14:41:04 RRSAgent has joined #rif 14:41:04 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/09/04-rif-irc 14:41:12 zakim, this will be rif 14:41:13 ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 19 minutes 14:41:31 Meeting: RIF Telecon 4 Sept 07 14:41:40 Chair: Christian de Sainte-Marie 14:42:22 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Sep/0009.html 14:42:35 ChrisW has changed the topic to: 4 Sept Telecon Agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Sep/0009.html 14:42:56 Scribe: Allen Ginsberg 14:43:08 scribenick: AllenGinsberg 14:43:21 agenda+ Admin 14:43:26 agenda+ Liason 14:43:31 agenda+ F2F 14:43:36 agenda+ UCR 14:43:45 agenda+ BLD - RDF 14:43:59 agenda+ Arch - Data Models 14:44:04 agenda+ AOB 14:44:13 rrsagent, make minutes 14:44:13 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/04-rif-minutes.html ChrisW 14:52:13 rrsagent, make logs public 14:59:16 csma has joined #rif 14:59:50 DaveReynolds has joined #rif 15:00:16 SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started 15:00:17 +??P19 15:00:31 +??P22 15:00:32 zakim, ??P19 is me 15:00:32 -??P22 15:00:33 +??P22 15:00:35 +csma; got it 15:00:36 +Dave_Reynolds (was ??P22) 15:01:12 LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif 15:01:15 Chair: Christian de Sainte Marie 15:01:19 StellaMitchell has joined #rif 15:01:29 Scribe: Allen Ginsberg 15:01:43 scribenick: AllenGinsberg 15:01:58 +AllenGinsberg 15:02:10 josb has joined #rif 15:02:13 +??P28 15:02:14 +[NRCC] 15:02:19 +josb 15:02:27 zakim, ??p28 is me 15:02:27 +LeoraMorgenstern; got it 15:02:34 zakim, mute me 15:02:37 LeoraMorgenstern should now be muted 15:02:45 zakim, unmute me 15:02:45 LeoraMorgenstern should no longer be muted 15:02:48 PaulVincent has joined #RIF 15:02:48 zakim, [NRCC] is me 15:02:48 +Harold; got it 15:02:51 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:02:51 On the phone I see csma, Dave_Reynolds, AllenGinsberg, LeoraMorgenstern, Harold, josb 15:03:01 + +43.512.507.9aaaa 15:03:04 zakim, mute me 15:03:04 LeoraMorgenstern should now be muted 15:03:09 +Stella_Mitchell 15:03:24 +[IBM] 15:03:35 zakim, ibm is temporarily me 15:03:35 +ChrisW; got it 15:03:36 zakim, aaaa is me 15:03:36 +barry_b; got it 15:04:04 +??P34 15:04:10 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 15:04:16 zakim, next item 15:04:16 agendum 1. "Admin" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:05:18 cgi-irc has joined #rif 15:05:21 DavidHirtle has joined #rif 15:05:25 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:05:25 On the phone I see csma, Dave_Reynolds, AllenGinsberg, LeoraMorgenstern (muted), Harold, josb, barry_b, Stella_Mitchell (muted), ChrisW, PaulVincent 15:05:45 +DougL 15:06:46 luis_polo has joined #rif 15:06:52 csma: action review 15:07:19 +Sandro 15:07:24 +Gary_Hallmark 15:07:35 chrisW: action 334 closed, 335 done 15:08:25 minutes accepted for aug 28 telecon 15:08:36 zakim, next item 15:08:36 agendum 2. "Liason" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:08:50 csma: no action to review 15:08:51 OMG PRR: no news 15:09:15 zakim, close item 2 15:09:15 agendum 2, Liason, closed 15:09:16 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 15:09:17 3. F2F [from ChrisW] 15:09:18 +??P43 15:09:19 zakim, open item 3 15:09:19 agendum 3. "F2F" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:09:29 zakim, ??P43 is me 15:09:29 +DavidHirtle; got it 15:09:42 csma: everyone please fill out f2f survey 15:09:45 -> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/38457/f2f7reg/ F2F7 Register/Regrets 15:09:53 +berrueta 15:09:55 chrisW: no unpdates on f2f 15:10:03 zakim, berrueta is me 15:10:03 +luis_polo; got it 15:10:13 csma: first draft agenda by end of next week 15:10:22 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:10:22 On the phone I see csma, Dave_Reynolds, AllenGinsberg, LeoraMorgenstern (muted), Harold, josb, barry_b, Stella_Mitchell (muted), ChrisW, PaulVincent, DougL, Sandro, Gary_Hallmark, 15:10:25 ... DavidHirtle, luis_polo 15:10:28 Hassan has joined #rif 15:10:43 +Hassan_Ait-Kaci 15:10:44 csma: skipping UCR item because Axel not here 15:10:59 csma: any volunteer to review another one? 15:11:20 As I mentioned, Axel and Paula told me they have only a shakey connection from the Reasoning Web Summer School in Dresden. 