See also: IRC log
<IanH> +1
<Harold> zakim [NRCC] is me
<MoZ_> Zakim aabb is MoZ
<AlexK> I cannot connect, I can't hear anything
<sandro> AlexK, what happens when you try?
<AlexK> I'm typing in the conference call, I'm on the phone--total silence
<AlexK> Let me check: +1.617.761.6200 conference code 74394#
<ChrisW> uli, can you scribe?
<AlexK> I've joined finally
<ChrisW> scribenick: uli
<ChrisW> updated minutes: [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Apr/0036.html]
Hassan: minutes don't make sense at one point:
<LeoraMorgenstern> q
Hassan: chronolgy is unclear
<LeoraMorgenstern> I'm off the queue; Ian said what I wanted to say.
Hassan: doubts whether jiggsaw-puzzle can be accepted
Chris: explains how "+1" is always difficult,
<pfps> +1 :-)
Christian: advises scribes to add stuff as long as it's fresh in their mind.
<Deborah_Nichols> I can send some amplification from my notes
Hassan no longer objects
<ChrisW> +1
<MoZ_> +1
<ChrisW> +1 to ian
IanH suggest to wait with "+1" until scribe has scribed
<MoZ_> +1 to make clearer +1
<Zakim> sandro, you wanted to comment on +1 in IRC
ChrisW: no objections to accept the minutes?
<Harold> +1 to minutes
<csma> +1 to accept minutes
<PaulaP> +1 to accept minutes
Sandro: suggest to "annotate" the "+1"s with what you agree with (as in all the examples above)
<MarkusK> +1 to stating what one agrees to ;-)
CHrisW: minutes are
accepted
... Christian's action
Christian: RIF telecon overlaps with Sparql telecon because of Boston time/universal time difference
ChristianW: has checked that there are no rules as to which time should be used for WGs
Christian: we could switch to UTC, but this will mean 1 hour later.
ChrisW: anybody wants to stay wrt constant?
<MoZ_> just prefer no overlapping
ChrisW: which means "no summertime"
??? prefers this because otherwise, RIF members can't participate in SPARQL meeting
<csma> ACTION: Christian will investigate overlap with SPARQL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/04-rif-minutes.html#action04] [CONTINUED]
JosDeRoo: finds summertime in general annoying
ChrisW: explains 2 problems: changing to/from summertime and soarql overlap
<pfps> there are places that don't go on summer time at all
ChrisW: isn't sure whether Rif's
time is changeable
... F2F meeting:
<csma> 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] [DONE]
ChrisW: repeats warning about filling flights to Dubrovnik
<Hassan> +1 to posting a page on travel
ChrisW: suggest to put up a page to register, Sandro?
<AlexK> I am enquiring with the management about my availability
<PaulaP> we can use the information found at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F3/TravelTimes
<AlexK> for the F2F
Sandro: ok, for registration and
also travel times for co-ordination...
... will set up a RIF registration page
<csma> ACTION: Sandro to set up registration page for F2F3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/11-rif-minutes.html#action03]
ChrisW: SW conference will organize travel arrangements from the airport, and we need to co-ordinate with them
<AlexK> I can't access teh travel times page--not allowed to view this page
<csma> it seems likz the W3C site is down
<sandro> AlexK, you need to login to the wiki to get to that page. (BUt that page is now obsolete, if I understand correctly.)
<PaulaP> at moment it is not really clear whether the ESWC organizers will provide such a form
MKifer: are the visa requirements for Montenegro?
<AlexK> Croatia should be fine for most of us
MKifer: and visa for Croatia?
<MarkusK> Btw. Michael Sintek and I are going to Tivat
<PaulaP> there is information on the ESWC web page
<Deborah_Nichols> the country is Serbia and Montenegro. There is no Yugoslavia any more.
<IanH> We couldn't be so lucky as to be unable to go there!
<AlexK> http://www.southtravels.com/europe/serbiamontenegro/visa.html
Uli: ask your travel agent!
