14:32:34 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rif
14:32:34 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/02/26-rif-irc
14:33:11 <ChrisW> ok, we are mostly through the morning technical problems 
14:33:46 <ChrisW> a couple more minutes to start the phone call
14:33:55 <ChrisW> who is is waiting for the telecon?
14:34:03 <sandro> zakim, who is here?
14:34:09 <Zakim> apparently SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended, sandro
14:34:15 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, csma, DaveReynolds, ChrisW, BobMoore, PaulVincent, AxelPolleres, LeoraMorgenstern, aharth, mdean, MoZ, sandro, rifbot, Zakim
14:34:18 <sandro> zakim, this is rif
14:34:34 <Zakim> ok, sandro; that matches SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM
14:34:38 <Zakim> -Leora_Morgenstern
14:34:39 <mdean> Leora and I have been on Zakim, and I've heard other beeps
14:34:40 <LeoraMorgenstern> I am waiting for the telecon
14:34:55 <LeoraMorgenstern> I keep getting kicked off the phone for some reason.
14:35:04 <sandro> we're still sorting out technical details in the meeting room.
14:35:09 <sandro> we'll try calling soon.
14:35:12 <LeoraMorgenstern> Okay.
14:35:24 <LeoraMorgenstern> could you let us know on the IRC when you are on Zakim?
14:35:30 <sandro> yes.
14:35:35 <LeoraMorgenstern> Thank you.
14:35:36 <sandro> Zakim, who is here?
14:35:36 <Zakim> On the phone I see Mike_Dean
14:35:38 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, csma, ChrisW, BobMoore, PaulVincent, AxelPolleres, LeoraMorgenstern, aharth, mdean, MoZ, sandro, rifbot, Zakim
14:35:39 <DaveReynolds> DaveReynolds has joined #rif
14:35:54 <LeoraMorgenstern> Also ... I am still writing up my review of the UCR draft; the review turned out to be longer than I expected.
14:35:54 <DaveReynolds_> DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif
14:36:05 <LeoraMorgenstern> Just wanted to let you know --- it is coming soon (in an hour or so).
14:36:42 <josb> josb has joined #rif
14:38:46 <Zakim> + +1.703.983.aaaa
14:39:04 <ChrisW> zakim, aaaa is meeting_room
14:39:04 <Zakim> +meeting_room; got it
14:39:23 <sandro> zakim, who is on the call?
14:39:23 <Zakim> On the phone I see Mike_Dean, meeting_room
14:39:34 <sandro> We're on now LeoraMorgenstern.
14:41:46 <LeoraMorgenstern> Thanks, Sandro. I'll call in now.
14:42:31 <PaulVincent> Scribing
14:42:45 <Zakim> +Leora_Morgenstern
14:42:54 <LeoraMorgenstern> zakim, please mute me
14:42:54 <Zakim> Leora_Morgenstern should now be muted
14:44:08 <Allen> Allen has joined #rif
14:44:36 <sandro> how should we let you know, Axel?  Is IRC good, or e-mail, ...?
14:45:19 <PaulVincent> Agenda change - start with UCR this am, then review core draft in pm
14:45:32 <AxelPolleres> sandro, IRC should be good, but I follow only with one eye... andreas or jos might get me on skype, if necessary.
14:45:35 <LeoraMorgenstern> zakim, unmute me
14:45:35 <Zakim> Leora_Morgenstern should no longer be muted
14:46:23 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
14:46:23 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2007/02/26-rif-irc#T14-46-23
14:46:41 <sandro> Topic: UCR Review
14:46:58 <PaulVincent> Christian: comment slides for UCR will be posted to Wiki
14:47:11 <sandro> scribenick: PaulVincent 
14:47:29 <sandro> RRSAgent, make record public
14:47:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/02/26-rif-minutes.html sandro
14:47:53 <sandro> Meeting: RIF F2F5
14:48:05 <DaveReynolds> DaveReynolds has joined #rif
14:48:09 <sandro> Chair: Chris Welty and Christian de Sainte Marie
14:48:15 <DaveReynolds_> DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif
14:48:24 <LeoraMorgenstern> zakim, mute me
14:48:24 <Zakim> Leora_Morgenstern should now be muted
14:48:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/02/26-rif-minutes.html sandro
14:49:36 <sandro> zakim. who is here?
14:50:44 <sandro> zakim, who is here?
14:50:44 <Zakim> On the phone I see Mike_Dean, meeting_room, Leora_Morgenstern (muted)
14:50:45 <Zakim> On IRC I see DaveReynolds_, DaveReynolds, Allen, josb, RRSAgent, csma, ChrisW, BobMoore, PaulVincent, AxelPolleres, LeoraMorgenstern, aharth, mdean, MoZ, sandro, rifbot, Zakim
14:52:17 <PaulVincent> Reviewing Adrian's comments...
14:52:36 <LeoraMorgenstern> I disagree with that comment of Adrian
14:52:46 <LeoraMorgenstern> There are qutie a few differences between the two drafts
14:53:04 <sandro> Present: Allen, JosDeBruijn, MichaelKifer, Andreas, JohnHall, DaveReynolds, BobMoore, PaulVincent, Sandro, ChrisW, CSMA, Deborah
14:53:15 <PaulVincent> Discussion: rule language examples needed in UCR? 
14:53:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/02/26-rif-minutes.html sandro
14:53:21 <LeoraMorgenstern> zakim, unmute me
14:53:21 <Zakim> Leora_Morgenstern should no longer be muted
14:53:24 <LeoraMorgenstern> q
14:53:27 <LeoraMorgenstern> q+
14:53:59 <LeoraMorgenstern> I think there should be specific examples in specific languages
14:54:01 <PaulVincent> Jos: RIF language in development; UCR should drive rule language
14:54:18 <LeoraMorgenstern> There could be a disclaimer saying that these examples don't commit us to any particular language, and 
14:54:30 <PaulVincent> Dave: per Adrian need concrete examples to drive development
14:54:33 <LeoraMorgenstern> don't mean that we are endorsing any language
14:55:38 <sandro> Present: AllenGinsberg JosDeBruijn MichaelKifer AndreasHarth JohnHall DaveReynolds BobMoore PaulVincent SandroHawke ChrisWelty CSMA DeborahNichols LeoraMorgenstern MikeDean
14:55:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/02/26-rif-minutes.html sandro
14:56:50 <PaulVincent> Leora: examples needed as intermediate step to show meaning
14:57:20 <PaulVincent> Michael: should postpone until after BNF resolved
14:57:47 <PaulVincent> Chris: could use existing rule languages
14:58:05 <LeoraMorgenstern> Chris, I agree.
14:58:10 <LeoraMorgenstern> We should use existing rule languages.
14:58:20 <LeoraMorgenstern> For this phase, anyway.
14:58:55 <PaulVincent> Chris: 2 points: use core syntax for use cases AND use existing languages for use cases
14:59:22 <LeoraMorgenstern> We on Zakim can't hear what is going on.
14:59:27 <PaulVincent> Allen: should wait until we can handle use cases in RIF
14:59:35 <LeoraMorgenstern> Can the speaker make sure to speak into the microphone on the phone?
15:00:22 <PaulVincent> Jos: use cases are not specific to phase 1 so no issue that core cannot handle them
15:00:22 <sandro> can you head csma right now?
15:00:30 <sandro> can you hear csma right now?
15:00:48 <sandro> LeoraMorgenstern?
15:00:59 <PaulVincent> Christian: good reason is for multiple languages to show RIF interchange use case
15:02:01 <PaulVincent> Allen: issue that use case doc implies commitment ie requirement
15:02:12 <sandro> (or Dave, now?   Dave turned his mic on.)
15:02:25 <PaulVincent> Dave: examples in languages would provide test cases not use cases
15:02:57 <LeoraMorgenstern> q+
15:03:08 <LeoraMorgenstern> (Sandro, I can hear csma and chris, and dave, but not the others.)
15:03:42 <PaulVincent> Bob: no examples in use cases make them difficult to understand but with disclaimer
15:03:57 <DaveReynolds> DaveReynolds has joined #rif
15:05:02 <LeoraMorgenstern> +1 with Sandro
15:05:02 <PaulVincent> Sandro: lack of examples made understanding a challenge; commitment not an issue as there is a seperate requirements section
15:05:14 <LeoraMorgenstern> I just emailed out my preliminary comments.