15:11:23 chrisW: any volunteers for next week? 15:11:40 csma: Axel should do it next week 15:11:47 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/D._Evaluation%3A_Use_Cases 15:12:55 chrisW: dave you did use case 8? 15:13:17 dave: stuff has changed 15:13:29 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UC8_Worked_Example 15:13:29 dave: can do UC 8 next week 15:13:47 AllenG: can do UC3 following week 15:14:33 csma: move on to BLD 15:14:34 zakim, take up item 4 15:14:34 agendum 4. "UCR" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:14:40 zakim, take up item 5 15:14:40 agendum 5. "BLD - RDF" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:14:49 csma: action review 15:15:06 csma: sandro action 336? 15:15:19 sandro: continued 15:15:40 csma: 337? 15:15:46 harold: continued 15:15:52 csma: 338 15:16:07 chrisW: 338 is done (by Gary) 15:16:11 New actions come in for me, too, with the discussion and work Sandro started for the successor to asn06. 15:16:31 Harold, do you want to record some actions? 15:16:34 csma: jos to discuss changes to RDF compatibility section 15:16:42 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/RIF-RDF_Compatibility 15:16:46 No, that's an 'informal' action. 15:17:18 jos: cleaned it up....make more readable and to incorporate new items and resolutions 15:17:38 jos: also included new comments and discussion itmes 15:17:58 jos: biggest thing, found more elegant way to define the semantics, so now easier to read etc 15:18:20 kifer has joined #rif 15:18:25 csma: does anyone have clarification qustions? 15:18:47 chrisW: I have one...in common interpretations section condition 2 15:19:03 chrisW: what is condition 2 doing? 15:19:28 jos: just makes sure that whenever you use an element as a property then it is in the set Ip 15:19:55 AllenG: (technical discussion of condition 2) 15:20:16 chrisW: just says all slots are RDF properties? 15:20:19 jos: yes 15:20:46 +Michael_Kifer 15:20:52 jos: Michael had some sceptisim concerning the semnatics? 15:21:41 jos: especially concerning the combination semantics; I responded in email 15:21:59 mkifer: I didn't get a chance to read it yet. 15:22:09 jos: let's continue in email 15:22:54 csma: did you (Jos) mean that an RDF graph can be translated into RIF rules? 15:23:00 jos: yes. 15:23:27 jos: actually translated to facts 15:23:35 s/sceptisim/skepticism 15:23:48 csma: that means rif includes rdf? 15:24:25 jos: no...it means that if you want to use RDF with RIF you are implictly assuming this semantics 15:24:44 csma: does it mean that any RDF can be expressed as a RIF rule set? 15:25:02 jos: any kind of rdf entailment maps into entailment in rif 15:25:36 mkifer: this is the problem: the combined semantics isn't needed because rif already allows for that embdding 15:25:43 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Sep/0001.html 15:25:43 jos: let's continue that over email 15:25:47 mkifer: ok 15:26:05 csma: let;'s go over other issues in the email one-by-one 15:26:23 jos: 3 issues related to identifiers... 15:26:50 jos: absolute iri's versus rdf use of uri references 15:26:51 q+ 15:27:05 jos: might need a conversion? 15:27:10 ack dave 15:27:12 ack dave 15:27:16 zakim, mute me 15:27:16 sorry, kifer, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you 15:27:36 dave: rdf uses "rdf uri references" 15:27:42 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:27:42 On the phone I see csma, Dave_Reynolds, AllenGinsberg, LeoraMorgenstern (muted), Harold, josb, barry_b, Stella_Mitchell (muted), ChrisW, PaulVincent, DougL, Sandro, Gary_Hallmark, 15:27:46 ... DavidHirtle, luis_polo, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), Michael_Kifer 15:27:59 MichaelKifer has joined #rif 15:28:02 dave: they were trying to hone in on iri's before the irs spec was finalized 15:28:11 zakim, mute me 15:28:11 Michael_Kifer should now be muted 15:28:18 dave: i suggest we just leave it as iri's 15:28:39 DaveReynolds: What the RDF spec uses is "RDF URI References" which is a confusing term. It's not "URI References". It was, rather, their best attempt to anticipate what IRIs would be. There may be a difference around spaces. I suggest we not dwell on any differences. 