<igor> http://www.mfa.gov.yu/Visas/VisasR.htm
<AlexK> Have a look above
<igor> visa info for Montenegro
<PaulaP> http://www.mfa.gov.yu/Visas/VisasR.htm
Christian: seems most citizens won't need a visa...
ChrisW: reminder that next week
is deadline for proposals for F2F4
... currently, there are 2 proposals
... Liasons?
<PaulV> OMG PRR: no news from liason
ChrisW; Use cases, actions check
<csma> ACTION: Christian to send email to propose resolution that decidability is a non-requirement and gather relevant arguments before next telecon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/04-rif-minutes.html#action14] [DONE]
ChrisW: ...?action continued
<csma> ACTION: Frank will produce an initial diagram with existing constraints [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/04-rif-minutes.html#action10] [CONTINUED]
ChrisW: decidability proposal
csma: was not comfortable with WG
deciding "non-requirements", prefers requirements, etc
... so far, nobody submitted a requirement on
decidability,
<csma> ACTION: MickaelK to extend page on pure prolog and give a precise definition (according to standard publications) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/04-rif-minutes.html#action13] [DONE]
csma: suggests to come up with a requirement that makes decidability a non-requirement
<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Apr/0005.html
ChrisW: topic: Dave's proposal
<DavidHirtle> I think he posted regrets on the wiki
<csma> ACTION: sandro to clarify meaning of sound and what is the requirement on RIF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/04-rif-minutes.html#action11] [CONTINUED]
<csma> ACTION: Sandro to clarify whether sound reasoning constraint with unknown dialects is a requirement or a critical success factor [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/04-rif-minutes.html#action12] [CONTINUED]
ChrisW: Dave's proposal is a good
example of a requirement
... any comments on this?
csma: if we agree on a requirement/goal/etc., then they should be linked with other things on the web page
<csma> ACTION: Evan to publicize to ODM [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/28-rif-minutes.html#action09] [DONE]
sandro: we could use Dave's proposal as a "structural example" and have the others follow it
<pfps> Here we are getting into a problem similar to that brought up by Hassan - the log is not close to the timeline of the call
csma: disagrees
<sandro> Chris: Do we like this CSF Methodology?
chrisW: explains that we only meant the "abstract structure", not the specific proposal
who is speaking?
<sandro> FrankMcCabe
FMC: Sees some up-side down thinking and suggests to concentrate on goals before we go to requirements
csma: reminds that requirements can only come with critical success factors
<sandro> Frank: Mine goals from the charter.
FMC: suggests too mine charta for goals
MKifer: seconds FMC's
suggestions, and observes that Dave's proposal is vague in
parts
... e.g., "effective" and "sufficiently few dialects"
... doesn't understand implications of several points in Dave's
proposal
<PaulaP> +1 to more clear and detailed constraints
csma: suggests to add details and comments on the wiki
MKifer: suggests to avoid "general words"
csma: suggests to add examples for implementation of a requirement
ChrisW: what's the relation between hierarchy and goals and design constraints?
csma: there are "dependencies" to
be added
... and which will be visualised
ChrisW: sees representation
problem
... we would need levels in hierarchy, to have structure
between constraints
<Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask if it's a tree or a lattice?
FMC: explains how adding more justifications for a requirement makes it stronger
<sandro> Frank: It's important to know all the reasons why a Requirement is important (ie a lattice)
ChrisW: wants to know how to indicate direction of link?
<sandro> Sandro: I like "Motivation"
<sandro> paste link to what you're loking at, folks.
csma: explains how dependencies work between requirements and critical design factors...
<AlexK> critical SUCCESS factors
sandro: suggest to make things easier by using an indented list for requirements
<Zakim> sandro, you wanted to suggest a simple way to do the structure
sandro: and to add cdfs explicitly
ChrisW: and link requirements to
detailed ...goals?
