14:57:33 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rif
14:57:33 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/04/04-rif-irc
14:57:36 <Harold> Harold has joined #rif
14:57:50 <FrankMcCabe> zakim, this is rif
14:57:50 <Zakim> ok, FrankMcCabe; that matches SW_RIF()11:00AM
14:57:54 <Zakim> +Donald_Chapin (was [IPcaller])
14:58:16 <Donald_Chapin> Donald_Chapin has joined #rif
14:58:32 <Zakim> +JacekK
14:58:34 <Donald_Chapin> zakim, mute me
14:58:34 <Zakim> Donald_Chapin should now be muted
14:58:35 <Zakim> +[NRCC]
14:58:39 <Zakim> +??P33
14:58:47 <Zakim> +Deborah_Nichols
14:58:48 <Uli> Uli has joined #rif
14:58:50 <Zakim> +??P34
14:58:53 <IanH> IanH has joined #rif
14:58:59 <LeoraMorgenstern> zakim, ??P33 is me
14:58:59 <Zakim> +LeoraMorgenstern; got it
14:59:01 <csma> zakim, ??P34 is me
14:59:04 <Zakim> +csma; got it
14:59:06 <LeoraMorgenstern> zakim, mute me
14:59:06 <Zakim> LeoraMorgenstern should now be muted
14:59:08 <Zakim> +[Fujitsu]
14:59:09 <DaveReynolds> DaveReynolds has joined #rif
14:59:14 <igor> igor has joined #rif
14:59:14 <Harold> zakim, [NRCC] is me
14:59:14 <Zakim> +Harold; got it
14:59:18 <FrankMcCabe> zakim, fujitsu is me
14:59:18 <Zakim> +FrankMcCabe; got it
14:59:41 <Zakim> +Axel_Polleres
15:00:02 <Zakim> +??P38
15:00:04 <Zakim> +Dave_Reynolds (was ??P38)
15:00:06 <csma> zakim, who is on the call?
15:00:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Evan_Wallace, Donald_Chapin (muted), josb (muted), Harold, LeoraMorgenstern (muted), Deborah_Nichols (muted), csma, FrankMcCabe, Axel_Polleres
15:00:09 <Zakim> ... (muted), Dave_Reynolds
15:00:13 <Zakim> +??P39
15:00:39 <JosDeRoo> JosDeRoo has joined #rif
15:00:55 <Zakim> +??P40
15:01:03 <Zakim> +Allen_Ginsberg
15:01:07 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:01:23 <Allen> zakim, mute me
15:01:23 <Zakim> Allen_Ginsberg should now be muted
15:01:24 <patranja> patranja has joined #rif
15:01:26 <IanH> I guess that I can do it
15:01:30 <Uli> zakim, ?P40 is me
15:01:30 <Zakim> sorry, Uli, I do not recognize a party named '?P40'
15:01:41 <Zakim> +Mike_Dean
15:01:55 <Zakim> +David_Hirtle
15:02:03 <Uli> zakim, ??P40 is me
15:02:03 <Zakim> +Uli; got it
15:02:12 <GiorgosStoilos> GiorgosStoilos has joined #rif
15:02:14 <Zakim> +??P4
15:02:15 <Zakim> +??P5
15:02:19 <pfps> pfps has joined #rif
15:02:19 <Zakim> +PaulaP
15:02:29 <Zakim> +Jos_De_Roo
15:02:32 <Zakim> -??P5
15:02:34 <csma> zakim, who is on the call?
15:02:34 <Zakim> On the phone I see Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), Evan_Wallace, Donald_Chapin (muted), josb (muted), Harold, LeoraMorgenstern (muted), Deborah_Nichols (muted), csma, FrankMcCabe,
15:02:38 <Zakim> ... Axel_Polleres (muted), Dave_Reynolds (muted), IanH, Uli (muted), Allen_Ginsberg (muted), MarkusK (muted), Mike_Dean, David_Hirtle (muted), ??P4, PaulaP (muted), Jos_De_Roo
15:02:40 <JosDeRoo> zakim, mute me
15:02:40 <Zakim> Jos_De_Roo should now be muted
15:02:45 <Zakim> +Igor_Mozetic
15:02:59 <igor> zakim, mute me
15:02:59 <Zakim> Igor_Mozetic should now be muted
15:03:05 <Zakim> +??P5
15:03:12 <pfps> zakim, ??P5 is pfps
15:03:12 <Zakim> +pfps; got it
15:03:20 <csma> zakim, who is on the call?
