UCR as WD4
  • RESOLVED: Publish Core as WD2
  • RESOLVED: Publish PRD as WD2
  • RESOLVED: Publish DTB as WD2

Resolutions from 2 December 2008 Agenda Minutes

  • RESOLVED: to publish the test case document as FPWD (conditional on Sandro's approval of modifications)

Resolutions from 25 Nov 2008 Agenda Minutes

  • RESOLVED: Include in UCR a new requirement on Internationalized text: RIF must support internationalized text - that is, text that additionally conveys information in terms of a language tag.
  • RESOLVED: Add equal and not-equal builtins for string in DTB.

Resolutions from 11 Nov 2008 Agenda Minutes

  • RESOLVED: Publish rdf:text as a FPWD, jointly with OWL-WG, adding an editor's note about infinity (actions Jos, Axel)
  • RESOLVED: In RIF-PRD, the conflict resolution strategy for a set of rules will be indicated in some way, associated with the top-level group. RIF-PRD 1.0 will specify only one normative conflict resolution strategy, as specified in csma's email [9] (essentially: refraction+priority+recency).
  • RESOLVED: RIF-PRD 1.0 MAY specify other conflict resolution strategies for suggested use, but these will not be mandatory.
  • RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-64.

Resolutions from 4 November 2008 Agenda Minutes

  • RESOLVED: Parameterize the conformance clauses of Core with safeness requirements "strict" and "none" (default: "none"). Closing ISSUE-70.

Resolutions from 21 Oct 2008 Agenda Minutes

  • RESOLVED: Core should keep safe disjunction in rule bodies. Implementations can be direct or use a well-known preprocessing step.
  • RESOLVED: Close Issue-75.
  • RESOLVED: accept Test Case Annotation Entailment

Resolutions from 7 Oct 2008 Agenda Minutes

  • RESOLVED: Add "New" construct with Gary's proposed semantics to represent the creation of new frame objects in then-part of PRD rules; not excluding extending it later with the use of constructors once we resolve how to call "methods".
  • RESOLVED: Add a construct with Gary's proposed semantics to represent the declaration of local variables for binding to New frames in the then-part of PRD rules ; not excluding that later resolutions might extend the use of local variables in the action part.
  • RESOLVED: Extend "Retract" construct with Gary's semantics to represent the removal of a frame object in then-part of PRD rules, that is, to represent the removal of an object from the instances of its class as well as all the frames with that object in the object position.
  • RESOLVED: accept http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Disjunctive_Information_from_Negative_Guards_2

Resolutions from F2F11 Sept 26-27, 2008, NY; Minutes of Day 1 Day 2

Resolutions from 23 Sep 2008 Agenda Minutes

  • RESOLVED: Each RIF test case MUST, eventually, be provided in RIF XML, and MAY be provided in some syntax for which a translator-to-XML has been promised. The translator SHOULD be available for use by the WG to check the translation.

Resolutions from 16 Sep 2008 Agenda Minutes

  • RESOLVED: Core will not have equality in the conclusion

Resolutions from 9 Sep 2008 Agenda Minutes

  • RESOLVED: Core will not have named-argument uniterms

Resolutions from 5 Aug 2008 Agenda Minutes

  • RESOLVED: Remove section 4.3.5 (casting function for rif:iri) from DTB.

Resolutions from 29 July 2008 Agenda Minutes

Resolutions from telecon 1 July 2008 Agenda Minutes

  • 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

Resolutions from telecon 24 June 2008 Agenda Minutes

  • 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.

Resolutions from telecon 10 June 2008 Agenda Minutes

  • 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)

Resolutions from telecon 3 June 2008 Agenda Minutes

  • 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.

Resolutions from F2F10 (F2F10_Minutes)

  • 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

Resolutions from Telecon 13 May 2008 Agenda Minutes

  • 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 | STRING^^ANGLEBRACKIRI | STRING^^CURIE )

Resolutions from Telecon 6 May 2008 Agenda Minutes (draft)

Resolutions from Telecon 22 April 2008 Agenda Minutes

  • 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.

Resolutions from Telecon 15 April 2008 Agenda Minutes

  • 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: Postpone ISSUE-17, ISSUE-18, ISSUE-19 and ISSUE-20. They are not covered by Phase I of RIF.
  • RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-21 - unclear what it means and most likely subsumed by ISSUE-38.
  • RESOLVED: Remove ISSUE-26 from critical path (of BLD 1.0).

Resolution from Telecon 8 April 2008 Agenda Minutes

  • 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.

Resolution from Telecon 12 February 2008 Agenda Minutes

  • RESOLVED: Fixed interpretation functions will be represented as functions and fixed interpretation relations as predicates, rather than representing functions as predicates.

Resolution from Telecon 29 January 2008 Agenda Minutes

  • RESOLVED: to close issue 36 without action (that is, direct mapping between presentation and XML syntaxes, e.g. presented as a table).

Resolution from Telecon 22 January 2008 Agenda Minutes

  • RESOLVED: close issue 45 by including lists in BLD as sequences for both presentation and XML syntaxes.

Resolution from Telecon 15 January 2008 Agenda Minutes

  • RESOLVED: to close issue 47 without action (i.e. equality stays in BLD as it is currently specified)

Resolutions from Telecon 8 January 2007 Agenda Minutes

  • 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.

Resolution from Telecon 11 December 2007 Agenda Minutes

  • RESOLVED: Go with Axel's option C, that is using a special syntax to distinguish evaluated functions/predicates from logical functions/predicates

Resolution from Telecon 4 December 2007 Agenda Minutes

  • 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:F2F6 2-3 June 2007]

  • RESOLVED: for [:Arch/XML_Syntax: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: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.