<sandro> I got it, Hassan.

<sandro> deepalik, ...?

<LeoraMorgenstern> I seem to be in the phone call, but not listed as me?

<LeoraMorgenstern> Since I use a call number, I wonder if I am listed as calling from the 441 area code?

<LeoraMorgenstern> That is, I don't dial in directly

<sandro> Could be, LeoraMorgenstern. Try pressing 4 1 #

<Allen> there is a lot of noise on the line

<LeoraMorgenstern> I'm going to hang up and call again. Maybe that will help figure this out.

<johnhall> zakim ipcaller.a is me

<saidtabet> +saidtabet

<saidtabet> saidtabet is Said_Tabet

<johnhall> zakim [ipcaller] is me

<saidtabet> +saidtabet

<johnhall> zakim [ipcaller.a]is me

<sandro> Guizhen, are you on the call?

<Guizhen> yes.

<sandro> Mala

<sandro> scibe: Harold

<sandro> scribeNick: Harold

<PaulaP> +1

<igor> +1

Minutes from last week accepted.

<Allen> zakim. mute me

<johnhall> zakim [ipcaller.a] is johnhall

<ChrisW> ACTION: [CONTINUED] csma to ask ISO whether liaison is worthwhile for ISO IEC [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action01]

<ChrisW> Joint Task Force 1, SC 32, Working Group 2: Metadata Standards US

<ChrisW> national body is ANSI L8 might be interesting for liaison. See

<ChrisW> [http://metadata-standards.org/]

csma has not received answer from Ed Barkm., so action CONTINUED.

Said's action wrt a JSR94 email is DONE.

<johnhall> zakimmute me

<ChrisW> ACTION: [CONTINUED] csma to ask ISO whether liaison is worthwhile for ISO IEC Joint Task Force 1, SC 32, Working Group 2: Metadata Standards US national body is ANSI L8 might be interesting for liaison. See [http://metadata-standards.org/] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action02]

<DaveReynolds> \me zakim, ??P52 is me

3. UCR

<ChrisW> ACTION: csma to ask ISO whether liaison is worthwhile for ISO IEC Joint Task Force 1, SC 32, Working Group 2: Metadata Standards US national body is ANSI L8 might be interesting for liaison. See [http://metadata-standards.org/] [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action03]

Leora and JeffP have action human-oriented CONTINUED.

<ChrisW> ACTION: Said to send a message to JSR94 that the RIF has started its work [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/31-rif-minutes.html#action02] [DONE]

ChrisW action CONTINUED.

<ChrisW> ACTION:* Leora, JeffP to review and report on human oriented rules section of UCR, sending e-mail by friday. [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action05]

csma proposed new section on publication: DONE.

<ChrisW> ACTION:* Stan to review and report on human oriented rules section of UCR, sending e-mail by friday. [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action06]

<ChrisW> ACTION:* Chris Welty will come up with another example narrative for a RichKR use case [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action07]

"What belongs to RIF vs. OWL/RDF?" DONE.

<ChrisW> ACTION:* Christian will propose another scenario for the publication use case [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action08]

<FrankMcCabe> ed was not aware that he was supposed to be helping!

<ChrisW> ACTION:* Christian will start an email discussion on "What part of the RIF vs. OWL/RDF Compatibility belongs to RIF and what part belong to OWL/RDF" [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action09]

Frank info integr action is CONTINUED since Ed was not available.

<FrankMcCabe> I will contact him again this week.

<ChrisW> ACTION:* Frank will do the scenarios for information integration with Ed Barkmeyer assisting [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action10]

<PaulaP> Paul is on the call, but not on irc

<ChrisW> ACTION:* Paul Vincent will do the detailed scenario for "Interoperability between rule engines" [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action11]

PaulV scenario for Interop between rule engines is currently evaluated by Allen & David, because only sent 10 mins before call: CONTINUED.

<Darko> ok no probelm

Discussion on state of document.

David: Recent input. Condensed subsections for each general uc category.

Publication not changed much, since only 2 uc's were there; now with csma more complete.

<johnhall> never mind who's talking. Who's playing the violin

Other subsections are being condensed.