15:03:20 <Zakim> On the phone I see Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), Evan_Wallace, Donald_Chapin (muted), josb (muted), Harold, LeoraMorgenstern (muted), Deborah_Nichols (muted), csma, FrankMcCabe,
15:03:24 <Zakim> ... Axel_Polleres (muted), Dave_Reynolds (muted), IanH, Uli (muted), Allen_Ginsberg (muted), MarkusK (muted), Mike_Dean, David_Hirtle (muted), ??P4, PaulaP (muted), Jos_De_Roo
15:03:26 <Zakim> ... (muted), Igor_Mozetic (muted), pfps
15:03:40 <johnhall> johnhall has joined #rif
15:03:42 <Zakim> +[IVML]
15:04:05 <GiorgosStoilos> Zakim, [IVML] is me
15:04:06 <Zakim> +GiorgosStoilos; got it
15:04:11 <igor> this is me
15:04:20 <igor> no
15:04:34 <igor> sorry
15:04:36 <Zakim> +Sandro
15:04:56 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:05:01 <JeffP> JeffP has joined #rif
15:05:07 <johnhall> zakim, ipcaller is me
15:05:07 <Zakim> +johnhall; got it
15:05:21 <johnhall> zakim, mute me
15:05:21 <Zakim> johnhall should now be muted
15:05:21 <IanH> Next meeting same time same place
15:05:36 <IanH> Christian moves to accept minutes
15:05:42 <IanH> of last meeting
15:05:44 <PaulaP> +1
15:05:44 <Hassan> +1
15:05:49 <sandro> sandro has joined #rif
15:05:50 <josb> scribenick: IanH
15:05:56 <IanH> Seconded by PaulaP and Hassan
15:06:12 <IanH> Resolved to accept minutes
15:06:20 <Harold> q+
15:06:21 <PaulaP> sorry for the delay
15:06:32 <IanH> Scribes asked to distribute munutes asap and if pos within 48 hrs
15:06:59 <sandro> rrsagent, make minutes
15:06:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/04/04-rif-minutes.html sandro
15:07:32 <SaidTabet> SaidTabet has joined #RIF
15:07:45 <Zakim> +JeffP
15:08:05 <sandro> Chair: Christian de Sainte Marie
15:08:38 <Zakim> + +1.617.699.aaaa
15:08:44 <MalaMehrotra> MalaMehrotra has joined #rif
15:09:22 <SaidTabet> zakim, +1.617.699.aaaa is me
15:09:22 <Zakim> +SaidTabet; got it
15:09:26 <IanH> Any ammendments to agenda?
15:09:29 <SaidTabet> zakim, mute me
15:09:29 <Zakim> SaidTabet should now be muted
15:09:40 <csma> q?
15:09:42 <Zakim> +Mala_Mehrotra
15:09:49 <csma> ack harold
15:09:56 <sandro> [PENDING] ACTION: chair to put design for extensibility and discussion of proposals on agenda for next telecon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/28-rif-minutes.html#action14]
15:09:59 <IanH> Harold wants to add item on new members
15:10:15 <Zakim> +Gary_Hallmark
15:10:39 <Zakim> +MoZ
15:10:57 <GaryHallmark> GaryHallmark has joined #rif
15:11:20 <sandro>  Alex Kozlenkov
15:11:28 <sandro>  from Betfair
15:11:30 <IanH> New member Alex Kozlenkov introduced himself
15:12:50 <csma> q?
15:12:58 <IanH> ACTION: Public membership list needs to be extended to include Alex
15:13:35 <IanH> Christian: Alex can introduce his background via mailing list
15:14:06 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg_participants.html
15:14:20 <AxelPolleres> Propose Alex checks intro mails in the archive and sends a similar one.
15:14:24 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=38457
15:14:45 <sandro> RRSAgent, drop action 1
15:14:52 <sandro> (since it's already done)
15:14:53 <IanH> Next topic: F2F meetings
15:15:13 <IanH> 2 proposals for f2f4 (one with 3 options)
15:15:17 <sandro> s/Next //
15:15:26 <IanH> deadline for decisions May 3rd/16th
15:15:40 <IanH> will therefore make decision by May 2nd mtg
15:15:56 <IanH> let us know by april 18 if you have any proposal for f2f4
15:16:14 <IanH> will review on April 18 and set up straw poll closing May 1st
15:16:25 <IanH> Decision will be taken at May 2nd mtg
15:16:44 <IanH> Process agreed by popular consent
15:17:17 <IanH> Next topic: action for Alan to put Mitre proposal on Wiki - DONE
15:17:35 <IanH> Next topic: liasons - any news?
15:17:57 <JosDeRoo> zakim. unmute me
15:18:08 <Donald_Chapin> zakim, unmute me
15:18:08 <Zakim> Donald_Chapin should no longer be muted
15:18:18 <csma> ack josde
15:18:20 <IanH> Any SPARQL participant who is more often on teleconf? Jos?
15:18:30 <sandro> [DONE] ACTION: Allen to put MITRE proposal on f2f4 wiki page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/28-rif-minutes.html#action01]
15:18:47 <sandro> zakim, who is making noise?
15:18:58 <Zakim> sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Donald_Chapin (51%), csma (20%), IanH (4%), Jos_De_Roo (32%)
15:20:17 <IanH> JosDeRoo: SPARQL proceeding apart from small objection from Oracle
15:20:28 <Zakim> -Axel_Polleres
15:21:21 <IanH> Discussion on using UTC for telecon times
15:21:44 <IanH> ACTION: Christian will investigate
15:21:44 <csma> q?
15:22:04 <csma> q?
15:22:09 <IanH> Christian: XQuery/XPath news? Common Logic?
15:22:21 <Zakim> +Axel_Polleres
15:22:39 <IanH> Who was that?