15:05:22 <LeoraMorgenstern> One of the points I make in the comments
15:05:33 <LeoraMorgenstern>  that we really can't have a comprehensive set of requirements 
15:05:47 <LeoraMorgenstern> until we step through some of the use cases in some detail.
15:06:03 <LeoraMorgenstern> I understand Dave's point about having abstract use cases.
15:06:13 <PaulVincent> Dave: went from 50 concrete to abstract examples but then inventing rules for these may be invalid
15:06:16 <LeoraMorgenstern> But on the other hand, the requirements, as they are, seem very ungrounded.
15:06:19 <LeoraMorgenstern> q+
15:06:43 <PaulVincent> John: suggest leave as is but change natural language rules to links to real language examples
15:07:36 <ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F5?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=Adrian%27s+review+of+UCR
15:07:49 <PaulVincent> Discussion: Adrian's for UC1...
15:08:29 <PaulVincent> Chris: this (+UC2) are requests for concrete examples
15:08:39 <PaulVincent> Discussion: Adrians comments for UC3:
15:10:17 <PaulVincent> Allen: can add links to explaining use of OWL data
15:11:21 <PaulVincent> Dave: use of OWL should be implicit in the use case referencing OWL data
15:12:33 <PaulVincent> Christian: should be more explicit
15:12:57 <PaulVincent> Chris: decision on whether to add more on OWL is up to Allen
15:14:28 <PaulVincent> Christian: 2nd point: need for imperative semantics: this use case is for an imperative semantics not for multiple semantics
15:14:48 <LeoraMorgenstern> LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
15:15:09 <PaulVincent> Chris: ... but this problem can be solved in multiple ways
15:16:30 <PaulVincent> Dave: 2 different requirements: different semantics + coverage
15:17:19 <PaulVincent> Allen: requirement? RIF must be able to formulate different semantics...
15:18:01 <PaulVincent> Dave: different semantics ... this is a global requirement from all not individual use cases
15:18:34 <PaulVincent> Chris: Prefer explicit requirements supported by explicit use cases
15:20:18 <PaulVincent> Chris: 2nd point left for Allen to consider
15:20:55 <PaulVincent> Chris: Adrian's comments on UC4
15:21:04 <PaulVincent> Welcome to Harold
15:21:35 <sandro> q?
15:22:01 <ChrisW> ack leora
15:22:41 <PaulVincent> Leora: all these comments point to lack of explicit examples - lack of specifity - eg where author's understanding relates to a rule language implementation but this is not explicit
15:24:10 <PaulVincent> Dave: the author is summarizing this info
15:24:29 <Deborah_Nichols> Deborah_Nichols has joined #rif
15:24:52 <PaulVincent> Leora: this is an authors claim that is not readable from the UCR text - ie unsubstantiated
15:25:44 <PaulVincent> Harold: could use a pseudo rule language on some use cases
15:26:17 <PaulVincent> Chris: this particular UC4 comment could be addressed in text
15:27:20 <PaulVincent> Christian: there is a need to cover industry-specific data models - ie requirement is to support externally defined data models
15:27:28 <LeoraMorgenstern> +1 with Christian
15:28:03 <DaveReynolds> +1
15:28:07 <LeoraMorgenstern> q+
15:28:35 <PaulVincent> Christian: proposing a new requirement to be added: that RIF must support externally-specified data models eg OWL, RDF XML data models etc
15:28:41 <LeoraMorgenstern> Christian's proposal for a new requirement brings up another issue:
15:28:57 <LeoraMorgenstern> how, or whether, we know that our list of requirements is in any way comprehensive.
15:29:24 <ChrisW> ack leora
15:29:50 <PaulVincent> Leora: note we cannot measure whether our requirements are complete
15:31:19 <PaulVincent> Leora: Our requirements are incomplete eg lack of round-tripping not mentioned: how do we know we have a complete set of requirements?
15:31:29 <AxelPolleres> don't really understand that: "RIF must support externally-specified data models eg OWL, RDF XML data models etc"
15:32:00 <PaulVincent> Dave: the requirements are of the RIF WG: completeness is per the WG members
15:32:23 <sandro> +1 Dave (Completeness of requirements is a social phenomonon)
15:32:29 <PaulVincent> Chris: if requirements are found missing then they should be submitted for discussion
15:33:27 <PaulVincent> Leora: this is a reason for explicit rule lang examples in use cases to drive additional requirements - requirements are discovered during a project
15:35:12 <PaulVincent> Chris: we expect to find new requirements as we progress
15:35:45 <PaulVincent> Christian: round tripping was moved to an issue; to be discussed and may become a requirement
15:37:18 <Zakim> -Leora_Morgenstern
15:37:45 <PaulVincent> <break>
15:38:27 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean
15:38:36 <Harold> Harold has joined #rif
15:40:16 <Hassan> Hassan has joined #rif
15:42:04 <Hassan> Is the phone link up yet? 
15:44:03 <ChrisW> we are on a break
15:44:58 <Hassan> OK - but is there a phone number for me to call?
15:46:08 <ChrisW> the usual phone number and channel
15:46:16 <ChrisW> zakim, pointer?
15:46:16 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, ChrisW.
15:46:30 <ChrisW> zakim, ptr?
15:46:30 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, ChrisW.
15:46:31 <Hassan> Thanks.
15:46:43 <ChrisW> zakim, what is the code?
15:46:43 <Zakim> the conference code is 74394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), ChrisW
15:47:34 <Zakim> +Hassan_Ait-Kaci
15:47:53 <ChrisW> we are on break until the hour
15:48:09 <Zakim> -Hassan_Ait-Kaci
15:53:47 <Elisa> Elisa has joined #rif
15:58:02 <Zakim> +Elisa_Kendall
16:01:34 <Zakim> +Mike_Dean
16:04:41 <Zakim> +Hassan_Ait-Kaci
16:05:25 <Zakim> +??P31
16:06:06 <LeoraMorgenstern> ??P31 is me
16:06:34 <LeoraMorgenstern> ??P31 is Leora Morgenstern
16:06:44 <PaulVincent> <meeting reconvening>
16:06:46 <LeoraMorgenstern> I am ??P31
16:06:58 <LeoraMorgenstern> zakim, please mute me
16:06:58 <Zakim> sorry, LeoraMorgenstern, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
16:07:41 <LeoraMorgenstern> zakim, ??P31 is me
16:07:41 <Zakim> +LeoraMorgenstern; got it
16:07:42 <sandro> ZAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYkim
16:10:37 <Console> Console has joined #rif
16:10:38 <PaulVincent> Revised agenda: now continuing UCR discussion
16:11:42 <PaulVincent> New agenda on Wiki - http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F5 
16:13:24 <LeoraMorgenstern> q
16:13:32 <LeoraMorgenstern> q+
16:14:04 <PaulVincent> Chris: new requirements should be proposed + championed eg round-tripping (already an issue) eg externally-specified data models
16:14:24 <ChrisW> ack leora
16:14:26 <PaulVincent> Leora: the UCR connection to requirements appears "weak"
16:15:36 <PaulVincent> Leora: need para that the requirements are illustrative in use cases eg other requirements may be covered by each use
16:16:07 <PaulVincent> Chris: ... ie connections are not necessarily complete nor exclusive
16:16:23 <IgorMozetic> IgorMozetic has joined #rif
16:16:33 <PaulVincent> Allen: Also could add motivations in requirements to refer back to use cases
16:17:29 <Hassan> q+
16:17:30 <PaulVincent> Allen: ... and not do motivations in use cases
16:17:51 <PaulVincent> Dave: this would make use cases self contained
16:18:34 <Hassan> OK I will rename it.
16:18:58 <PaulVincent> Admin issue: attachments on Wiki are currently powerpoint
16:20:22 <PaulVincent> Allen: moving motivations would be a major change and delay UCR
16:20:56 <LeoraMorgenstern> 1
16:21:00 <LeoraMorgenstern> +1
16:21:16 <ChrisW> q?
16:21:22 <ChrisW> ack hassan
16:21:27 <PaulVincent> Chris: no objections to moving motivations to UCR --> ACTION move motivations to requirements
16:23:25 <PaulVincent> Allen: motivations should form part of intro to requirements
16:24:57 <PaulVincent> ACTION: Allen to redo UCR 2.11 
16:24:58 <rifbot> Created ACTION-234 - Redo UCR 2.11  [on Allen Ginsberg - due 2007-03-05].