... this would make structure more apparent
ChrisW: (using this one because its complete)...reads out an example from csma
ChrisW: comments on requirement that compliant applications must be able to handle in a predictable way
csma: suggests that we start with a less complex one
<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/RIF_Core_must_cover_pure_Prolog
ChrisW: so, comments on "Rif core
must cover pure prolog"?
... reminds that we already discussed difficulty with "pure
prolog"
csma: suggests to remove "core" from this requirement
<sandro> +1 to csma, it's too early to argue that RIF **Core** should cover pure Prolog
csma: would prefer that this is "Rif standard or Rif core"
<GaryHallmark> +1 to remove core. Core seems by definition the intersection of the other requirements
csma: in general, would prefer to be a bit more complete/global wrt different Rifs
pfps: even pure prolog is "very
complicated", and suggests to decide whether/where we need to
cover this
... suggests to replace "pure prolog" with "X", for a simpler
logic
... it's inappropriate to talk about ISO standards here, and
thus pure prolog is difficult
<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Apr/author.html
<MarkusK> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Pure_Prolog
Igor: explains that all information is found at the prolog wiki page
<PaulaP> +1 to pfps on finding the motivation of using pure prolog here
pfps: what about occurs check?
Igor: suggests to accept MKifer's suggestion to drop pure prolog
ChrisW: action on Igor, to
explain what we mean on the wiki
... it's up to requirement's authors as to whether this will be
prolog or Horn or...
Igor: suggests to replace pure prolog with "horn clauses"
ChrisW: Horn clauses is not unambiguous either...
sandro: any suggestions for a new name for "pure prolog"?
MKifer: repeats from his email: pp is horn plus ordering
csma: clarifies his previous
remark, that requirements shouldn't target specific RIF
variants
... this discussion should be left to a later point in
time
... wants to get a complete picture first
<csma> ACTION: Sandro and Igor to find a name+definition for the "pure prolog" requirement that does not mention "pure prolog" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/11-rif-minutes.html#action10]
Harold: agrees with MKifer, and
suggests "Ordered Horn clauses"
... because both ordering of literals and rules is
important
<ChrisW> ach harold
<pfps> An interesting page on ISO Prolog is http://pauillac.inria.fr/~deransar/prolog/docs.html. The page seems to indicate that the occurs check is somehow optional, at least in some situations.
<ChrisW> ach\k harold
<Harold> We can now define positively what we converged to mean by "Pure Prolog": "Ordered Horn clause".
<csma> ACTION: Sandro to discuss on email whether the "pure prolog" requirement can be replaced by a "horn logic" requirement or if we need both [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/11-rif-minutes.html#action11]
JDR: agrees with Harold, and points out how complicated prolog is (with occurs check and such like)
<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Extended_RIF_must_cover_FOL
ChrisW: next design constraint: extended RIF ...
FMC: wants to know critical success factor of FOL
<Harold> "Ordered Horn Clauses" could be the result of annotating "Horn Clauses".
<AlexK> I'll just merely say about the FOL that it captures requirements in some applications
LMo: explains that FOL is important because of expressiveness
<csma> +1 to FOL being impotant because of expressiveness
ChrisW: reminds that we are talking about "critical success factors"
<sandro> perhaps: goal = RIF must be useful for KR ?
LMo: will formulate critical
success factor for FOL
... ...and expressiveness
<AlexK> do we have meta-definitions of Goal, Requirement, CSF?
<LeoraMorgenstern> Uli, could you cite me as Leora instead of LMo?
<LeoraMorgenstern> I didn't know who leora is, and no-one else will ...
MalaM: seconds "RIF should cover FOL"
<sandro> http://www.w3.org/1998/12/bridge/Zakim.html
<AlexK> Am I identified?
MKifer: proposes that we apply same standard to FOL as to pure prologue, and hence to explain exactly what we mean by FOL
<sandro> I don't think so, AlexK. Try pressing "41#" on your telephone keypad.
<Hassan> +1 with Mike
<LeoraMorgenstern> q
<AlexK> I have typed it then what
csma: (1) "extended RIF" will cover everything since it will be extensible
<sandro> Thanks, AlexK, that was enough.
csma: (2) agrees that FOL is important, but he thinks that it is a critical success factor
<AlexK> Do I do it always when I join?
