IRC log of rif on 2007-11-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

20:28:36 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
20:28:36 [RRSAgent]
logging to
20:28:47 [Harold]
... Semantics of Uniterm: mapping function.
20:29:11 [Harold]
Axel: No semantic difference between builtins and user-defined functions.
20:29:29 [Harold]
csma: Currently, not distinguished in BLD.
20:29:40 [sandro]
AxelPolleres, while we have subclassing in RDFS, do you think we can mandate that RIF Consumers do complete RDFS reasoning before extracting the RIF semantics structures? That seems like a fairly hard sell to Gary. :-)
20:29:45 [ChrisW]
Chair: Christian de Sainte-Marie & Chris Welty
20:29:45 [Harold]
... in PRD we have fixed interpretation functions.
20:29:52 [ChrisW]
Scribe: Harold
20:30:15 [ChrisW]
Meeting: RIF Face to Face Nov 5 2007
20:30:17 [Harold]
Gary: Plus: all args of builtins must be ground.
20:30:27 [Harold]
csma: Yes, that was in the patterns.
20:30:30 [ChrisW]
zakim, list attendees
20:30:30 [Zakim]
sorry, ChrisW, I don't know what conference this is
20:30:57 [AxelPolleres]
For Gary, nothing changes, I don't say that the XML syntax for PR needs to accept <smsnaf> in place of <naf>
20:31:03 [Harold]
Gary: So we have no universal semantics that tells us for every expression if it's true or false.
20:31:27 [Harold]
... Would be nice to have a more general semantics for both.
20:31:59 [AxelPolleres]
but a stratified datalog dialect should maybe accept sms-rulesets, as long as they are stratified.
20:32:21 [ChrisW]
Present: PaulVincent, MichaelKifer, AdrianPaschke, HaroldBoley, GaryHallmark, StellaMitchell, MikeDean, IgorMozetic, BobMoore, josDeBruijn, AxelPolleres, sandroHawke, ChrisWelty, Christian de Sainte-Marie
20:32:31 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
20:32:31 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
20:32:34 [AxelPolleres]
At least by subclassing , you can define some trivial fallbacks.
20:32:43 [Harold]
csma: That this is not (only) a model-theoretic semantics is even clearer for the And: works also for operat. semantics.
20:32:49 [sandro]
Attendance note -- observing for the afternoon has been Carine Bournez, (The RIF meeting is listed on the conference schedule as being open to observers, by accident.)
20:33:11 [AxelPolleres]
i.e. if a dialect supports the conceptual superclass semantically, the default fallback would be replacing the special with the more general one.
20:33:11 [Harold]
MichaelK: You have to be careful where you are talking formally and where informally.
20:33:12 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make logs public
20:33:47 [Harold]
... We prioritized model-theor., then fall back to operational, then to procedural.
20:34:03 [Harold]
... But this is none of these, it's mixed.
20:34:21 [Harold]
csma: It's formal (although written in English).
20:34:33 [Harold]
... Define when a condition is true.
20:34:45 [Harold]
... then execute the actions.
20:35:11 [Harold]
MichaelK: OK, but it's kind of confusing. Suppose I read this, but wont understand.
20:35:21 [sandro]
AxelPolleres, so the subclass relationships in the abstract model automatically generate some fallback substitutions? My guess is that's reasonable and somewhat helpful, but I'm not sure.
20:35:22 [Harold]
csma: This is why put sem on top.
20:35:31 [Harold]
... Dont see why this is not formal.
20:35:48 [Harold]
MichaelK: First do syntax, then semantics.
20:36:16 [AxelPolleres]
that would be the idea... also not 100% sure, needs some dialect examples, which I still owe, admitedly.
20:36:21 [Harold]
... E.g. it's not interpreted as a function from to, everything is regarded as matching.
20:36:40 [AxelPolleres]
... but it sounds appealing to try to me
20:36:41 [Harold]
csma: The pattern matching mechanism gives me the function.
20:37:03 [Harold]
Chris: What do you regard as the interpretation function?
20:37:14 [Harold]
csma: A mapping to a domain element.
20:37:40 [Harold]
... What does pattern matching do? Tells you what's the interpretation!
20:37:58 [Harold]
... Tells you what's and what's not in the interpretation.
20:38:20 [Harold]
... But what I get from discussion: This is confusing. Not the right way to put it in a spec.
20:38:31 [Harold]
... However, the earlier approach also seemed confusing.