15:22:41 <Donald_Chapin> zakim, mute me
15:22:41 <Zakim> Donald_Chapin should now be muted
15:24:13 <MichaelKifer> MichaelKifer has joined #rif
15:24:26 <IanH> Evan: no important news.
15:24:30 <JosDeRoo> zakim, mute me
15:24:30 <Zakim> Jos_De_Roo should now be muted
15:24:37 <EvanWallace> New version of ODM: http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/2006-01-01
15:25:01 <IanH> Donald: no important news on SBDR
15:25:13 <IanH> Evan: new draft on ODM
15:25:17 <csma> s/SBDR/SBVR/
15:25:36 <IanH> Christian: any other news from any other group?
15:25:44 <IanH> No news.
15:25:59 <IanH> Next Topic: UCR
15:26:12 <IanH> Christian to modify template: DONE
15:26:46 <IanH> Also made slight modificaton to structure
15:26:46 <sandro> [DONE] ACTION: csma to modify design constraint template to take into acccount what was said today [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/28-rif-minutes.html#action12]
15:26:50 <sandro> [PENDING] ACTION: Evan to publicize to ODM [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/28-rif-minutes.html#action09]
15:26:58 <csma> ack john
15:27:02 <johnhall> did it, said so last week
15:27:08 <sandro> [DONE] ACTION: John Hall to publicise to BR community [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/28-rif-minutes.html#action04]
15:27:26 <Zakim> +Michael_Kifer
15:27:32 <johnhall> zakim, mute me
15:27:32 <Zakim> johnhall should now be muted
15:27:33 <sandro> [DONE] ACTION: JosB to publicise to SPARQL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/28-rif-minutes.html#action05]
15:27:45 <sandro> [DONE] ACTION: Sandro to set up a wiki page to record dissemination actions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/28-rif-minutes.html#action10]
15:28:14 <IanH> Christian: any comment on dissemination?
15:28:24 <IanH> Sandro: only one comment on comments list
15:28:29 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Outreach
15:28:55 <IanH> Christian: not yet evaluated so will discuss next week or via email
15:29:07 <sandro> comments archive: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-comments/
15:29:17 <IanH> Next Topic: discussion of specific constraints
15:30:10 <IanH> Christian: is there a way to visualise structure if we draw dependencies between design constraints? Any visualisation tool for this?
15:30:25 <IanH> Frank: I use Omnigraffle(?) a Mac tool
15:30:36 <SaidTabet> Frank: Can you point us to it? URL?
15:31:04 <IanH> ACTION: Frank will produce an initial diagram with existing constraints
15:31:36 <IanH> Frank: it has its own format, but will generate visio, jpeg, bmp etc etc
15:32:20 <IanH> Frank: but probably need Omnigraffle to modify (maybe via visio)
15:33:07 <IanH> Christian: how do we decide which constraints to discuss, particularly when list grows
15:33:23 <IanH> Christian: proposes only to discuss constraints that have been seconded
15:33:40 <IanH> Any objections?
15:33:54 <IanH> Resolved by popular apathy/aclaim
15:34:31 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Design_Constraints
15:35:41 <IanH> Christian: Dave Reynolds proposed strawman goals hierarchy; I believe that it is useful and will help structure constraints
15:35:57 <IanH> Christian: wonders why almost no goals belong to existing list?
15:35:59 <DaveReynolds> ack me
15:36:24 <sandro> dave's email:  http://www.w3.org/mid/44326F35.9030804@hplb.hpl.hp.com
15:36:33 <IanH> Dave: was mainly trying to get structure/level right rather than map existing list.
15:36:59 <IanH> Dave: believes that some of existing goals *are* in the list, e.g., production rules, semantics, compatibility
15:37:22 <IanH> Dave: list focuses on high level goals
15:38:10 <IanH> Dave: wanted to avoid swamping with detail
15:38:10 <sandro> +1 coherent presentaiton in e-mail vs putting this particular hierarchy on the wiki as is
15:38:52 <IanH> Christian: encourages people to react to email and comment and add to requirements if believed to be important
15:39:19 <IanH> Christian: Is clear and precise semantics realy a requirement.
15:39:25 <pfps> q+
15:39:28 <sandro> FrankMcCabe
15:39:30 <JosDeRoo> Sandro: I was wrong with fixed utc start times for rdfcore and webont; is only dawg that has fixed utc start time and I generalized; sorry
15:39:34 <IanH> Frank: Probably not if we can't measure it
15:40:08 <sandro> Good, Jos -- I didn't think I'd misunderstood common practice here so badly.
15:40:22 <sandro> q?
15:40:23 <IanH> Frank: Wording could be improved - e.g., success will depend on having clear semantics of a RIF rule set
15:40:56 <IanH> Frank: should be sharpened up and made a requirement
15:41:16 <pfps> q-
15:42:11 <DaveReynolds> q+
15:42:22 <DaveReynolds> ack me
15:42:52 <LeoraMorgenstern> zakim, unmute me
15:42:52 <Zakim> LeoraMorgenstern should no longer be muted
15:42:54 <IanH> Dave: what does it mean for a proposal to be seconded?