<MalaMehrotra> +1 to csma
<sandro> No, AlexK. Um, but let's talk about this after the telecon.
leora: asks (procedural) how we agree on what we mean by FOL
ChrisW: the champions decide what they mean, and then we revise it
MarkusK: wondered in how far "rule set" is ...?
neither am i
MarkusK: do we find "rules" in
FOL?
... that is, can we view any FOL theory as a rule set?
<sandro> Markus: does using the word Ruleset mean we're only talking about part of FOL?
ChrisW: so we need to clarify the relation between "rule set" and FOL
sandro: points out that "FOL" should mean "arbitrary FOL theories"
<sandro> Frank: CSF might be "you have to support KR", FOL is not a CSF
FrankMcCabe: doesn't think that FOL is critical success factor because it is ..KR..?
<sandro> Frank: as in, "if you can't do FOL, you can't do KR"
FrankMcCabe: doesn't think that FOL is a requirement (?) since "if you can't do FOL, you can't do KR"
thanks, sandro
<sandro> Frank: Which aspects, eg universally quanitied variables, etc.
csma: suggests that Frank means is something between requirement and csf
<AlexK> FOL is quite important for KR appplications, exchanging those between companies is very useful
Frank: as an example "we need to express existentially quantified variables" would be more like a csf
<csma> I clarified that Franck said that FOL was too specific to be a csf but not specific enough to be a requirement
<sandro> Frank: it's a short circuit to jump to FOL
Frank: "we need FOL" is to short since FOL is a technology
<Zakim> sandro, you wanted to argue that things like "sorted" don't matter for this purpose
<sandro> Sandro: I think "FOL" is the right level of granularity for this year.
Hassan: it concerned about "theories" are "rules"
<LeoraMorgenstern> +1 with sandro
Hassan: there are too many ways
to describe the same theory (gentzen, sequents, etc),
... wants to know whether RIF is about "(deduction) rule
interchange" or "theory interchange"
<sandro> Sandro: I'm just talking about standard, textbook, FOL here, as something we need to support in an extension.
<sandro> LeoraMorgenstern: FOL is a cohesive whole, too, to it's a good point of granularity.
leora: sees lots of little requirements as suggested by sandro, and then the risk of people taking subsets of these and obtaining unintended things
ChrisW: points out importance of clarity in the requirements formulation
leora: points out the risk of mini-requirements
<LeoraMorgenstern> Uli --- it wasn't sandro who suggested little requirements; it was frank
ChrisW: topic AOB
<PaulaP> bye
<PaulV> bye
<JeffP> bye
<Deborah_Nichols> bye
<MalaMehrotra> bye
<MoZ_> bye
bye bye
<igor> bye
<sandro> alex, you left....
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/Joos/JosDeRoo/ Succeeded: s/LMo/leora/ Found ScribeNick: uli Inferring Scribes: uli WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: AlexK Andreas_Harth Chris ChrisW Christian ChristianW DavidHirtle David_Hirtle Deborah_Nichols FMC Frank FrankMcCabe Fujitsu GaryHallmark Gary_Hallmark GiorgosStoilos Harold Hassan Hassan_Ait-Kaci IBM IPcaller IVML IanH Igor Igor_Mozetic JDR JeffP Jeff_Pan JosDeRoo Keeper LMU LMo LeoraMorgenstern MKifer MalaM MalaMehrotra Mala_Mehrotra Markus MarkusK MichaelKifer Michael_Kifer Mike_Dean MoZ MoZ_ NRCC P0 P33 P35 P36 P44 P49 P51 P52 PaulV PaulaP aabb aharth csma ipsandro johnhall leora mdean patranja perhaps pfps sandro sandro_testing scribenick uli was You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Got date from IRC log name: 11 Apr 2006 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2006/04/11-rif-minutes.html People with action items: christian frank igor sandro WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]