20:38:43 [Harold]
... Wanted to keep it as close to BLD as possible.
20:39:04 [Harold]
Harold: Much better than earlier version.
20:39:48 [Harold]
MichaelK: What's wrong: You say here's a program, I determine from a procedure what the meaning is. The wrong way round.
20:40:11 [Harold]
csma: Perhaps misunderstanding.
20:40:19 [Harold]
... Removed pattern section.
20:40:28 [Harold]
... Actions have to be worked on.
20:41:16 [Harold]
... Gary's point is valid that top-level of Rule syntax is different unnecessarily from BLD.
20:41:32 [Harold]
... But this is because BLD is not frozen yet.
20:42:45 [Harold]
... Could perhaps just one CONDITION rather than two. Historical from earlier patterns and the 'else' parts. But it may be good to keept both.
20:43:01 [Harold]
Restart at 4PM.
21:08:31 [StellaMitchell]
ScribeNick: StellaMitchell
21:08:45 [StellaMitchell]
zakim, next item
21:08:45 [Zakim]
agendum 7. "PRD" taken up [from ChrisW]
21:09:03 [StellaMitchell]
zakim, show agenda
21:09:03 [Zakim]
I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
21:09:04 [Zakim]
7. PRD [from ChrisW]
21:09:30 [StellaMitchell]
Topic: Builtins and Metadata
21:10:22 [StellaMitchell]
csma: we didn't consider carefully which xsd datatypes to pick
21:10:42 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: Yes, we settled on a set during one of our meetings
21:11:25 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: (projecting list of xpath functions and operators)
21:11:53 [StellaMitchell]
21:12:28 [StellaMitchell]
jos: will these be predicates or functions in BLD?
21:12:50 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: do we have notion of builtin as external call? are all predicates, all functions ?
21:13:26 [StellaMitchell]
Harold: telecon with DARPA demo group - we chose a fixed interpretation for builtins
21:13:59 [StellaMitchell]
Harold: the point is - we have equality in RIF
21:14:49 [StellaMitchell]
mk: if we assume URI's identify functions, we can
21:15:33 [StellaMitchell]
Harold: mode declaration of functions
21:15:54 [StellaMitchell]
Harold: for now, it would be very nice to have builtins as functions
21:16:10 [StellaMitchell]
axel: for predicates, it is not so clear what is input and output
21:16:28 [sandro]
binding patterns == modes
21:16:44 [sandro]
Harold: non-deterministic builtins
21:16:51 [StellaMitchell]
Harold: (something is) then you would have non-deterministic functions
21:17:19 [StellaMitchell]
Sandro: trying to clarify between functions and predicates
21:17:58 [StellaMitchell]
Sandro: you might have extension that has more builtins (that the dialect it extends)
21:18:07 [Harold]
Because in RIF we have Equal, we can finally come back to builtins being functions, not (artificially) relations. Advantage: uniform mode declarations.
21:18:40 [StellaMitchell]
.. can lead to a language conflict (syntax has different meaning)
21:19:01 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: Also, datatype extensibility is an open issue
21:19:04 [sandro]
Sandro: It should be a syntax error to use a builtin that's not in some dialect.
21:19:25 [StellaMitchell]
...I don't think it makes sense to assume the list of builtins is fixed
21:20:10 [StellaMitchell]
Jos: xpath uses namespaces, but we use curies...
21:20:31 [StellaMitchell]
csma: functions as relations, means uniterms of the atomic kind?
21:20:53 [StellaMitchell]
... so the only uniterm of the term kind are logical functions
21:20:56 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #rif
21:21:03 [mdean]
mdean has joined #rif
21:21:55 [StellaMitchell]
mk: asking about xpath urls, namespaces, what is behind it?
21:22:04 [StellaMitchell]
axel: reads definition from xpath spec
21:22:30 [StellaMitchell]
Sandro: they are available to users as other symbols
21:22:39 [Harold]
For example, NumericAdd has uniform mode In x In -> Out as used in ?Result = 23 + 17 or <Equal><Var>Result</Var><NumericAdd><Const>23</Const><Const>17</Const></NumericAdd></Equal>.
21:22:51 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #rif
21:23:17 [AxelPolleres]
21:23:48 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: back to questions - builtins as relations or external calls?
21:23:57 [StellaMitchell]
csma: what is the difference?
21:24:31 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: diff between interpreted and logical functions - for interpreted, you have to call some other piece of code to evaluate it
21:25:02 [StellaMitchell]
csma: ??