16:25:19 <ChrisW> action: Allen to move motivqte links to requirements section
16:25:19 <rifbot> Created ACTION-235 - Move motivqte links to requirements section [on Allen Ginsberg - due 2007-03-05].
16:26:18 <PaulVincent> Leora: UC5: needs intro explanatory parameter
16:26:32 <PaulVincent> ACTION: Leora to propose new intro para for UC5
16:26:32 <rifbot> Created ACTION-236 - Propose new intro para for UC5 [on Leora Morgenstern - due 2007-03-05].
16:26:38 <ChrisW> action: Allen to reorganise document and move 2.11 to an intrduction/use instruction for UC
16:26:38 <rifbot> Created ACTION-237 - Reorganise document and move 2.11 to an intrduction/use instruction for UC [on Allen Ginsberg - due 2007-03-05].
16:26:55 <ChrisW> action: Leora to propose new text for UC5
16:26:55 <rifbot> Created ACTION-238 - Propose new text for UC5 [on Leora Morgenstern - due 2007-03-05].
16:27:11 <Hassan> Who is speaking?
16:27:18 <PaulVincent> John Hall speaking
16:27:53 <PaulVincent> John: him + Said offer to rewrite examples in near natural language + RuleML
16:28:17 <PaulVincent> Chris: Concrete examples is v good, just not being put into UCR
16:29:00 <ChrisW> scibe: Bob Moore
16:29:06 <sandro> scribenick: BobMoore 
16:29:21 <ChrisW> s/scibe/scribe/
16:29:32 <sandro> topic: Core Review
16:29:55 <BobMoore> Review of CORE
16:32:06 <BobMoore> cleaning of text
16:32:35 <BobMoore> Chris: need to clarify the connection between CORE and the Web more clearly
16:32:58 <Hassan> q?
16:34:03 <BobMoore> Paul: Is RIF really to do with Web?
16:34:48 <BobMoore> Paul: RIF is being developed under umbrella of Sematic Web, but has connotations whihc are outside what goes on in Sematic Web
16:35:08 <Hassan> q+
16:36:59 <ChrisW> ack hassan
16:37:32 <PaulVincent> My confusion related: "connection with web" which maybe should read "use of web technologies"
16:38:09 <sandro> But Hassan, you don't scope constants, do you?
16:39:10 <Harold> q+
16:39:32 <BobMoore> Hassan: agree that RIF extends beyond Web - using URI/XML helps with scoping, but using URIs for everything is not adequate
16:39:57 <Hassan> Not constants - URIs are fine for that, although even there, it may be needed
16:40:01 <sandro> +1 Chris lets avoid "webize" since it suggests moving to the web.
16:40:09 <sandro> (as opposed to being there already)
16:40:51 <sandro> Paul: When I hear "Web Language" that makes me think this is only for the web.
16:41:35 <BobMoore> Chris: can fix interpretation with some kind of introductory remarks
16:42:46 <BobMoore> Csma: need to have unique naming requirements - and choosing URI and XML gives this and is web compatible
16:43:19 <Harold> We may want to look into XML Schema Part 2's taxonomy of http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#built-in-datatypes
16:43:42 <ChrisW> q?
16:43:53 <ChrisW> ack harold
16:44:49 <BobMoore> Harold: consult with other groups to get best terminology for web enabled (instead of webization)
16:46:45 <Hassan> So "webizing" means using the XML Schema Data Type vocabulary? If so - this is fine. 
16:46:52 <BobMoore> Harold: part of idea of URIs is to give a unique naming so different representation of constant can be mapped to single URI/value
16:48:06 <BobMoore> standard use of URIs in RDF is to define abstract resources
16:48:39 <BobMoore> need to clarify acitve vs passive use of URIs as discussed by Harold
16:49:37 <BobMoore> Chris: Need to fix up the connection of RIF to Web to make sure people understand the relationship
16:50:07 <BobMoore> Csma: Many potential users of RIF do not think of themselves as Web (or Semantic Web) users
16:50:23 <Hassan> + with CSMA's summary
16:51:23 <Harold> Hassan and Christian seem to say that URIs should be optional -- this is what we assumed: names can have optional URIs.
16:51:31 <ChrisW> q?
16:52:17 <Harold> Paul, terminological assumptions are partially covered by RIFRAF.
16:52:18 <BobMoore> Paul: there are other assumptions which we are not making clear
16:52:27 <Hassan> No I do not mean that URIs should be optional. They should not be *all*.
16:52:58 <BobMoore> Csma/Micheal: Feel these items are already summarised in CORE document
16:53:27 <BobMoore> Paul: Will try and clarifiy what shortcomings he sees in the document at the moment
16:53:32 <ChrisW> action: MichaelK to change wbeizing into RIF AS A WEB LANGUAGE\
16:53:32 <rifbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - MichaelK
16:54:38 <ChrisW> action: MichaelK to propose a clarification that RIF uses web technology to slove requirements that are not necessarily specific to web usage
16:54:38 <rifbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - MichaelK
16:55:34 <ChrisW> action: MichaelKiefer to change webizing to RIF as a web language
16:55:34 <rifbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - MichaelKiefer
16:56:07 <BobMoore> Chris: Moving on to looking at URIs as built in sort
16:56:31 <ChrisW> action: MichaelKifer to change "webizing" to RIF as a web language
16:56:32 <rifbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - MichaelKifer
16:57:36 <BobMoore> Chris: Sorts are treated in a somewhat confusing in the document
16:58:17 <Harold> The clarification could distinguish between: (1) passive URIs (semantically self-denoting, like strings), corresponding to XML Schema's anyURI. (2) active URIs (semantically denoting some other individuals, predicates, or KBs), corresponding to RDF's and N3's URIrefs.
16:58:20 <BobMoore> Micheal: Number of sorts is not fixed, may allow users to add additional sorts
16:59:45 <BobMoore> Chris: Concerned about adding sorts because may end up even having to qualify opeator names
17:00:21 <Hassan> q+
17:00:31 <BobMoore> Chris: has given up on beautiful syntax, but does everything need to have a data type associatied?
17:01:02 <Harold> But we wanted to postpone all details to WD2, but meanwhile consult with other W3C (Semantic Web) WGs etc. about naming methods, since naming methods are not an exclusive aspect of RIF. 
17:01:03 <BobMoore> Michael: Probably can have abbreviated syntax for built in primitive types
17:01:17 <Hassan> Michael is hardly audible on the phone... :-(
17:01:24 <BobMoore> Michael: how can you tell the difference between a URI and a string
17:02:37 <BobMoore> Are all constants URIs?
17:02:54 <Harold> Meanwhile,  Michael could refine the multi-sorted semantics to distinguish passive and active URIs.
17:03:44 <BobMoore> Chris: People do look at XML all the time - RIF does not need to be beautiful, but it ought to be at least manageable
17:04:15 <Hassan> All constants CANNOT be URIs (take the ints or even better the floats)
17:05:42 <BobMoore> Harold: Wants RIF to be beautiful - people really do read and edit XML documents
17:06:11 <BobMoore> Csma: His co-workers don't like to look at XML directly
17:06:41 <Hassan> (I am one of CSMA's cowworker! :-)
17:07:39 <BobMoore> Chris: Two camps people who like to look at XMl and people who don't - probably need to satisfy both
17:07:59 <Harold> RIF and other XML languages can be at least beautiful as Lisp, even more so for RIF because we address formal KR folks who are used to write prefix-notation formulas.
17:08:06 <Hassan> Indeed- aren't Qnames and that sort (!) of things all we need?
17:09:35 <ChrisW> Hassan, I (csma) said: "the XML gurus I asked at ILOG say..." :-)
17:10:44 <BobMoore> Chris: concerned about having tags on all items in XML description
17:10:55 <sandro> ACTION: Michaek Kifer to (just testing action system)
17:10:56 <rifbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Michaek
17:11:16 <sandro> ACTION: Michael Kifer to (just testing action system)
17:11:16 <rifbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Michael
17:11:16 <rifbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. merdmann, mkifer, msintek, uscholdm)
17:11:29 <sandro> ACTION: mkifer to (just testing action system)
17:11:30 <rifbot> Created ACTION-239 - (just testing action system) [on Michael Kifer - due 2007-03-05].