Allen: Credit scenario (2.4) changed; have a look at that.

<scribe> ACTION: Donald, Said, John: Scenario where R [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action12]

IF enters the play.

<ChrisW> [ACTION] Donal, Said, John: provide scenario for human-oriented use case showing where RIF is used

Harold: When omitting larger portions of material, can it still be linked?

<ChrisW> ACTION: Donal, Said, John: provide scenario for human-oriented use case showing where RIF is used [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action13]

David: Difficult, if final document should be self-contained.

Sandro: Perhaps no technical/organizational/editorial problem to provide links.

csma: Stand-alone has advantages.
... If you think something valuable was omitted, say it now or soon.

Allen: With the many changesr/restructuring it was hard to keep all links at all times (just to work at one place); they can be brought back on one of the uc pages.
... ... so people would still find them; could also contain reqs etc.
... ... but would be separate from main document.

Sandro: Not sure what you exactly mean. But yes, we can still bring links back later.

csma: People should offer ways to insert what they want to have in. Better than just linking to things.
... We should have all material now. Can we have a new draft soon?

Allen: Waiting only for above-mentioned uc explanation wrt RIF.

David: Unless we enumerate all indiv. reqs, we can not see global req; so iterative process needed.
... Allen and I don't see exact distinction between desing goals and reqs.

Allen: Ties in with discussion on what RIF is and isn't.

csma: Should RIF be executable

for instance.

Allen: Right. Partly motivated by OWL's UCR document: "What's an ontology?".

<ChrisW> the owl docuemtn says what is an ontology, then the RIF document shoudl say what is a rule

<FrankMcCabe> I think that the design goals for the RIF is something that should be figured out by the whol group

<ChrisW> not what is a RIF

Allen: Peter and Francois want to see RIF be executable, which is fine. But: What about interchange between overlapping languages -- we need a discussion,

<ChrisW> (just looking at the analogy)

<saidtabet> how about the analogy with HTML and HTTP? Language versus Protocol

<pfps> Hmm, I wouldn't say that my "requirement" is that the RIF be executable - however, forbidding it from being executable is not something that I can sign on to.

csma: Discussion not easy on the telecon. Mailing list discussion is unfolding well. Will need to come to conclusion at one point.
... Are there any other issues that need come in? E.g.: Data access, linked to issue of query languages.

<scribe> ACTION: csma will incite this broader discussion on mailing list. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action14]

David: Should we have an action for everyone look over what we have?

<sandro> you were kind of noisy, josb.

csma: Prefer, next week someone to summarize consensus on design goals.

<josb> sorry, sandro

<sandro> no problem.

<sandro> (just explaining why I muted you)

<josb> anyway, thx for muting me :)

Allen: People who say RIF should be executable, what do they think this means for interchange/interop? Maybe executability supports interchange/interop.

csma: People with high-level design goals should propose them on mailing list.

David: Would be nice to have backlinks from reqs to uc's.

<PaulaP> requirements from the original use cases or from the categories?

csma: Who could copy all req sections from all uc's into one document for next week?

<PaulaP> I can do that

<scribe> ACTION: Paula will do this, removing duplicates if time permits. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action15]

<PaulaP> ok

<LeoraMorgenstern> \me Sorry, got disconnected and had to reconnect

<LeoraMorgenstern> P0 is LeoraMorgenstern

Donald: Will bring in new reqs by posting/email.

<ChrisW> ACTION: Paula to copy all requirements from original use cases into a single place, removing duplicates and pointing back to originals [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action16]

David: Paula, put it at the 'source' section to begin with.

<ChrisW> ACTION:* Harold will explain what Lloyd Topor extensions etc mean [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action17]

ChrisW: Fine, DONE.
... Discussion RIFRAF and uc's
... Which parts are relevant for phase 1.
... Example: bNodes -- one idea is going beyond Horn logic: so is it not phase 1?
... Answer to "What goes int phase 1 / phase 2?" is not crisp.

<josb> should we have a mailing list discussion on this topic: which features belong to phase 1

ChirsW: So we need to decide, as a group, that we will or will not deal with some issues in the 1st year.

csma: What is the impact of phase 1 / 2 on rule interchange reqs?
... Prioritized list?