21:25:12 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: that wouldn't allow for extensibility
21:25:28 [StellaMitchell]
csma: producer and consumer have out of band agreement on what it is
21:26:23 [StellaMitchell]
csma: function names are iris, so if you can't recognize it, you don't handle that external functions
21:26:36 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: no, in that case it could be a logic function
21:27:05 [StellaMitchell]
csma: I can't think of any concrete case where it would be a problem
21:27:16 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: append - would be reasonable as either
21:27:43 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: what is the status of functions on BLD
21:27:49 [StellaMitchell]
21:28:04 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: how does a user define a logic function?
21:28:15 [StellaMitchell]
Gary, MK: they just use it
21:28:18 [sandro]
"logic functions that are term constructors" vs "evaluable" or "interpretable" functions, ....?
21:28:55 [Harold]
In my example, NumericAdd as a relation would have hetereogeneous mode Out x In x In.
21:29:00 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: an "eval" function
21:29:22 [sandro]
"external call", "procedural attachment", ...
21:29:26 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: it's a little confusing that an external call is a builtin
21:29:55 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: issue is, if you can tell from the syntax whether it is a builtin or a logical function
21:30:22 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: is anyone opposed to having a special syntax to distinguish
21:30:32 [Harold]
We already can define functions using ATOMIC Equality facts based on ATOMIC ::= Uniterm | Equal.
21:30:42 [StellaMitchell]
21:31:13 [StellaMitchell]
csma: if we want fully stripped xml syntax, we need elment
21:31:50 [StellaMitchell]
mk: builtins are supposed to have a uri, and in semantic web uri already has a meaning, so from that point of view we don't have to say anything
21:32:19 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: gives example showing it is more complicated
21:32:37 [StellaMitchell]
mk: uris are supposed to be self-denoting
21:32:58 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: op:numeric-add is self denoting
21:34:07 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: is it possible to define syntax and that would indicate which it is?
21:34:15 [Harold]
We can user-define as an equational fact fatherOf(Mary) = John or <Equal> <Uniterm><Const>fatherOf</Const><Const>Mary</Const></Uniterm> <Const>John</Const> </Equal>.
21:34:19 [StellaMitchell]
mk: no, I don't think so
21:34:49 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: dereference argument and get documentation and links to downloads
21:35:12 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: but from point of view of semantics, it is just an opaque string that denotes a funciton
21:35:39 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: syntax that denotes builtins, and spec says which ones have to be supported
21:35:52 [StellaMitchell]
... and people would be able to add more
21:36:31 [StellaMitchell]
mk: we can't control what is at the URL of fn:compare
21:36:42 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
21:37:27 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: uri goes to the text description
21:38:01 [AxelPolleres]
<Uniterm> vs <Builtinterm>
21:38:03 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: advantage of having an explicity syntax is that it is open - people can add more
21:38:53 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: who thinks we should special syntax to identify builtins?
21:39:12 [StellaMitchell]
(people on both sides, there is disagreement)
21:39:44 [StellaMitchell]
Harold: in lisp there is a uniform way to call user defined functions
21:40:00 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: but in lisp, it is not open
21:40:49 [StellaMitchell]
BobM: ??
21:41:02 [Harold]
s/uniform way to call user defined functions/uniform way to call user defined and builtin functions/
21:41:29 [StellaMitchell]
axel: you are saying builtin terms must always have fixed interpretations
21:41:32 [sandro]
21:42:04 [StellaMitchell]
mk: I think we can make it extensible
21:42:49 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: but you are signalling it syntactically, like with defun
21:43:34 [StellaMitchell]
mk: I would use "require" (the list of bld functions)
21:44:10 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: that is not extensible
21:44:38 [StellaMitchell]
mk: we only care that a symbol is used consistently
21:44:46 [StellaMitchell]
... if not, things are broken anysay
21:44:53 [StellaMitchell]
21:45:11 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: "append" example, where it could be either builtin or logical function
21:45:30 [StellaMitchell]
mk: but it would have different uris for different uses
21:45:58 [StellaMitchell]
axel: what if the builtin is in the head (conclusion)?