17:11:57 <BobMoore> Hassan: XML needs to be verbose to put accoss the sort information
17:13:45 <Harold> P(x) => Q(x) in striped XML: <Implies> <if> <Uniterm> <Con sortal="...datatype...">P<Con> <Var>x</Var> </Uniterm> </if> <then> <Uniterm>  <Con sortal="...datatype...">Q<Con> <Var>x</Var> </Uniterm> </then> </Implies> 
17:14:13 <BobMoore> Csma: Wants to balance how simple XML is against how easy it is to use in practical systems
17:14:49 <Hassan> I cannot hear the speaker :-(
17:15:25 <ChrisW> Hassan, the discussion was again about computer scientist confusing sorts with sorting 
17:15:26 <Deborah_Nichols> Hassan, can you hear now?
17:15:36 <Hassan> Better thanks
17:15:57 <Deborah_Nichols> Harold's mike was off before; it will be on now.
17:16:01 <Hassan> ???
17:16:33 <Deborah_Nichols> On the phone: just let us know if you have further problems hearing.
17:16:49 <BobMoore> The idea of computer scientists confusing sorts with sorting is fanciful
17:16:53 <Harold> OK, Chris and Hassan: sortal-->sort
17:16:59 <BobMoore> No more sortals please
17:17:41 <sandro> (wide agreement not to use the term "sortal" this way.)
17:20:43 <BobMoore> Csma: can you have predicate names which look like URIs which might be confused wiht a URI
17:20:45 <sandro> Jos: Yes, there will be predicate names that conform to the URI syntax but are not intended to be used as URIs.
17:20:50 <Harold> Local URI's can be used (N3's convention of '#' with nothing to its left): <Con sort="#datatype">P<Con>
17:21:36 <Harold> Global  URI's <Con sort="http://www.ibm.com/datatype">P<Con>
17:24:39 <BobMoore> Bob: Examples might make more sense if separate out declaration of items (like predicates) from their use in "rules"
17:24:50 <Harold> Fragment identifiers.
17:25:28 <BobMoore> Scooting ahead in anticipation of lunch
17:26:06 <BobMoore> Need to add in better definition of scoping rules
17:26:33 <BobMoore> Last line comment from Jos on 1.1
17:27:37 <BobMoore> Jos: Intended models of Rules - is this out of place in the current document
17:28:36 <BobMoore> Jos: Is DTD/schema premature?
17:29:04 <Hassan> I agree with CSMA ...
17:29:07 <BobMoore> Csma: Want to avoid DTD because it says a lot more than example XML documents
17:30:18 <Harold> Validation already helped to update the examples. I dont care if its DTD, Relax, XSD.
17:31:10 <BobMoore> Chris/Hassan/Csma: want to clarify that the DTD/XML schema bear no relation to what the final version might look like
17:33:14 <BobMoore> Link to draft DTD is to be removed
17:33:46 <sandro> RESOLVED: remove link to draft DTD from Core
17:35:26 <BobMoore> general comment - markup on the document does come out when printed
17:36:08 <sandro> (because it's background-color)
17:36:21 <BobMoore> Csma: Need to determine what is to be done with marked up sections. Specifically section on intended models of rules
17:38:01 <Zakim> +Gary_Hallmark
17:38:39 <BobMoore> Michael: suggest move blue-heighlighted sections to end-notes
17:39:34 <BobMoore> Harold: will need to decontextualise the moved items
17:39:41 <sandro> ACTION: mikier to move blue sections to end notes
17:39:41 <rifbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - mikier
17:39:44 <Hassan> ok bon appetit!
17:39:47 <sandro> ACTION: mkifer to move blue sections to end notes
17:39:47 <rifbot> Created ACTION-240 - Move blue sections to end notes [on Michael Kifer - due 2007-03-05].
17:39:56 <Zakim> -Hassan_Ait-Kaci
17:40:02 <Zakim> -Elisa_Kendall
17:40:04 <Zakim> -Gary_Hallmark
17:40:06 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean
17:40:07 <Zakim> -LeoraMorgenstern
17:40:27 <Zakim> -meeting_room
17:40:28 <Zakim> SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM has ended
17:40:29 <Zakim> Attendees were Mike_Dean, Leora_Morgenstern, +1.703.983.aaaa, meeting_room, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Elisa_Kendall, LeoraMorgenstern, Gary_Hallmark
18:24:41 <sandro> zakim, this will be rif
18:24:41 <Zakim> ok, sandro; I see SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM scheduled to start 324 minutes ago
18:31:16 <Zakim> SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM has now started
18:31:23 <Zakim> +Elisa_Kendall
18:32:21 <Zakim> +Mike_Dean
18:32:34 <ChrisW> we are trying to connect the phone
18:32:50 <ChrisW> zakim, what is the code?
18:32:50 <Zakim> the conference code is 74394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), ChrisW
18:33:19 <ChrisW> Scribe: Andreas Harth
18:33:25 <ChrisW> scribenick: aharth
18:33:43 <aharth_scribe> ~ scribenick: aharth_scribe
18:33:47 <aharth_scribe> scribenick: aharth_scribe
18:33:48 <Zakim> +Hassan_Ait-Kaci
18:33:50 <ChrisW> Meeting: RIF 5th F2F
18:34:03 <ChrisW> Chair: Christian de Sainte-Marie
18:34:14 <aharth_scribe> topic: core meta-model for WD1
18:34:37 <Zakim> -Hassan_Ait-Kaci
18:35:30 <Zakim> +Hassan_Ait-Kaci
18:36:03 <Hassan> I cannot here anything on the phone - is there a problem?
18:36:22 <Zakim> -Hassan_Ait-Kaci
18:37:01 <Elisa> Hassan -- Mike Dean and I are also on, and silent.  Chris is attempting to connect us.
18:37:15 <Hassan> ok - thanks
18:37:35 <sandro> placing phone call now.
18:38:11 <Zakim> +Hassan_Ait-Kaci
18:38:37 <Hassan> yes
18:38:45 <Zakim> +meeting_room
18:39:02 <Zakim> +Gary_Hallmark
18:39:05 <sandro> zakim, who is on the phone?
18:39:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see Elisa_Kendall, Mike_Dean, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), meeting_room, Gary_Hallmark
18:40:13 <aharth_scribe> csma: slides summarising the comments of participants about the metamodel are on the wiki
18:41:02 <aharth_scribe> ... one issue is disjunction in the condition, anonomous variables, multiplicity in the meta-model (for equal construct), also for naming part of rules/terminology
18:41:39 <ChrisW> the slides are now on the wiki
18:42:22 <Harold> Meanwhile, Michael explained the fundamental logical Core tautology (h ? b v c) = ((h ? b) v (h ? c)).
18:42:32 <Zakim> +Leora_Morgenstern
18:42:35 <aharth_scribe> Jos: for the core, disjunctions can be rewritten to Horn rules
18:42:51 <aharth_scribe> ... but not necessarily in dialects that extend core
18:42:57 <Harold> I meant (h <- b v c) = ((h <- b) v (h <- c)).
18:44:56 <aharth_scribe> harold: need a rule with head to perform the translation, rewriting not trivial for just the condition part
18:45:04 <Harold> Hassan, I agree, and we never wanted to be minimal.
18:45:30 <aharth_scribe> mkifer: might need union in the condition language then to express queries
18:46:37 <aharth_scribe> csma: to be able to use core as foundation for other dialects, core should be minimal? is that true?
18:47:19 <aharth_scribe> hassan: it's a compromise, but where to draw the line?  disjunction would be ok to have in core 
18:49:29 <aharth_scribe> jos: in dialects with rule ordering, you cannot just rewrite the disjunction at the receiver while preserving semantics
18:51:32 <aharth_scribe> csma: there has to be a transform on one side for disjunctive rules: the burden of transformation should be on the sender's side, not on the receiver's
18:53:17 <sandro> q?
18:53:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/02/26-rif-minutes.html sandro
18:53:51 <aharth_scribe> sandro: how does the transformation would affect round-tripping?
18:54:22 <aharth_scribe> bmoore: from a practical perspective, people using rif will have problems with disjunctions
18:54:46 <sandro> (that answer on Round-Tripping was that we have these problems all over the place anyway.)