15:28:39 kifer has joined #rif 15:29:09 jos: I was confused by different statements in the specs 15:29:13 Jos: I was trying to figure out if we need to take into account the conversions between URIs and IRIs. 15:29:30 dave: we don't need to worry about conversion 15:29:37 DaveReynolds: I don't think we do. We just treat them as IRIs. 15:29:45 +1 (just treat them as IRIs) 15:29:51 dave: in the iri specs conversion algorithms would be defined 15:30:19 dave: we certainly wouldn't define new conversions ourselves 15:31:00 csma: dave we are missing some of your audio.... 15:31:03 yes 15:31:16 csma: so the solution is to use absoluete iris 15:31:30 chrisW: do we need to refer to uris at all? 15:31:35 exactly, don't point to any conversion, just talk about IRIs 15:31:46 jos: for the sake of rdf compatibility 15:31:52 MichaelKifer_ has joined #rif 15:32:12 sandro: rdf uri references are not uris 15:32:38 http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Graph-URIref 15:33:14 chrisW: they were iri's before iri's were defined 15:33:41 sandro: I agree we dave that we don't need to worry about these issues 15:33:57 sandro: we are basically tracking an evolving standard 15:34:02 I proposed a form of words (derived from the SPARQL spec) before, I can find that again 15:34:27 sandro: just talk about iri's and maybe include a note to deal with special cases 15:34:33 -Dave_Reynolds 15:34:58 +??P22 15:35:01 jos: investigate further? 15:35:11 sandro: not us. 15:35:21 csma: do we need a formal decision? 15:35:39 csma: any objections to just talking about iri's? 15:35:48 none 15:35:52 Sandro: The issue that I think is real is what we say you do about the odd little corner cases like an RDF URI Reference that is not an IRI -- eg one with a space in it.... I suggest we ignore this issue. (I think concurring with Dave on this suggestion) 15:36:53 jos: 2nd issue: some rdf literals are not strings accroding to xml schema strings 15:37:17 jos: but we didn't decide whether we want to go with xmls 1 or 2 15:37:30 s/1 or 2/1.0 or 1.1/ 15:38:23 We certainly should be prepared for 1.1 and for now stay in the common subset. 15:38:35 jos: not clear about all the consequences of doing one or the other 15:38:55 chrisW: can we leave these decision to implementors of rif? 15:39:10 csma: do you mean in rif instance docs? 15:39:37 s/ now stay/ now encourage RIF users to stay/ 15:39:39 jos: yes we could, but then we should say something about rdf literals that are not xml 1.0 strings 15:39:55 chrisW: what does xmls 1.0 say? 15:39:56 Jos: we need to say what to do if you see an xml 1.0 literal string 15:40:03 jos: doesn;t say anything 15:41:43 MichaelKifer has joined #rif 15:41:44 dave: we should leave the value space unconstrained (as in xmls 1.1) 15:42:06 dave: that doesn't stop people from using 1.0 libraries to process stuff 15:42:19 dave: in the spec we need to point to a specific spec 15:42:28 dave: 1.1 isn't at spec yet. 15:43:12 csma: but we never investigated the consequenses of using 1.1 as reference for xml types 15:43:34 dave: agreed...there may be other issues, e.g., builtins 15:44:04 csma: somebody to take an action with regard to xml datatypes included in rif 15:44:11 csma: volunteers/ 15:44:52 csma: we need someone with good xml expertise 15:45:03 csma: gary? 15:45:19 gary: haven't been tracking 1.0 vs 1.1 15:45:27 important point jos made, we can't just leave this up to implementors because we agreed to include XML datatypes directly as part of RIF syntax 15:45:32 dave: what about asking the xml schema group? 15:45:40 csma: yes 15:45:51 not me 15:46:06 jos: i can 15:46:22 jos: but they haven't responded to earlier email yet 15:46:48 sandro: sending a comment to working group would be good 15:47:25 sandro: i can try talking to the people directly, or send a message to working group 15:47:58 csma: actions? 15:49:20 action: debruij to send message to XML Schema WG comments list 15:49:20 Sorry, couldn't find user - debruij 15:49:57 action taken by jos to send comment to xml schema working group 15:50:07 action: jdebruij to send message to XML Schema WG comments list 15:50:07 Created ACTION-339 - Send message to XML Schema WG comments list [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2007-09-11]. 