21:46:27 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: we can discuss that later, after we resolve this questions
21:47:13 [bmoore3]
bmoore3 has joined #rif
21:47:56 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: if we syntactically mark builtins, it is very clear how it would work
21:48:32 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: but some people here think it's cleaner to not have to syntactically indicate it
21:49:16 [caribou]
caribou has left #rif
21:49:25 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: proponents of not syntactially marking can try to come up with a suggestion, maye in a break out tomorrow
21:49:33 [StellaMitchell]
21:50:08 [sandro]
Chris: Result --- default is External Calls In Syntax; people who want something else (including him) need to come up with a proposal.
21:50:10 [StellaMitchell]
....that group will come up with a proposal or agree to the other method
21:50:14 [Harold]
Looking at
21:50:15 [Harold]
21:50:15 [Harold]
<op><Const type="rif:local">fn:subtract-dateTimes-yielding-dayTimeDuration</Const></op>
21:50:15 [Harold]
21:50:15 [Harold]
21:50:15 [Harold]
21:50:17 [Harold]
21:50:25 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: metadata
21:51:06 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: meta means "after"
21:51:26 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: what metadata do we need?
21:51:52 [Harold]
the "fn:" in fn:subtract-dateTimes-yielding-dayTimeDuration shows that we have an external call here.
21:51:54 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: which syntactic terms can have metadata?
21:52:59 [Harold]
However there are some ways to mark this more explicitly as a builtin call:
21:53:01 [StellaMitchell]
Sandro: and other questions about metadata: is the metadata fixed for a given dialect?
21:53:14 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: you mean is there a finite set of preset tags?
21:53:16 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: yes
21:53:32 [StellaMitchell]
PaulV: is it extensible?
21:53:33 [Harold]
* Use <Const type="rif:builtin">
21:53:54 [StellaMitchell]
Sandro: or rather, if you want new metadata, do you need to make an extension?
21:54:14 [StellaMitchell]
Gary: can you always ignore the metadata and get the same result?
21:54:21 [Harold]
* Use <Const type="rif:local" builtin="yes">
21:54:23 [sandro]
s/new metadata/a new metadata item/
21:54:37 [StellaMitchell]
PaulV: what is an example of metadata that cannot be ignored?
21:54:47 [sandro]
csma: is rule priority metadata?
21:54:54 [sandro]
csma: it affects semantics.
21:54:59 [StellaMitchell]
jos: if you refer to a datamodel using metadata, and that datamodel affects the semantics
21:55:26 [StellaMitchell]
Sandro: this is why I advocate having no metadata
21:56:23 [StellaMitchell]
Adrian: example of using RI F document as data
21:56:31 [sandro]
no metadata mechanism --- just more extensions.
21:56:36 [StellaMitchell]
21:56:53 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: do we want to talk about a class of metadata that cannot be ignored?
21:57:15 [StellaMitchell]
csma: I think Sandro had a good point. We don't call it metadata, just data
21:57:35 [Harold]
* Both of the above are much better than using a totally different calling method such as <ExternalUniterm>, because the transition from user-defined to builtin should be kept as simple as possible (see above discussion about lisp and prolog).
21:57:39 [StellaMitchell]
Sandro: I suggested pushing this off until we understand extensibility better
21:58:11 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: It should not be that you need an extension to add author metadata
21:59:06 [StellaMitchell]
csma: isn't metadata the things that don't have to do with semantics
21:59:12 [StellaMitchell]
mk: dublin core
21:59:25 [StellaMitchell]
PaulV: and that (dublin core) would be a good starting point for RIF
21:59:58 [StellaMitchell]
jos: we shouldn't have a fixed set of metadata - it's just a set of attribute value pairs
22:00:25 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: so properties are iris and values are strings?
22:00:52 [StellaMitchell]
mk: sandro, what did you want?
22:01:05 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: import dublin core wholesale
22:01:27 [Harold]
I think metadata should be non-prescriptive annotations, i.e. not change the normative semantics of a ruleset.
22:01:28 [PaulVincent]
22:01:34 [StellaMitchell]
mk: how does owl do it?
22:01:54 [StellaMitchell]
jos: they say you can use any metadata you want, as long as it is an annotation property
22:02:42 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: I think that agreeing on specific metadata tags should not be part of dialect defintion - just say how to include metadata
22:03:37 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: who thinks the set of metadata for a dialect is fixed?
22:03:42 [StellaMitchell]
22:04:41 [StellaMitchell]
csma: can we have both? a required set and a way to add more?
22:04:51 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: 3 proposals:
22:04:54 [StellaMitchell]
...1 fixed
22:04:57 [StellaMitchell]
...2 open
22:04:58 [Harold]
Metadata thus act just like comments from the perspective of the normative semantics, although non-semantics-preserving processing such as in AdrianP's author-filtering example will be possible.