15:42:56 <LeoraMorgenstern> q+
15:43:15 <IanH> Christian: agrees that dependency on another constraint constitutes support for that constraint
15:43:41 <IanH> Leora: constraints all seem straightforward and uncontroversial.
15:43:45 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/RIF_Core_must_cover_pure_Prolog
15:43:57 <sandro> q?
15:43:59 <IanH> Christian: may not be true w.r.t. phasing
15:44:15 <igor> +1
15:44:24 <JosDeRoo> +1
15:44:27 <AxelPolleres> Do you mean full ANSI prolog?
15:44:35 <IanH> Christian: second for pure prolog use case?
15:44:45 <IanH> Seconded by Igor
15:44:59 <sandro> Extended RIF must cover FOL
15:45:00 <MoZ> +1
15:45:10 <EvanWallace> +1
15:45:15 <LeoraMorgenstern> Ian, see http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Design_Constraints
15:45:24 <IanH> 2nd constraint: must cover 2nd order logic
15:45:33 <IanH> Seconded by NoZ and Evan
15:45:33 <MalaMehrotra> MalaMehrotra has joined #rif
15:45:34 <Allen> q+
15:45:37 <LeoraMorgenstern> q-
15:45:50 <IanH> 3rd constaint: must be sound
15:46:07 <csma> ack leora
15:46:10 <Allen> zakim, unmute me
15:46:10 <Zakim> Allen_Ginsberg should no longer be muted
15:46:14 <IanH> Harold: not sure this makes sense - all logics are sound
15:46:44 <IanH> Allen: soundness may be a requirement on systems rather than RIF
15:47:03 <josb> How can you reason with something which is unknown?
15:47:32 <IanH> Christian: requirement should be rephrased to clearly be a requirement on RIF and not on systems
15:47:58 <sandro> q+
15:47:59 <IanH> Allen: agreed; also, do we want requirements/constraints on systems?
15:48:07 <sandro> ack Allen
15:48:12 <LeoraMorgenstern> Ian, in your scribing, you say 2nd constraint mentions 2nd order logic; actually, it mentions first order logic!
15:48:33 <LeoraMorgenstern> (confusion of seconding the constraint and the order of logic ;)
15:48:40 <IanH> CORRECTION: second constraint refers to 1st order logic (thaks)
15:49:13 <Allen> zakim, mute me\
15:49:13 <Zakim> sorry, Allen, I do not see a party named 'me\'
15:49:14 <Allen> zakim, mute me
15:49:14 <Zakim> Allen_Ginsberg should now be muted
15:49:30 <GiorgosStoilos> s/must cover 2nd order logic/must cover 1st order logic
15:49:35 <Allen> q+
15:49:41 <sandro> ack sandro
15:49:52 <IanH> Christian: nobody has yet seconded the soundness constraint; should be clarified and discussed on email before being discussed on teleconf
15:51:03 <IanH> Sandro: disagrees with procedure; teleconf is good place to discuss focus of constraint (RIF -v- systems)
15:51:12 <Allen> zakim, unmute me
15:51:12 <Zakim> Allen_Ginsberg should no longer be muted
15:51:54 <IanH> Christian: agrees in general, but w.r.t. specific constraint 2 clarifications needed: what does "sound" mean; is it a RIF or system constraint
15:52:13 <IanH> ACTION: sandro to clarify meaning of sound and what is the requirement on RIF
15:53:17 <IanH> ???: requirements often reflect proposed/imagined applications
15:53:19 <sandro> (I'll probably rename it: RIF Core must allow sound reasoning with unknown dialects
15:53:19 <sandro> )
15:53:31 <josb> s/???/Allen/
15:53:58 <IanH> Allen: but this may lead to revealing constraints/requirement on RIF
15:54:37 <AxelPolleres> -1 (sorry very late) to RIF_Core_must_cover_pure_Prolog: Prolog is not declarative, I don't like that in RIF core
15:54:38 <csma> q?
15:54:47 <IanH> Allen: So may be useful to talk about applications w.r.t. critical success factors and/or goals
15:55:38 <IanH> Harold: Asks clarrification question that I didn't understand w.r.t. "soundness"
15:56:10 <GaryHallmark> -1 to RIF_Core_must_cover_pure_Prolog -- this implies that every prolog ruleset must be able to be translated to every rule dialect we support.  I'm not sure that's possible with production rules
15:56:21 <IanH> Sandro: rephrase requirement 3 as RIF core must allow sound reasoning with mixed dialects
15:56:59 <Allen> zakim, mute me
15:56:59 <Zakim> Allen_Ginsberg should now be muted
15:57:25 <Harold> Sandro, Re candidate DC "Sound reasoning with unknown dialects" from the RIF perspective we could say "Permit heterogeneous rules in a single ruleset".
15:57:28 <JosDeRoo> use case?
15:57:39 <josb> +1
15:57:40 <IanH> zakim, unmute me
15:57:40 <Zakim> IanH should no longer be muted
15:57:41 <Allen> skipped one
15:57:44 <ChrisW> ChrisW has joined #rif
15:57:53 <DaveReynolds> You skipped one, the next one was The RIF Core must be able to accept RDF triples as data
15:58:21 <IanH> ACTION: to clarify whether sound reasoning constraint with unknown dialects is a requirement or a critical success factor
15:58:25 <AxelPolleres> +q
15:58:32 <csma> q?