ChrisW: Yes.

csma: Should we add "phase 1 / 2" column to List of Systems?

ChrisW: Yes.

<DaveReynolds> +1 to Sandro

Sandro: Procedurally, ask if all understand what people's action is?

<PaulaP> +1 to Sandro' comment

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/List_of_Rule_Systems

csma: For people who have entered a system, they should enter what the phase 1 / 2 impact is. Interop impact?

Sandro: Hard to imagine they wouldn't all have non-Horn features

csma: Example: Translated JRules a few examples into logic notation

Chris: Will start this action.

<ChrisW> ACTION: Chris to start email discussion about what issues are "fuzzy" wrt phase 1 & 2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action18]

<ChrisW> ACTION: JosDeBruijn create a wiki page explaining the issue with bNode semantics and summarize the possible solutions which have come up during the discussions on the mailing listat Lloyd Topor extensions etc mean [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action19]

4. OWL & RDF Compatibility

<sandro> JosB's page: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/bNode_Semantics

csma: E.g., when you discuss bNodes in the head, you should say why it's important for interchange.

<josb> apologies, my connection is failing me

ChrisW: Josb action is DONE.

Sandro: Don't see anything time-critical here -- cannot go too far ahead of design discussion.

<MarkusK> ACTION 17 = JosDeBruijn create a wiki page explaining the issue with bNode semantics and summarize the possible solutions which have come up during the discussions on the mailing list [DONE]

csma: Question of interchange of human-oriented syntax related to OWL & RDF: Could you use write terms and facts in OWL & RDF?

Donald (and Said): Yes, will disuss OWL & RDF applicability for human-oriented uc.

Sandro: bNode action can be removed from future agendas, but people can of course still bring in any new aspects about this.
... At some point will come up again as a design decision when we have to make a choice.

<josb> +1

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F2

<saidtabet> thanks Sandro!

Sandro: F2F2 is coming up. 24 people are registered so far; expect another 15 or so.

csma: Will publish agenda and documents soon.

Mainly UCR document.

Harold: Uniform notation for dates: yyyy-mm-dd?

<sandro> year-month-day as on http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Telecons

<sandro> +1

<saidtabet> +1

<PaulaP> +1

<holger> +1

<sandro> (re adjourning)

<Allen> exit

<Darko> -Darko

<PaulaP> bye

<Allen> quit

<Guizhen> bye

<Allen> bye

<igor> bye

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.127  of Date: 2005/08/16 15:12:03  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/Hard to imagine how to have impact beyond Horn./Hard to imagine they wouldn't all have non-Horn features/
Succeeded: s/to far/too far/
Succeeded: s/2F2F/F2F2/
Found ScribeNick: Harold
Inferring Scribes: Harold

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.

Present: Allen_Ginsberg AxelPolleres ChrisW Darko DaveReynolds David_Hirtle Deborah_Nichols Deepali_Khushraj DonaldC Evan_Wallace FrankMcCabe Gary_Hallmark GiorgosStamou GiorgosStoilos Mala Guizhen_Yang HaroldBoley Hassan Igor_Mozetic JeffPan JosDeRoo LeoraMorgenstern MarkusK Michael_Sintek Mike_Dean Ora_Lassila PaulaP PhilippeB StanDevitt csma HohnHall pfps SaidTabet SandroHawke JosDeBruijn HolgerLausen
Got date from IRC log name: 7 Feb 2006
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html

WARNING: No person found for ACTION item: * chris welty will come up with another example narrative for a richkr use case [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action07]


WARNING: No person found for ACTION item: * paul vincent will do the detailed scenario for "interoperability between rule engines" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action11]


WARNING: No person found for ACTION item: * frank will do the scenarios for information integration with ed barkmeyer assisting [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action10]


WARNING: No person found for ACTION item: * leora, jeffp to review and report on human oriented rules section of ucr, sending e-mail by friday. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action05]


WARNING: No person found for ACTION item: * christian will propose another scenario for the publication use case [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action08]

People with action items: chris csma donal donald paula

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report