22:05:08 [StellaMitchell]
...3 required, plus a way to add more
22:05:13 [StellaMitchell]
fixed: 1
22:06:05 [StellaMitchell]
open: 6
22:06:32 [StellaMitchell]
sandro: I object to passing a resolution now because we having settled on our extensibility mechanism
22:06:45 [sandro]
s/ing set/ not set/
22:06:57 [StellaMitchell]
mixed: 7 (gary voted for open and mixed)
22:07:29 [StellaMitchell]
official count: fixed: 1, open:4, mixed: 6
22:08:07 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: We will put on hold the question of where we can put metadata (which elements to attach it to)
22:08:50 [sandro]
Chris: Non-ignorable metadata is part of a dialect. I think we have consensus.
22:09:09 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: non-ignorable metadata is part of a dialect definition
22:09:28 [StellaMitchell]
bobm: i'd say non-ignorable metadata is not metadata
22:09:35 [sandro]
Sandro: So the question is whether to have an annotation mechanism for ignorable content.
22:10:39 [sandro]
Gary: 'this rule is effective during the month of november' --- is that metadata?
22:11:26 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: the mechanism we are talking about is the annotations that don't affect the semantics
22:11:42 [StellaMitchell]
...( the ignorable metadata)
22:11:52 [Harold]
+1 to bobm
22:12:18 [sandro]
The issue here is whether to provide a syntactic mechanism for including structured annotations which have no effect on the semantics. And if so, how?
22:13:00 [sandro]
(Avoids the term metadata)
22:13:45 [sandro]
general consensus on that issue statement.
22:13:58 [PaulVincent]
Paul: proposes some use cases for metadata eg RIF for execution won't need metadata eg RIF for rules mgmt will find metadata significant
22:14:06 [sandro]
Sandro: I'm not convinced we need this, yet. I think light-weight extensions might cover these use cases.
22:14:31 [mdean]
scribe: Mike Dean
22:14:36 [StellaMitchell]
Chris: we will discuss it more after we settle on the extensibility mechanism
22:14:37 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
22:14:39 [mdean]
scribenick: mdean
22:14:58 [mdean]
topic: test cases
22:15:46 [mdean]
action 361: Stella to update test case wiki page
22:16:04 [Harold]
22:16:06 [mdean]
didn't mean to record new action
22:17:26 [mdean]
ChrisW: overview of test cases in WebOnt WG
22:17:48 [mdean]
entailments for each operator
22:18:00 [mdean]
resolution of issues often documented as test case
22:18:31 [Harold]
22:18:48 [mdean]
ChrisW: RIF could adopt this methodology
22:19:15 [mdean]
Sandro: consistency tests too?
22:20:33 [sandro]
Agreement -- we need Inconsistency and Consistency tests too.
22:20:43 [mdean]
csma: have people submit cases where they think there is ambiguity
22:21:10 [mdean]
csma: what is the form of these tests?
22:22:08 [mdean]
example test case in Stella's email above
22:22:54 [mdean]
structured annotations wrapping OWL documents
22:23:10 [mdean]
premise in one file, conclusions in another
22:23:41 [josb]
owl example:
22:23:55 [mdean]
message uses example URIs - OWL tests were real
22:24:55 [mdean]
Sandro: likes .hrif for presentation syntax
22:26:16 [mdean]
Sandro: Jeremy wrote nice software to manage test cases for WebOnt
22:26:30 [mdean]
... recently asked to resurrect this for OWL WG
22:26:39 [mdean]
s/Jeremy/Jeremy Carroll/
22:27:22 [mdean]
... Jeremy and Jos deRoo just did it
22:28:06 [mdean]
Adrian: need separate query language?
22:28:28 [mdean]
ChrisW: not needed - just specify in manifest
22:28:56 [mdean]
ChrisW: can we leverage JUnit?
22:29:16 [mdean]
Sandro: let's wait for a few weeks on OWL WG
22:29:27 [mdean]
ChrisW: need time limit
22:29:48 [mdean]
Sandro: ... unless someone else volunteers
22:30:17 [mdean]
... could still submit a test in natural language in email or Wiki page
22:30:30 [mdean]
josb: good to link to examples in document
22:30:53 [mdean]
csma: some tests should also be linked to use cases
22:31:11 [mdean]
Sandro: group seems to be comfortable mirroring what OWL did
22:31:39 [mdean]
csma: what about testing implementations?