18:55:17 <aharth_scribe> csma: in core, disjunctions are just syntactic sugar
18:55:19 <Elisa> note that for ODM, we agreed to support forward and reverse engineering, but not round-trip, as support for logical equivalence was possible but not necessarily round-trip engineering
18:55:53 <aharth_scribe> harold: but not when using conditions as a query language
18:56:19 <aharth_scribe> mkifer: if we disallow disjunctions, the dialect that adds queries have to talk about collections of conditions
18:56:39 <aharth_scribe> jos: there's already a query language in the semantic web space
18:57:27 <Harold> "Give me all employees who earn more than $100000 as their salary OR hold more than $20000 in stock."
18:57:34 <aharth_scribe> csma: would like to remove disjunctions in core
18:57:46 <aharth_scribe> chris: i see no good reason to remove the disjunction
18:58:04 <aharth_scribe> chris: not convinced it does any harm
18:59:09 <aharth_scribe> harold: there is at least one use case that requires disjunctive queries
18:59:24 <aharth_scribe> ... could use SPARQL as query language
19:00:03 <LeoraMorgenstern> +1 for disjunction
19:00:26 <aharth_scribe> csma: who want's disjunctions in core? show of hands: 10 are in favour of disjunction~r, 3 prefer not to have them, 2 abstain
19:00:42 <MichaelKifer> MichaelKifer has joined #rif
19:01:44 <aharth_scribe> hassan: "core" implies to keep things minmal
19:02:34 <aharth_scribe> csma: next question: anonymous variables, why do we need them, can we do without them?
19:03:53 <aharth_scribe> mkifer: in queries anonymous variables make sense to omit variables from the result
19:04:05 <sandro> Hassan, the "implication" that core is minimal is unfounded.   Core is simply a foundation on which to build, shared by all dialects.   Anything common to all dialects should be in core.
19:05:43 <Hassan> Sandro, I know: CORE as it is not NOT minimal. I meant that the semantics of the worde "core" carries this connotations VERY strongly
19:05:45 <aharth_scribe> csma: objections to keeping anonymous variables in WD1?
19:06:05 <aharth_scribe> harold: they are not really that important
19:06:38 <aharth_scribe> ... also problems with quantification, trade-offs are different in this case
19:06:55 <aharth_scribe> csma: proposal to remove anonymous variables from WD1? no objections
19:07:13 <sandro> In which communities, Hassan?
19:07:15 <ChrisW> RESOLVED: Remove anonymous variables from CORE
19:07:32 <ChrisW> ACTION: Harold to remove section on anonymous variables from CORE WD
19:07:32 <rifbot> Created ACTION-241 - Remove section on anonymous variables from CORE WD [on Harold Boley - due 2007-03-05].
19:07:59 <aharth_scribe> csma: mulitplicity is next
19:08:18 <ChrisW> zakim, who is speaking?
19:08:29 <Zakim> ChrisW, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Hassan_Ait-Kaci (9%), meeting_room (23%)
19:08:31 <ChrisW> hearing breathing on the phone
19:08:37 <ChrisW> hassan, probably you
19:09:06 <sandro> (Hassan, I'm amusedly looking at the dictionary, and liking definition #4 of core, "A set of subjects or courses that make up a required portion of a curriculum."   :-)
19:10:05 <Deborah_Nichols> Deborah_Nichols has joined #rif
19:10:25 <aharth_scribe> harold: exists is modelled as one or more in the document, should be 0 or more
19:10:42 <aharth_scribe> mkifer: the same thing applies for forall then
19:11:26 <aharth_scribe> ... is exists a mandatory element? if not, then it's ok
19:13:16 <aharth_scribe> csma: there is no requirement for exists
19:13:32 <aharth_scribe> mkifer: why is forall required?
19:13:36 <Harold> Facts are generated by the POSITIVE production, and can be viewed as the then part of a rule with an empty if (or with true as the if part).
19:14:39 <Deborah> Deborah has joined #rif
19:14:55 <aharth_scribe> csma: is there a requirement to introduce direction for equal?
19:15:46 <aharth_scribe> harold: binary/directed equality is easier to handle than symmetric equality which requires paramodulation
19:16:34 <aharth_scribe> ... later you might want to direct the equation using Knuth-Bendix
19:16:46 <ChrisW> q?
19:17:19 <aharth_scribe> csma: objections to using multiplicity of 2 for equal?
19:18:38 <aharth_scribe> RESOLVED: one assocation of 2 terms to equal
19:19:00 <ChrisW> ACTION: Harold to update meta-model for equality - 1 association with multiplicity 2
19:19:00 <rifbot> Created ACTION-242 - Update meta-model for equality - 1 association with multiplicity 2 [on Harold Boley - due 2007-03-05].
19:19:24 <Elisa> fyi, this is exactly how it is done in an atomic sencence in CL -- an equation has exactly two arguments, which are terms
19:20:54 <aharth_scribe> csma: keep connectives n-ary?
19:22:16 <aharth_scribe> harold: have 2...n as multiplicity for connectives?
19:22:52 <aharth_scribe> csma: to write a fact currently would mean to have an empty AND in the condition
19:23:07 <aharth_scribe> hassan: empty AND means true and empty OR means false
19:23:27 <aharth_scribe> mkifer: why not use a more natural true/false?
19:24:50 <sandro> RESOLVED: we'll keep AND and OR as 0-or-more.     (it's a conventional treatment.)
19:25:27 <aharth_scribe> mkifer: would need to introducte true/false anyways since it's natural for people
19:25:38 <Harold> Empty conjunction <And></And> resp. <And/> should be kept, and semantically saying it's true.
19:25:59 <aharth_scribe> mkifer: and then we have multiple symbols denoting true/false
19:28:14 <aharth_scribe> hassan: would rather be concise and use true/false than being mathematically correct (and confusing) using empty AND/OR
19:28:15 <Harold> Think of tools recursively processing a <And> c1 c2 ... cN </And> into <And> c2 ... cN </And> etc. will <And> cN </And> or  <And></And>.
19:29:17 <aharth_scribe> mkifer: diagram looks highly redunant, positive should not be there then
19:30:38 <Harold> Michael is syaing that <And> POSITIVE </And> <Or> POSITIVE </Or> are redundant because they are all just POSITIVE.
19:31:28 <aharth_scribe> jos: rephrase: there is redundancy, e.g. you could just the write literal, OR literal, AND literal, OR OR Literal...
19:32:59 <PaulVincent> Comment: should the classes be renamed eg to Conjunction Disjunction Existance Equality etc?
19:33:07 <aharth_scribe> dave: i think michael argues for a normal form
19:34:17 <Harold> Hassan, we cannot avoid syntactic congruences and semantic equivalences, I agree.
19:34:45 <aharth_scribe> hassan: there alway will be different ways to saying the same thing
19:35:01 <Harold> Example of  semantic equivalence:  <And> c1 c2</And> <=> <And> c2 c1</And>
19:35:48 <aharth_scribe> mkifer: allowing additional syntactic features should simplify things
19:36:57 <aharth_scribe> ... keep only AND/OR and make them 0...more would simplify things
19:38:18 <aharth_scribe> jos: right now processing needs to take into account 4 cases rather than 2
19:39:12 <aharth_scribe> sandro: POSITIVE currently is redundant
19:41:59 <Harold> Really there are 3 arity options for AND/OR: 2, 2:*, 0:*
19:42:42 <aharth_scribe> harold: most uniform would be 0...more
19:44:31 <Hassan> sound please?
19:46:06 <Harold> I'm fine with 2:* for WD1,  to have RIF be a semantic language, as Deborah explains.
19:46:12 <aharth_scribe> deborah: the language design should be designed to be semantical, rather than optimise for easy parsing
19:47:34 <Hassan> T too prefer 0 or more - but I was warped my mathematics beyond recognition :-)
19:48:37 <LeoraMorgenstern> +1 nary
19:48:47 <Elisa> Elisa prefers 0 or more
19:48:55 <aharth_scribe> csam: dyadic conjunction and disjuction only? 2.  0...more? 5.  2..more? 0.  abstain? 5
19:49:39 <Hassan> pls turn on your mikes - thanks
19:49:55 <Hassan> who is speaking?