15:58:32 <JosDeRoo> +1
15:58:37 <Allen> q-
15:58:37 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, unmute me
15:58:38 <sandro> You want "q+" Alex.
15:58:38 <josb> yes
15:58:38 <Zakim> Axel_Polleres should no longer be muted
15:58:41 <MichaelKifer> regarding RIF_Core_must_cover_pure_Prolog: Pure prolog = Horn. I understand that we are committed to that
15:58:50 <IanH> Constraint: RIF must be able to accept RDF as data
15:59:03 <csma> ack allen
15:59:05 <sandro> You want "q+" Axel
15:59:12 <Allen> q-
15:59:36 <JosDeRoo> yes
15:59:45 <DaveReynolds> +1 to The RIF Core must be able to accept RDF triples as data
15:59:49 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, mute me
15:59:49 <Zakim> Axel_Polleres should now be muted
15:59:58 <AxelPolleres> +1 to RDF
16:00:01 <IanH> Seconded DaveReynolds
16:00:03 <josb> I will second this as well
16:00:12 <IanH> And seconded by Axel
16:00:47 <IanH> Sandro/Christian: seconding should be via web page
16:01:04 <IanH> Christian: you have to add your name on the wiki page for that constraint
16:01:10 <AxelPolleres> Will there also be the possiblity to *object* on the Wiki page?
16:01:42 <josb> q+
16:01:42 <sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/RIF_Core_must_cover_pure_Prolog
16:01:45 <IanH> Christian: open discussion on pure prolog
16:01:51 <sandro> q?
16:01:51 <GaryHallmark> q+
16:01:58 <csma> q?
16:01:59 <AxelPolleres> I think jos will clarify this...
16:02:05 <Uli> can we refine constraints? If yes, what happens to the secondings?
16:02:05 <pfps> q+
16:02:05 <IanH> Christian: Axel didn't support?
16:02:09 <sandro> ack josb 
16:02:11 <csma> ack josb
16:02:34 <IanH> Josb: problem is that prolog doesn't have declarative semantics; would require procedural semantics for RIF
16:02:39 <Allen> that depends what you mean by "cover"
16:02:39 <IanH> Christian: too weak?
16:02:43 <MarkusK> An interesting link considering declarativity in Prolog: http://www.cs.sunysb.edu/~warren/xsbbook/node2.html
16:02:51 <AxelPolleres> IanH: I didn't support prolog in the sense of jos 
16:02:58 <IanH> Josb: no, too strong; would requirem procedural semantics.
16:03:08 <AxelPolleres> q+
16:03:17 <holger> holger has joined #rif
16:03:21 <Harold> MichealK, I agree in the sense that Pure Prolog 'realizes' Horn, which is the language of the Charter's Phase 1.
16:03:25 <Harold> q+
16:03:30 <FrankMcCabe> I think that jos is misunderstanding the situation
16:03:37 <IanH> Josb: semantics only defined in terms of algorithm; if this is a req. then we would need this kind of algoritm to define semantics for RIF core
16:03:47 <AxelPolleres> q-
16:03:56 <IanH> Sandro: e.g. requiring SLD resolution or some such
16:04:00 <csma> ack gary
16:04:39 <IanH> Gary: Agree, it is too big, and this would mean that every prolog rule set would need to be translated into production rules.
16:04:51 <IanH> Gray: believes that this would lead to problems
16:05:04 <FrankMcCabe> q+
16:05:07 <sandro> q+ Alex
16:05:13 <AxelPolleres> I was just about to mention the example that "pure" Prolog doesn't terminate on queries that can be fulfiled and depends on the rule order, so a ruleset, is actually not a set there.
16:05:13 <sandro> ack pfps
16:05:13 <csma> ack
16:05:59 <MoZ> +1 to define pure prolog
16:06:10 <IanH> Peter: two issues. 1) what is defn of pure prolog? idealisation of prolog without negation etc. This is effectively horn clauses which is better. 2) this is only semi decidable, which is bad for core
16:06:32 <GaryHallmark> s/Gray/Gary
16:06:43 <IanH> Sandro: believes that by pure prolog he really meant Horn
16:06:47 <MichaelKifer> q+
16:06:55 <josb> q+
16:07:03 <IanH> Sandro: thinks that procedural semantics may be needed in real world examples.
16:07:12 <sandro> ack Harold
16:07:13 <IanH> Sandro: needs clarification; we are getting there.
16:07:14 <csma> ack harold
16:07:15 <Uli> ...and perhaps even function-free Horn?!
16:07:20 <igor> pure Prolog = logic program (Horn) with defined order of goals and clauses
16:07:56 <Allen> q+
16:08:01 <IanH> Harold: believes that RP realises prolog; can imagine lex. ordering not taken into account; needs some procedural stuff
16:08:09 <MoZ> i imagine with have to settle an action to define the subset of Prolog we cover in RIF language
16:08:18 <josb> +1 to start with Datalog
16:08:22 <MoZ> s/with/we/
16:08:27 <josb> Datalog also has a declarative semantics
16:08:30 <IanH> Harold: decided in charter to specify Datalog
16:08:31 <AxelPolleres> +1 to igor's definition and thus -1 to the requirement! :-)
16:08:41 <IanH> Sandro: pure prolog covers Datalog
16:08:51 <sandro> q?