15:50:27 jos: ill-typed literals in rif vs rdf 15:50:46 jos: treatment is different 15:50:53 http://www.w3.org/2005/rif/rdf-ill-typed-literal/uri-encode("s"^^u) 15:51:07 jos: I made a suggestion (see link in irc) 15:51:37 jos: map ill-typed literals to uris. Is this a good idea? 15:52:21 rifbot, status 15:52:33 csma: don't ill-typed literals in rules make them uninterpretable and therfore who cares? 15:52:52 q+ 15:53:06 jos: they can occur in rdf data, so we need a way to treat them in rif 15:53:39 csma: ah this is for the combination semantics? 15:53:49 ack me 15:53:52 ack dave 15:54:54 dave: this seems to be an unimportant case. in actual data you don't let ill-typed literals through. this isn't practically important 15:55:07 dave: just say the embedding only works for well-typed case 15:55:45 csma: basically agree with dave 15:56:09 jos: i don't agree. why not support all of rdf? 15:56:35 q? 15:56:57 csma: it doesn't mean that rif rules can't interact with all of rdf data, it only means that some rdf data can't be translated into rif rues 15:57:13 Jos' proposal re ill-typed literals could still come into RIF: where we deal with exceptions, partial compliance, etc., anyway. 15:57:41 (see Sandro's earlier wiki page) 15:58:02 jos: but this comes into play with queries - rif query over rdf-data (containing ill-typed literals) 15:58:29 csma: but if rdf knows what to do with them, then rdf can deal with them 15:58:49 jos: reiterates point about query-answering 15:59:31 chrisW: something that understands rdf can do the translation for rif vs. rif itself knows what to do 15:59:55 chrisW: how complicated is this? if uncomplicated we can handle all of rdf 16:00:05 csma: but at what cost? 16:00:19 jos: only implementations that care about rdf would be affected 16:01:22 csma: but this contradicts your combination semantics argument, 16:02:15 csma: when you try to embed the rdf graph as rif rules you would get a syntax erro (with ill-typed literals) 16:02:52 chrisW: in support of csma's argument: 16:03:23 Jos: I DONT propose we support ill-typed literals, instead I propose we translate to URIs. 16:03:39 jos: rif doesn't need to support ill-typed literals, we are translating to uri's 16:03:52 chrisw: so you are really in agreement (with csma) 16:04:05 http://www.w3.org/2005/rif/rdf-ill-typed-literal/uri-encode("s"^^u) 16:04:21 sandro: what do the uri's look like? 16:04:33 jos: shows link in irc 16:04:50 csma: ok 16:04:51 should the data type name be part of such a uri? 16:05:05 jos: does this comply with best practices? 16:05:20 sandro: this is a pretty weird thing to do (but legal, i think) 16:05:35 sandro: it;s a weird hack, but might be our best option 16:05:42 zakim, unmute me 16:05:42 Michael_Kifer should no longer be muted 16:05:46 csma: any objections to doing this? 16:06:22 q+ 16:06:22 mkifer: basically a good idea, but need to work on details, e.g., other languages might want to use this mechanism 16:07:04 sandro: why did rdf do this? probably because it would be impossible to decide whether the literal is really ill-typed 16:07:27 csma: so we table this issue for now? 16:07:51 zakim, mute me 16:07:51 Michael_Kifer should now be muted 16:08:06 sandro: jos can you edit the page to show an actual example/ 16:08:10 jos: yes 16:08:33 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Sep/0013.html 16:08:36 q- 16:08:53 jos: there are 4 additional issues (see link in irc) 16:09:18 csma: once we resolve all these issues are we done with compability? 16:10:04 jos: it depends...doc would still need examples, etc. There are other related issues, but we are pretty close 16:10:20 csma: do we need to raise those other issues formally? 16:10:26 csma: yes 16:10:50 action: chris to investigate raising Jos' identified issues 16:10:50 Created ACTION-340 - Investigate raising Jos\' identified issues [on Chris Menzel - due 2007-09-11]. 16:10:51 csma: chris will you ask deborah to create those seven issues? 16:10:56 chrisW: ok 16:11:39 chrisW: sandro can you remove chris menzel from the list? 16:11:43 sandro: yes 16:11:43 action: cwelty to investigate raising Jos' identified issues 16:11:43 Created ACTION-341 - Investigate raising Jos\' identified issues [on Christopher Welty - due 2007-09-11]. 