19:50:12 <Allen> christian right now
19:50:21 <aharth_scribe> sandro: that decision was resolved earlier
19:50:21 <sandro> I'm very happily talking into a turned-off mic, Hassan.  :-)
19:50:35 <Hassan> I mean besides THE Christian
19:50:52 <Allen> dave now
19:50:55 <sandro> (basically, the resolution I recorded earlier about AND/OR was not actually treated as a resolution by the chair, and I was whining about that.)
19:51:53 <aharth_scribe> dave: question: link between Const and PSort has neither aggregation symbol nor mulitplicity
19:52:30 <ChrisW> action: harold to update metamodel for "Sort" association from Var/Const to Psort
19:52:30 <rifbot> Created ACTION-243 - Update metamodel for \"Sort\" association from Var/Const to Psort [on Harold Boley - due 2007-03-05].
19:53:28 <Harold> Hassan, in earlier versions POSITIVE was called LITFORM (literal formula) to prepare later introduction of negative literals. Now we focus only on the positive literals, no longer trying to prepare later extensions on this level. 
19:54:46 <aharth_scribe> csma: the same constant can have only one sort
19:55:13 <aharth_scribe> chris: how about a sort hierarchy? what happens if uri would be subclass of string?
19:58:32 <Harold> A Const can be the name of an individual, a predicate/relation, or a function.
19:59:26 <aharth_scribe> jos: the location of a constant determines its sort
20:02:03 <aharth_scribe> csma: association from Var/Const to Psort has to be 0 or one?
20:02:52 <aharth_scribe> mkifer: there is a primitive sort: domain from which things are drawn; arrow sorts: what contexts the thing can appear? function symbol or not? which arities? 
20:02:54 <Harold> So, we have  individual constants, predicate constants, and function constants, but in the current first-order version we only have individual variables, no predicate or function variables.
20:03:37 <aharth_scribe> mkifer: every symbol can have more than one sorts
20:04:22 <aharth_scribe> jos: the issue is in which context the consts are used
20:05:30 <aharth_scribe> chris: there seems to be a confusion between sorts in syntax and sorts in semantics
20:08:31 <aharth_scribe> mkifer: you can have symbols that do not have primitive sorts; in FOL, there is a clear divison between constants, functions, and predicate symbols
20:09:08 <Deborah> Deborah has joined #rif
20:10:16 <aharth_scribe> chris: lexical sorts vs. semantic sorts? eg. whether a uri presents a constant or a predicate are orthogonal
20:13:34 <aharth_scribe> dave: imagine p(x) :- q(x), would you write down all the time the arrow sort pertainig to p?
20:15:21 <aharth_scribe> jos: make distinction between symbols and occurences/declaration of symbols
20:15:55 <aharth_scribe> csma: it's a metamodel, so it should not talk about occurrences 
20:16:42 <aharth_scribe> chris: we should agree which level the metamodel represents. it should not be lexical
20:18:35 <aharth_scribe> jos: p(i) :- q(i) need two sorts: one to determine if p,q is a uri, and then say p,q are unary predicates
20:19:13 <Harold> Here's an attempt towards a simple example showing multisorted syntax and semantics: Syntax: And(sells(john _car"a1" mary) buys(mary _ship"a1" john)). Semantics: a1 has type from sort intersection(car,ship), i.e. an amphibious vehicle.
20:19:55 <aharth_scribe> chris: meta model does not need to deal with uris yet, but rather than if a symbol is a function or an individual
20:21:19 <aharth_scribe> jos: but then we do not primitive sorts, but only boolean and arrow sorts
20:21:36 <aharth_scribe> ~/s/do not/do not need/
20:21:39 <aharth_scribe> s/do not/do not need/
20:23:26 <aharth_scribe> mkifer: maybe then we should better talk about sorts and signatures to make a distinction
20:28:10 <aharth_scribe> mkifer: split sorts from signatures, variables will have 0:1 sorts, constants will have exactly one sort, and at least one signature
20:28:29 <Hassan> mike Mike ! :-)
20:28:30 <aharth_scribe> ... signatures can be arrow signatures or boolean signatures
20:28:59 <aharth_scribe> ... arrow sorts will cover syntactic occurrences of functions and predicates
20:29:12 <aharth_scribe> ... sort means how the constants looks like lexically
20:31:33 <aharth_scribe> hassan: why variables can have 0:1 sorts?
20:31:48 <aharth_scribe> mkifer: we should allow variables that range over everything
20:33:00 <aharth_scribe> mkifer: how to represent well-formed terms in a meta-model?
20:33:30 <aharth_scribe> csma: you would need to add coml constraints, or use text to describe constraints
20:34:35 <Zakim> -Leora_Morgenstern
20:34:42 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean
20:35:04 <Zakim> -Elisa_Kendall
20:40:36 <Zakim> -Hassan_Ait-Kaci
21:07:14 <Zakim> +Mike_Dean
21:13:53 <Zakim> +Leora_Morgenstern
21:17:37 <Zakim> +Hassan_Ait-Kaci
21:28:26 <DaveReynolds> ScribeNick: DaveReynolds
21:28:53 <DaveReynolds> We are half way through a discussion on how the MOF models correspond to the notions of abstract syntax we are trying to capture.
21:30:23 <DaveReynolds> Specifically the issue of when two occurances of symbols are coreferences (I think :-))
21:31:00 <DaveReynolds> csma: So if in XML document you have P(x) written twice they are different occurances
21:32:50 <DaveReynolds> Michael: So does that stop us using MOF for the "symbol" sub-diagram because that gives the same issue?
21:33:04 <DaveReynolds> Sandro: separate notion of identity criteria
21:33:47 <DaveReynolds> Jos: e.g. same attribute name identifies the same symbol
21:34:11 <DaveReynolds> Michael: if name uniquely identifies the object it solves the problem
21:35:28 <DaveReynolds> Chris: that would mean that every time you mention a constant you would have to define its signature
21:35:54 <DaveReynolds> Sandro: right, because we are interpreting the metamodel as driving the XML syntax
21:36:38 <Hassan> mikes?
21:36:55 <DaveReynolds> Jos: we can same constant has an attribute Name and add identity criteria for it
21:37:25 <DaveReynolds> csma: that is already there in the definition of NamedElement, which is brought in from the MOF machinery
21:37:37 <DaveReynolds> Jos: the identity cosntraint might be missing
21:37:56 <DaveReynolds> Chris: mixing too many levels
21:38:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/02/26-rif-minutes.html sandro
21:38:32 <DaveReynolds> Chris: mixing semantics with the syntax. Here we are just trying to capture the syntax.
21:39:16 <DaveReynolds> Chris: So intepreted as a syntax the (Const/symbol diagram) says that *syntactically* each constant has a sort and a signature in it
21:39:37 <DaveReynolds> Michael: so using MOF for this is wrong?
21:39:56 <DaveReynolds> csam: No, it is iterpreting this MOF as a syntax specification that is wrong
21:40:02 <DaveReynolds> s/csam/csma/
21:40:19 <DaveReynolds> Jos: but we can read the same digram in two different ways
21:40:54 <DaveReynolds> Chris: forget about MOF for the moment, we are using an OO style for writing down an abstract syntax, which can then generate a BNF and an XML Schema
21:41:22 <DaveReynolds> Chris: So for example a min-card of 1 means that that element must be there in the *syntax* at that place
21:41:36 <Hassan> I agree with Jos.
21:42:34 <DaveReynolds> Chris: no WG resolution about maintaining a MOF, we are maintaining an abstract syntax, reading it as a metamodel in the sense of MOF is not what we were trying to do
21:42:44 <DaveReynolds> csma: argues you can have it both ways
21:42:47 <DaveReynolds> Chris: no
21:43:35 <DaveReynolds> csma: can capture the attributes once and then refer the same defintions
21:44:01 <DaveReynolds> general disgreement/confusion on this
21:44:42 <DaveReynolds> Jos: Chris is right, you would put this sort of information in declarations, perhaps in a different syntax
21:44:48 <DaveReynolds> csma: don't understand why
21:45:18 <DaveReynolds> Michael: issue how do you know which bit of the diagram is supposed to be interpreted as syntax and which as model structures
21:46:43 <DaveReynolds> Jos: if we write this down as a metamodel we can't derive the syntax of the rules from it
21:47:11 <DaveReynolds> Jos: should not confuse the schema from the language with the metamodel for the rules
21:48:12 <sandro> I have no idea what you mean by "schema" as distinct from metamodel.