16:08:52 <AxelPolleres> Datalog is declarative, i.e. rule order does not matter!
16:09:04 <IanH> Harold: was discussed 1 year ago and we decided to start with Horn and not just datalog
16:09:16 <IanH> Christian: reason was to have functions in phase 1
16:09:26 <IanH> Harold: this makes it undecidable
16:09:41 <csma> q?
16:09:48 <IanH> Sandro: maybe we should separate requirements into Datalog and pure prolog
16:10:08 <IanH> Harold: what about charter?
16:10:18 <sandro> ack FrankMcCabe 
16:10:19 <IanH> Christian: again, because we wanted functions
16:10:28 <IanH> Frank: Harlold said it all.
16:10:47 <IanH> Frank: Most people believe that PP means Horn with no procedural semantics
16:10:50 <Hassan> q+
16:10:55 <csma> ack alex
16:10:57 <IanH> Frank: has been a religious argument for many years
16:10:58 <josb> Let's use an unambiguous terminology!
16:11:36 <IanH> Alex: In RIF core will there be any way to mark rules as using a different semantics, or will there be a uniform semantics for all rules?
16:11:57 <josb> q-
16:12:20 <MarkusK> What does it mean to "implement the RIF core", for a semi-decidable core?
16:12:27 <IanH> Christian: every implementation must implement at least RIF core, but not all implementations will be able to implement multiple semantics - big burden on implementors
16:12:40 <csma> q?
16:12:45 <IanH> Alex: but what about provision for plug-in semantics?
16:12:54 <Uli> ...but how will this be an implementation for their combination? We would need to define what their combination means?!
16:12:58 <sandro> ack MichaelKifer 
16:13:02 <FrankMcCabe> Semi-decidable = soundness and completeness and decidable equality?
16:13:06 <IanH> Christian: believes this is for extended RIF, but could be discussed
16:13:07 <MarkusK> +1 to Uli
16:13:08 <Allen> zakim, unmute me
16:13:08 <Zakim> Allen_Ginsberg was not muted, Allen
16:13:22 <IanH> Michael: believes PP is equivalent to Horn rules
16:13:26 <sandro> zakim, who is talking?
16:13:37 <LeoraMorgenstern> am I the only one hearing french on the line?
16:13:38 <Zakim> sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Sandro (10%), Michael_Kifer (80%), MoZ (47%), Allen_Ginsberg (19%)
16:13:39 <IanH> Michael: is there a requirement for decidability of Core?
16:13:48 <sandro> zakim, mute MoZ 
16:13:48 <Zakim> MoZ should now be muted
16:13:58 <IanH> Michael: what is wrong with core being undecidable?
16:14:00 <Uli> Semi-decidable: "yes" will be answered correctly, "no" might not terminate
16:14:02 <sandro> no, LeoraMorgenstern, me too
16:14:06 <MoZ> sorry 
16:14:21 <IanH> Michael: at f2f we proposed semantic tagging of rule sets for extensibility
16:14:34 <IanH> Michael/Alex: this is needed for extensibility
16:14:36 <MarkusK> Semi-decidable: all "yes" are recursively enumerable
16:14:37 <csma> q?
16:14:41 <FrankMcCabe> there is a completeness proof for SLD logic
16:15:13 <sandro> q?
16:15:17 <IanH> Machael: only question is whethere core needs to be decidable; what about production rules? not compatible with Horn
16:15:19 <MichaelKifer> q-
16:15:35 <Zakim> -MoZ
16:15:45 <IanH> Allen: Agrees with Michael; no need to be decidable. 
16:16:33 <IanH> Allen: notion of representation without being able to reason
16:16:58 <IanH> Christian: what do we do with non-requirements?
16:17:15 <IanH> Frank: good idea to have non-requirements
16:17:17 <josb> q+
16:17:34 <IanH> Sandro: we can just decide this; can be written up on wiki page
16:17:55 <Leora_Morgenstern> Leora_Morgenstern has joined #rif
16:18:04 <IanH> Christian: this may apply to decidability (it may be a non-requirement)
16:18:17 <Allen> q-
16:18:41 <Allen> zakim, mute me
16:18:41 <Zakim> Allen_Ginsberg should now be muted
16:19:14 <IanH> Christian: wants write up as to why RIF core should *not* cover pure prolog
16:19:33 <IanH> Sandro: would like to separate this from decidability (non-)requirement
16:19:37 <josb> q-
16:19:50 <GaryHallmark> does anyone know how to characterize the intersection of production rules and pure prolog?
16:20:12 <IanH> Sandro: question as to definition/semantics also needs to be clarified
16:20:16 <AxelPolleres> If it was about specifying the criticicm, I can do that. In the document?
16:21:22 <IanH> ACTION: MickaelK to extend page on pure prolog and give a precise definition (according to standard publications)
16:22:09 <sandro> page is http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Pure_Prolog
16:22:32 <IanH> Christian: volunteer to clarify (non)decidability?