16:12:06 zakim, list agenda 16:12:06 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda: 16:12:07 3. F2F [from ChrisW] 16:12:08 4. UCR [from ChrisW] 16:12:10 5. BLD - RDF [from ChrisW] 16:12:11 6. Arch - Data Models [from ChrisW] 16:12:12 7. AOB [from ChrisW] 16:12:20 zakim close item 5 16:12:25 zakim, close item 5 16:12:25 agendum 5, BLD - RDF, closed 16:12:26 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 16:12:29 3. F2F [from ChrisW] 16:12:31 zakim, open item 6 16:12:31 agendum 6. "Arch - Data Models" taken up [from ChrisW] 16:12:40 zakim, close item 3 16:12:40 agendum 3, F2F, closed 16:12:41 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 16:12:41 csma: action review 16:12:42 4. UCR [from ChrisW] 16:12:48 action 331 continued 16:12:56 action 330 done 16:13:28 csma: action 258 done? 16:13:34 dave: yes a long time ago 16:14:06 dave: we discussed 258 at the last f2f. 16:14:16 csma: action 258 closed 16:14:22 action 256 continued 16:14:49 zakim, unmute me 16:14:49 Michael_Kifer should no longer be muted 16:15:11 action 254: semantics section for arch doc 16:15:37 mkifer: at least telecon i mentioned splitting the arch doc into two. 16:16:19 -PaulVincent 16:16:30 csma: let's obsolete this action for now 16:16:34 action 254 closed 16:16:44 zakim, mute me 16:16:44 Michael_Kifer should now be muted 16:17:01 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Arch/Data_Sets 16:17:05 csma: dave do you want to discuss your changes 16:17:16 dave: see link in irc. 16:17:41 dave: this is a result of discussion at last f2f. 16:18:13 dave: there are now 3 subsections relating to differnt isues teased out 16:18:41 dave: how to identify the data set used by rules 16:20:00 dave: basically convey the metadata to give an identifier for data set 16:20:17 dave: 2nd section: data model identification 16:20:40 dave: how do yo tell the rule process what data model is being used? 16:21:02 dave: at f2f we agreed on supporting 3 data models 16:21:43 dave: i updated metadata vocabulary to accomodate those three 16:22:34 dave: 3rd section data-model usage: see email discussion about this 16:22:59 csma: so let;s use remaining time to how to embed metadata in rif 16:23:21 jos: there is no mechanism for specifying meta data in rif 16:23:56 jos: it's straigtforward to do it, but we need to decide what we want to include 16:24:14 -luis_polo 16:24:35 csma: all we have is the proposal to use rdf to express metadata 16:24:58 dave: right. 16:26:47 Allen: I missed some of this... 16:26:51 Dave, the current syntax proposal is in http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core. 16:27:37 q+ 16:28:09 zakim, who is talking? 16:28:10 sandro: the question is related to extensibility. 16:28:23 ChrisW, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: csma (8%), Sandro (21%) 16:28:43 sandro: if extensibility is easy then we can let people write their own metadata schema 16:28:44 q+ 16:29:07 who is cgi-irc? 16:29:12 csma: we need to get a better feeling of what kind of metadata would be required 16:29:29 apparently me for some reason... strange 16:29:33 Doug L 16:29:41 csma: if we only a small set of metadata maybe we can just get away with afew attributes and values 16:29:42 ack chrisw 16:29:43 zakim, cgi-irc is DougL 16:29:43 sorry, cgi-irc, I do not recognize a party named 'cgi-irc' 16:29:56 q+ 16:30:16 chrisW: this is orgthogonal to whther metadata is done in rdf 16:30:17 q- 16:30:21 q+ 16:30:33 ack cgi 16:30:48 -1 to extenc 16:30:49 q- 16:30:55 don't mind 16:30:57 -1 to extend 16:30:59 adjourn 16:31:03 q- 16:31:15 meeting adjourned 16:31:18 -Gary_Hallmark 16:31:22 -Michael_Kifer 16:31:24 -DavidHirtle 16:31:25 zakim, list attendees 16:31:25 As of this point the attendees have been csma, Dave_Reynolds, AllenGinsberg, josb, LeoraMorgenstern, Harold, +43.512.507.9aaaa, Stella_Mitchell, ChrisW, barry_b, PaulVincent, 16:31:27 bye 16:31:28 ... DougL, Sandro, Gary_Hallmark, DavidHirtle, luis_polo, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Michael_Kifer, DaveReynolds 16:31:30 -Stella_Mitchell 16:31:31 -DougL 16:31:33