21:48:33 <DaveReynolds> csma: the is not about whether the MOF does allow such reference rules, the issue is in using it to drive the syntax mechanically
21:50:55 <DaveReynolds> csma: standard way to derive XML syntax would be that for each class you would need a separate description of what information you would need in the concrete syntax corresponding to that class
21:51:41 <DaveReynolds> Jos is proposing that the two diagrams be overlaid. 
21:51:56 <DaveReynolds> Michael: so how do you say how you write down the declarations?
21:52:31 <DaveReynolds> Jos: csma says do that by writing down separate annotations for how to translate from MOF to the syntax
21:52:43 <DaveReynolds> Sandro: so where do these declarations go
21:53:22 <DaveReynolds> csma: the signature goes in another document, the application specific data model
21:53:33 <DaveReynolds> <general chorus of no />
21:55:04 <DaveReynolds> Hassan: if we have RIF-compilant rules with all these P's and x's, it matches the abstract syntax. What is the worry about where to put the declarations?
21:55:17 <DaveReynolds> ... Why a different document? Who cares?
21:55:39 <DaveReynolds> Chris: that's the question. The question is whether they are both RIF documents?
21:56:17 <DaveReynolds> [csma seemed to say "no" and there was surprise/disagreement on that]
21:56:45 <DaveReynolds> csma: e.g. consider the insurance industry which already has a way of writing down the data model
21:57:19 <DaveReynolds> Michael: but we have to map rules, we have map such external datamodels as well
21:58:18 <DaveReynolds> Jos: the rulesets in RIF have to make semantic sense, do that you need signatures for them, that doesn't require import of external vocabulary, just need to relate the symbols
21:59:01 <Hassan> good question!
21:59:15 <DaveReynolds> Allen: makes sense as a model, there are many syntax's which could fit with this, why use this for syntax
21:59:47 <DaveReynolds> Harold: do we need our own schema level language for data models?
21:59:55 <DaveReynolds> csma: no, that would be barrier to adoption
22:00:43 <DaveReynolds> csma: may be solution is that RIF provides syntax for rules down to constants but the metamodel information for data objects would be defined externally
22:00:50 <Zakim> -Gary_Hallmark
22:02:03 <DaveReynolds> Chris: surely if you want to interchange rules you also need to translate your data models
22:02:22 <DaveReynolds> csma: but let everyone carry on using their own
22:02:33 <DaveReynolds> Allen: see csma's section 2.11 in UCR
22:03:19 <DaveReynolds> Chris: base level is we need someway to write down what a predicate is and what a function is. Yes?
22:03:26 <DaveReynolds> csma: yes
22:04:16 <DaveReynolds> Chris: so set aside the data model issue, RIF needs to write down signatures, and needs some syntactic way to write that down, is that separate declarations or implicit in usage in rules
22:04:28 <DaveReynolds> Michael: imaging separate declarations
22:05:04 <DaveReynolds> Jos: does depend on the dialect, e.g. in OWL have a few explicit declarations or in other places don't
22:05:09 <Harold> At least we need a standard interface/adapter/mapper between 'foreign' schemas/vocabularies (in XSD, OWL, UML, ...) and RIF signature declarations.
22:05:24 <DaveReynolds> Michael: e.g. in prolog you wouldn't necessarily since the same symbol can be used with arbitrary arities
22:05:53 <DaveReynolds> Michael: OWL would just say I have predicates and constants and no function symbols
22:06:10 <DaveReynolds> Chris: so we need a syntax for writing down such signatures
22:06:54 <DaveReynolds> Michael: dialects might want do it differently
22:07:05 <sandro> General need for Declaration structure.....
22:08:44 <DaveReynolds> Chris: need to decide whether to continue making metamodel or stick to using this as an abstract syntax
22:09:11 <DaveReynolds> Sandro: now we have "Declaration" in the symbol diagram it can be treated as an abstract syntax for declarations
22:10:47 <DaveReynolds> csma: separate logical structure of condition from the content
22:11:13 <DaveReynolds> Paul: argue continue use of MOF to simplify interop with OMG (e.g. PRR)
22:11:45 <DaveReynolds> Michael: so the declarations would be a side diagram along side condition language and rules
22:12:08 <DaveReynolds> Jos: people are still treating this as a schema, not as a metamodel and that will confuse people
22:12:27 <DaveReynolds> ... shouldn't use UML/MOF where what we mean is just schema for language syntax
22:12:42 <DaveReynolds> .. has to be communicable to people outside the WG
22:13:12 <DaveReynolds> Allen: thought the isssue we have to be clear on which usage of the diagrams we intending
22:13:15 <Hassan> q+
22:13:39 <DaveReynolds> Sandro: we should not use it for both, that's not what we agreed
22:13:53 <DaveReynolds> Chris: not what *I* agreed
22:14:02 <sandro> I thought I said we SHOULD use it for both.
22:14:30 <DaveReynolds> Hassan: UML is too poor for a schema, would need additional constraints which would need OCL
22:14:45 <DaveReynolds> Harold: already have one OCL constraint, ordered
22:14:49 <sandro> what the HELL does the word schema mean here?
22:15:04 <sandro> s/HELL/heck/
22:15:25 <DaveReynolds> Chris: asks for agreement that we need a syntax
22:15:41 <Harold> Hassan, an interchange 
22:15:51 <Harold> format needs an XML syntax.
22:16:21 <DaveReynolds> Chris: we had a decision to maintain an abstract syntax, based on asn06
22:16:34 <DaveReynolds> Chris: then we agreed to draw a picture to represent it
22:17:04 <DaveReynolds> Chris: which we used MOF for then then we started to treating it as a metamodel
22:17:27 <DaveReynolds> Chris: can we get back to starting point that we just want a way to specify the abstract syntax
22:17:34 <DaveReynolds> .. so the questions are
22:17:46 <DaveReynolds> .. what we do with the MOF diagrams in the document?
22:18:24 <DaveReynolds> Sandro: had been expecting to generate MOF diagram out of the asn06
22:18:37 <DaveReynolds> Sandro: the question of declarations is a separate issue
22:19:20 <DaveReynolds> Chris: so if you did that would you have const appear in one place or in two places (declarations and usage in rules)
22:20:01 <DaveReynolds> Harrold: that's a separate issue, use of sorts instead of explicit separation of predicate and function symbols
22:20:17 <DaveReynolds> Michael: with BNF we know how to get a grammar
22:20:34 <DaveReynolds> .. but if we use UML we need to specify that because the picture is underdefined
22:21:34 <DaveReynolds> Harold: the separation of Const and Declaration is a separate confusion
22:22:24 <DaveReynolds> .. It is a fully striped syntax because all the roles are named and then the model is the abstract syntax
22:22:48 <DaveReynolds> Paul: this would all be easier if we had some examples to ground the discussion
22:23:20 <DaveReynolds> Chris: examples help but still need to decide whether to worry about the diagram or go back to asn06
22:23:34 <DaveReynolds> .. with asn06 we have control of it 
22:23:55 <DaveReynolds> Harold: but we wanted to relate asn06 to OWL
22:24:28 <DaveReynolds> Chris: calls for agreement on what to do with picture
22:24:36 <DaveReynolds> Michael: get rid of picture
22:24:47 <DaveReynolds> Paul: taking the picture away doesn't remove the confusion
22:25:05 <DaveReynolds> .. do want to relate to standards which use metamodels
22:25:11 <DaveReynolds> Chris: that's the problem 
22:25:35 <DaveReynolds> Harold: already use MOF this way in R2ML
22:25:49 <DaveReynolds> .. and for RuleML
22:26:04 <Zakim> -Hassan_Ait-Kaci
22:26:20 <DaveReynolds> Michael: invent graphical formalism for asn06 to avoid the baggage?
22:26:45 <DaveReynolds> Sandro: not sure what the specific MOF assumptions are that causing the problem
22:27:46 <DaveReynolds> Chris asks Paul about reading of the metamodel as a syntax
22:28:13 <DaveReynolds> Paul: this is model, a stepping stone to defining the language
22:28:40 <DaveReynolds> Paul: can't do the concrete before you agree on the abstract
22:29:10 <DaveReynolds> .. is there anything about this model [the one in the first diagram] that is wrong or missing?