16:22:56 <Uli> q+
16:23:04 <IanH> Sandro: proposes that decidability is not a requirement
16:23:06 <sandro> ack Uli 
16:23:07 <csma> ack uli
16:23:17 <AxelPolleres> We should of course define the decidable fragments and give them a name. Or no?
16:23:31 <IanH> Uli: could we be clearer about what kind of reasoning problems we are talking about?
16:23:32 <AxelPolleres> q+
16:23:43 <IanH> Christian: agrees; this needs to be discussed and clarified
16:23:47 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, unmute me
16:23:47 <Zakim> Axel_Polleres should no longer be muted
16:23:52 <csma> ack axel
16:24:24 <sandro> +1 define somewhere the decidable fragments, w.r.t. particular reasoning tasks, like query answering
16:24:26 <IanH> Axel: even if we decide against decidability, would be useful to identify known decidable fragments (w.r.t. particularl reasoning tasks)
16:24:30 <Harold> Uli, right: issue is decidability of conjunctive queries
16:24:34 <Uli> +1
16:24:53 <Harold> Axel, yes: standard sublanguage Datalog is a good idea.
16:25:04 <pfps> A counter to Michael's claim that PP is always Horn (only) can be found in http://www.cs.nyu.edu/courses/spring02/G22.2560-001/horn.html
16:25:10 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, unmute me.
16:25:10 <Zakim> Axel_Polleres was not muted, AxelPolleres
16:25:14 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, mute me.
16:25:14 <Zakim> Axel_Polleres should now be muted
16:25:43 <IanH> Christian: would like someone to propose decidability (non-)requirement so we can discuss something more precisely defined
16:26:02 <IanH> Harold: Charter says Horn, and this is undecidable
16:26:05 <josb> +1 to pfps; we should be unambiguous in the terminology
16:26:11 <csma> ack hassan
16:26:22 <Zakim> +MoZ
16:26:23 <AxelPolleres> +1 to Hassan
16:26:27 <sandro> q+
16:26:28 <josb> +1 to Hassan
16:26:28 <MarkusK> +1 to avoid the term Horn
16:26:30 <PaulaP> +1 to Hassan's comment
16:26:34 <sandro> zakim, mute moz
16:26:34 <Zakim> MoZ should now be muted
16:26:35 <Uli> +1
16:26:38 <MarkusK> s /Horn/Prolog/
16:26:43 <sandro> Moz, I muted you because you were being noisy
16:26:46 <AxelPolleres> MArkusK, you meant Prolog?
16:26:48 <IanH> Hassan: hears a lot of confusion; shouldn't use prolog, should use Horn; not clear what pure prolog means - should just cast out this term
16:26:52 <sandro> q?
16:27:00 <MarkusK> Axel: yes
16:27:10 <IanH> Hassan: any interesting rule language will be undecidable, so its a non-requirement
16:27:52 <MichaelKifer> +1 to Hasan's proposal (especially since this obviates my action item :-)
16:28:02 <IanH> Hassan: need rule annotations that can specify semantics (which may be declarative or procedural)
16:29:24 <sandro> ack sandro
16:29:26 <IanH> ACTION: Christian to send email to propose resolution that decidability is a non-requirement and gather relevant arguments before next telecon
16:29:27 <csma> ack sandro
16:29:37 <sandro> Extended RIF must cover jrules
16:30:10 <IanH> Sandro: Imagines each participant requires that extended RIF covers their rule language of choice
16:30:35 <Zakim> -Gary_Hallmark
16:30:38 <MichaelKifer> q+
16:30:40 <IanH> Sandro: thought that pure prolog was, however, small enough to be covered in core, but is a real language that is widely used and well understood
16:30:40 <csma> q?
16:30:41 <josb> -1 to Sandro
16:31:03 <IanH> Harlod: agrees; can extend such an implementation in many directions.
16:31:07 <Uli> ...but prolog doesn't have a declarative semantics! 
16:31:15 <sandro> +1 extend 10 minutes
16:31:18 <MoZ> +1
16:31:19 <DaveReynolds> -1 continue by email
16:31:27 <josb> -1: continute by email
16:31:38 <josb> s/continute/continue/
16:31:39 <sandro> resolved 5 minutes
16:31:40 <AxelPolleres> If we agree to Sandro then we implicitly should agree to drop the term rule-"set" odr no?
16:31:42 <IanH> At *most* 10 minutes for me!
16:31:44 <csma> ack hassan
16:31:56 <Zakim> +Gary_Hallmark
16:32:03 <josb> Few people agree with Sandro!
16:32:04 <csma> q?
16:32:18 <josb> +1 to Hassan again
16:32:36 <Harold> ...Pure Prolog (with annotation: no textual order, breadth-first, occurs check) has declarative semantics of Herbrand models.
16:32:38 <IanH> Hassan: pure prolog is not a language; it is a set of rules and you need to say how they will be used; let's not be ambiguous.
16:32:46 <GaryHallmark> q+
16:33:21 <josb> ++++++++1
16:33:29 <Uli> Harold, I thought "Pure prolog" is depth first, and order-dependent?!
16:33:36 <csma> Q?
16:33:36 <MichaelKifer> q-
16:33:37 <IanH> MichaelK: Peter points our varioations on meaning of pure prolog. May mean terminating prolog rules. Michael agrees; suggests we only talk about Horn. He will clarify on wiki.
16:33:46 <csma> ack gary
16:33:48 <AxelPolleres> I thought the same as uli.
16:34:30 <IanH> GaryH: Agrees with Sandro about favourite language; core must be common to everyones favourites; is "pure prolog"/Horn small enough to be in this intersection?
16:34:39 <pfps> The pointer I gave does define Pure Prolog as L-R evaluation, and other deviations from "Horn" semantics.
16:34:40 <FrankMcCabe> we must decide on declarative vs procedural semantics
16:34:46 <IanH> Sandro: will be interested in outcome of discussion.
16:35:05 <IanH> Christian: aob?
16:35:23 <PaulaP> bye
16:35:25 <Zakim> -FrankMcCabe
16:35:25 <IanH> Christian: hearing none, meeting is closed.\
16:35:26 <Zakim> -Hassan_Ait-Kaci
16:35:26 <Zakim> -josb
16:35:27 <Zakim> -pfps
16:35:28 <Deborah_Nichols> bye
16:35:28 <Zakim> -JeffP
16:35:29 <Zakim> -Igor_Mozetic
16:35:30 <Zakim> -Uli
16:35:31 <Zakim> -PaulaP
16:35:32 <Uli> bye
16:35:32 <JeffP> bye
16:35:32 <Zakim> -Deborah_Nichols
16:35:34 <Zakim> -MarkusK
16:35:35 <Allen> bye
16:35:36 <Zakim> -??P4
16:35:37 <SaidTabet> bye'
16:35:38 <Zakim> -Dave_Reynolds
16:35:38 <igor> bye
16:35:40 <Zakim> -GiorgosStoilos
16:35:42 <Zakim> -Gary_Hallmark
16:35:44 <Zakim> -MoZ
16:35:44 <MoZ> bye
16:35:46 <Zakim> -David_Hirtle
16:35:48 <Zakim> -LeoraMorgenstern
16:35:49 <MalaMehrotra> bye
16:35:50 <Zakim> -Jos_De_Roo
16:35:52 <Zakim> -Evan_Wallace
16:35:53 <Harold> Uli, in John Lloyd's "Foundations of Logic Programming" depth first is labeled as a search strategy that leads to implementation incompleteness.
16:35:54 <Zakim> -Donald_Chapin
16:35:56 <Zakim> -SaidTabet
16:35:56 <IanH> zakim, unmute me
16:35:58 <Zakim> -Axel_Polleres
16:36:00 <Zakim> -Allen_Ginsberg
16:36:02 <Zakim> -Michael_Kifer
16:36:04 <Zakim> IanH was not muted, IanH
16:36:06 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean
16:36:08 <Zakim> -Harold
16:36:11 <csma> make minutes
16:36:13 <AxelPolleres> because, he seems to neglect the difference...
16:36:15 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call
16:36:15 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is on the call', sandro
16:36:19 <AxelPolleres> ooops
16:36:22 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
16:36:22 <Zakim> On the phone I see csma, IanH, Sandro, johnhall (muted), Mala_Mehrotra
16:36:25 <Zakim> -johnhall
16:36:38 <sandro> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:36:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/04/04-rif-minutes.html sandro
16:37:11 <Zakim> -Mala_Mehrotra
16:38:17 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
16:38:17 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2006/04/04-rif-irc#T16-38-17
16:38:51 <Zakim> -IanH
16:39:26 <ChrisW> looks like an interesting call!
16:40:06 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
16:40:06 <Zakim> On the phone I see csma, Sandro
16:47:01 <Zakim> -Sandro
16:47:02 <Zakim> -csma
16:47:04 <Zakim> SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
16:47:05 <Zakim> Attendees were Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Leora_Morgenstern, Evan_Wallace, Donald_Chapin, josb, Deborah_Nichols, LeoraMorgenstern, csma, Harold, FrankMcCabe, Axel_Polleres, Dave_Reynolds,
16:47:10 <Zakim> ... IanH, Allen_Ginsberg, MarkusK, Mike_Dean, David_Hirtle, Uli, PaulaP, Jos_De_Roo, Igor_Mozetic, pfps, GiorgosStoilos, Sandro, johnhall, JeffP, SaidTabet, Mala_Mehrotra,
16:47:12 <Zakim> ... Gary_Hallmark, MoZ, Michael_Kifer
17:11:13 <ChrisW> zakim?
17:11:17 <ChrisW> hello?
17:11:43 <ChrisW> zakim, who is on the phone?
17:11:43 <Zakim> apparently SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended, ChrisW
17:11:44 <Zakim> On IRC I see Leora_Morgenstern, holger, ChrisW, sandro, JeffP, IanH, Uli, Harold, RRSAgent, Zakim, csma, LeoraMorgenstern, FrankMcCabe, EvanWallace, MoZ, Keeper
17:41:30 <csma> csma has left #rif
19:23:55 <MoZ_> MoZ_ has joined #rif
19:24:57 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rif
19:25:29 <MoZ__> MoZ__ has joined #rif