22:29:23 <DaveReynolds> .. then we could go to the next step of concrete syntax
22:29:58 <Harold> Isn't the only real problem with the UML diagram that some instances of a given class we want to interpret as different, other instances we want to interpret as identical?
22:30:20 <DaveReynolds> Chris: the point is this started life purely as an abstract syntax, which could shift to using it as a metamodel but would be left with the step of defining the syntax
22:30:43 <DaveReynolds> Paul: in PRR we just did the metamodel and left the XMI serialization as the closest thing to the syntax
22:31:26 <DaveReynolds> Bob: the diagram makes sense, the missing thing is that most terms are atomic but Const has more baggage hidden behind it
22:32:12 <DaveReynolds> ... talking about declarations of singatures is not syntax it is getting into the semantics
22:32:19 <DaveReynolds> s/sing/sign/
22:32:24 <Harold> Bob, right, Const is a kind of parameter of the current UML model.
22:32:43 <DaveReynolds> Harold: const is a sort of variable of the diagram
22:33:04 <Zakim> +Hassan_Ait-Kaci
22:33:11 <DaveReynolds> ... did not indend to go so deeply into Const and it is not so essential 
22:33:19 <DaveReynolds> Chris: several ways to go
22:33:24 <sandro> (My question was:   what about the UML metamodel might be misleading to people? )
22:33:44 <csma> q?
22:33:49 <DaveReynolds> ... maintain UML as a metamodel
22:33:57 <Harold> s/variable/parameter/
22:34:08 <sandro> (Because Chris keeps saying the UML says sometihng different to people than the asn06 does.)
22:34:16 <DaveReynolds> ... drop that and go back to asn06 as an abstract syntax
22:34:26 <DaveReynolds> ... just maintain the BNF
22:34:29 <Hassan> q-
22:34:43 <DaveReynolds> ... Just have to be clear on what we are choosing to do.
22:35:50 <DaveReynolds> Sandro: there is confusion being introduced by using UML/MOF for the abstract syntax
22:36:16 <DaveReynolds> s/there/disagrees that /
22:37:08 <DaveReynolds> Chris: the issue is that if you have two class boxes with the same label they are the same class
22:37:20 <DaveReynolds> ... if they are in separate diagrams they are *still* the same class
22:37:39 <DaveReynolds> ... but here we need different contexts and MOF doesn't give that contextualization
22:38:24 <DaveReynolds> Bob: the relation between the declarations and the usage is about the semantics, not the syntax
22:39:44 <DaveReynolds> Bob: we are talking about two different syntactic constructions
22:40:32 <DaveReynolds> Chris: the issue is that the same name "Const" is used in two places so the roles used in the declaration construct will be visible to the rule 
22:41:28 <DaveReynolds> Sandro: but the signature are attributes not of const but of the declaration 
22:41:54 <DaveReynolds> ... the string as it appears in the syntax would be different and so would have a different class name in the UML
22:42:44 <DaveReynolds> csma: in a condition a const is associated with blah, in a declaration it is associated with fooblah, they are the same class, different associations
22:43:03 <DaveReynolds> Sandor: so how do you provide that context in UML?
22:43:12 <DaveReynolds> s/Sandor/Sandro/
22:43:30 <DaveReynolds> Chris: UML does *NOT* have a notion of context
22:44:42 <DaveReynolds> ... if you have two diagrams with different associations is just a presentation tool, the class has all the associations across all the diagrams
22:47:09 <sandro> +1 Bob
22:47:11 <Zakim> -Hassan_Ait-Kaci
22:47:34 <sandro> +1 Bob (it's not the associations from Const; it's the association to Const.)
22:49:09 <DaveReynolds> Chris: choices of what to maintain - UML metamodel, asn06 or BNF
22:49:34 <DaveReynolds> Michael: please can we clarify wha the actual problem is with interpreting UML metadata as abstract syntax
22:49:52 <DaveReynolds> ... is the problem the use the aggregation as meaning partof
22:50:15 <DaveReynolds> ... can we solve it by using association (hollow diamond) instead of aggregation
22:51:43 <PaulVincent> Reference for UML aggregation vs composition - http://www.parlezuml.com/tutorials/umlforjava/java_class_basic.pdf 
22:53:07 <Zakim> -Leora_Morgenstern
22:54:15 <DaveReynolds> Paul: [point to interchanges on the mail list about metamodel usage]
22:55:48 <DaveReynolds> DaveR: suggests the issue is not in interpretation of the digrams by others but us misusing them, the symbol diagram could be made consistent with both readings if we tried
22:56:09 <DaveReynolds> Harold: can we learn from RDF/RDFS representation in MOF in ODM?
22:56:53 <DaveReynolds> Chris: RDF and RDFS are intertwined, there isn't the same sort of separation to repesent, it is not a good analogy to this case
22:58:06 <DaveReynolds> [Back to the question of which one we are trying to maintain]
22:58:30 <DaveReynolds> csma: the question is how to we derive the XML syntax rather than which one we maintain
22:59:06 <DaveReynolds> Chris: if we want to derive an XML syntax then that comes from asn06
22:59:16 <DaveReynolds> csma: so that means we maintain the asn06
22:59:29 <DaveReynolds> ... but that doesn't stop us using the diagram for didactic reasons
22:59:38 <DaveReynolds> ... but if we have one it has to be right
23:00:12 <DaveReynolds> Harold: call it UML/MOF style instead of UML
23:01:12 <DaveReynolds> Jos: can use UML to specify the syntax, it would be a perfectly readable diagram
23:03:13 <DaveReynolds> Chris: the nice thing about a metamodel is that it only includes the things you need in your semantics
23:03:44 <DaveReynolds> Sandro: if you can translate asn06 to the UML does that resolve the dichotomy?
23:04:14 <DaveReynolds> Chris: there is no way to do that and be able to go back
23:04:36 <DaveReynolds> Sandro: the problems are caused by modelling errors not be confusion on the use of MOF
23:05:24 <DaveReynolds> csma: if we wanted to have a syntax derived from MOF/UML we would be using XMI and we don't want all that baggage, we don't what to carry the whole metamodel 
23:06:07 <DaveReynolds> s/what/want/
23:06:36 <DaveReynolds> Allen: use the asn06 for actually driving the syntax, put the digrams into blue sections and then into the Arch document
23:07:10 <Harold> The 'abstract syntax' use of MOF/UML only requires generalization and composition with roles, multiplicity, and very simple (ordered) constraints.
23:07:36 <Deborah> Deborah has joined #rif
23:08:19 <sandro> Quick draft of diagram into asn06
23:08:22 <sandro> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2007/asn/test-data/pc4.asn?rev=1.1&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup
23:11:48 <DaveReynolds> Michael: can't use UML in writing down the semantics, need a linear syntax for that
23:13:08 <Harold> Proposed: Extend Earlier Resolution: RIF uses asn06 as its 'abstract syntax' that can be visualized with MOF/UML-like diagrams only requiring generalization and composition with roles, multiplicity, and very simple (ordered) constraints. 
23:16:34 <DaveReynolds> Harold: but if we put the MOF in blue, do we have to put asn06 into white?
23:16:50 <DaveReynolds> Sandro: the disgreement is in the modelling not in the way we present it
23:17:05 <DaveReynolds> Chris: calls for comments on moving UML to blue
23:17:21 <sandro> s/it/it (his suspicion, at least.)
23:17:38 <DaveReynolds> csma: objects, prefer it to be simplified and kept
23:17:55 <DaveReynolds> ... and its purpose and nature better explained
23:19:35 <DaveReynolds> csma: just remove the PSORT part of the diagram and everything else is OK
23:20:44 <DaveReynolds> Resolved: UML diagram 1 stays in WD1 but with NamedElement and PSort removed
23:20:54 <DaveReynolds> ... and the connecting links
23:28:48 <Zakim> -Mike_Dean
23:29:58 <csma> csma has left #rif
23:33:48 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, meeting_room, in SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM
23:33:50 <Zakim> SW_RIF(F2F)8:00AM has ended
23:33:51 <Zakim> Attendees were Elisa_Kendall, Mike_Dean, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, meeting_room, Gary_Hallmark, Leora_Morgenstern