22:32:09 [mdean]
Sandro: WebOnt generated table of tests by implementation, showing each was handled by at least 2
22:32:51 [mdean]
csma: could be a way to test that specification meets requirement, i.e. was implementable
22:33:04 [mdean]
Sandro: doesn't ring any bells
22:33:21 [mdean]
topic: compliance/
22:33:25 [mdean]
Sandro: prefer conformance
22:33:51 [mdean]
csma: yes/no test or degrees of conformance?
22:34:06 [mdean]
... define profiles/levels
22:34:40 [mdean]
ChrisW: based on test cases that implementation passed, not a formal thing
22:34:59 [mdean]
josb: normative OWL test cases section on conformance
22:35:11 [mdean]
... syntax and consistency checkers
22:35:43 [mdean]
parking passes distributed
22:36:29 [Harold]
We need to make entailment ( |- ) relative to the logic we are in. Eg in FOL p(a) :- q(a) |- ~q(a) :- ~p(a), but not so in Horn logic.
22:36:45 [mdean]
breakfast options: $10 for continental, or $15 full Zephyr buffet to go
22:38:16 [mdean]
Sandro: strawman conformance test: phrase as some sort of action: this software does this ...
22:38:36 [mdean]
csma: prefer one level of compliance - must implement everything
22:38:56 [mdean]
... then could have compliance for specific extensions
22:39:24 [mdean]
Michael: most implementations probably won't implement full equality
22:39:42 [mdean]
Michael: OWL has not been fully implemented either
22:40:27 [mdean]
josb: Pellet isn't complete with nominals
22:41:04 [mdean]
Sandro: unfortunate that we don't have complete OWL implementations yet
22:41:36 [mdean]
Michael: same with SQL, thousands of pages of spec
22:42:15 [mdean]
Michael: don't exclude something just because it's hard to implement
22:43:10 [mdean]
csma: compliance is like conformance but not quite :-)
22:43:40 [mdean]
... want to promote adoption, motivate comfortant implementations
22:44:24 [mdean]
Michael: could be conformance level that doesn't include equality
22:44:42 [mdean]
csma: could end up with so many dialects and levels that OWL looks simple
22:45:13 [Harold]
The paramodulation calculus is a refutational theorem proving method for
22:45:13 [Harold]
rst-order logic with equality, originally presented in Robinson &Wos (1969)
22:46:03 [sandro]
Chris: Issues 1 - whether to have levels of conformance (vs just boolean) per dialect
22:47:27 [sandro]
Chris: Issues 2 - whether to have lowest conformance level match implementations (eg full equality).
22:48:38 [mdean]
bob: many features aren't implemented or implementable with reasonable time
22:48:54 [mdean]
... interoperability is most important
22:49:30 [mdean]
... don't define logic that can't be implemented
22:50:08 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
22:50:44 [sandro]
Chris: 4 square, levels vs expected.
22:51:55 [mdean]
csma: boolean might not require equality
22:52:26 [mdean]
profiles not the same as levels
22:53:12 [mdean]
Chris: boolean per dialect
22:53:36 [mdean]
Michael: profiles are kinds of dialects
22:53:53 [mdean]
straw poll
22:53:53 [sandro]
Chris: Levels + Expected: 0
22:54:19 [sandro]
Chris: Booleans + Expected: looks like everyone
22:54:34 [sandro]
Chris: Boolean + Not-Expected -- Michael
22:55:18 [sandro]
Michael: There will be useful implementations which don't conform.
22:55:30 [Harold]
The axioms for the equality relation need not be built into RIF (without it's easy to implement), because they can be 'loaded' as another ruleset:
22:55:49 [mdean]
Chris: does everyone assume profiles?
22:56:21 [mdean]
6 of N-1 thought they were voting for profiles
22:56:29 [sandro]
Voting for profiles: 6,
22:57:33 [mdean]
Sandro: voting for compliance being something that's implementable
22:57:52 [mdean]
Chris: BLD - equality not a profile?
22:58:33 [mdean]
Sandro: change BLD to not include equality
22:58:42 [mdean]
csma: current BLD becomes an extension
22:59:05 [sandro]
Sandro,Bob: define BLD as something that's implementable.
22:59:24 [mdean]
+5 for Sandro
22:59:34 [sandro]
5 people agreeing with that view.
23:00:19 [mdean]
csma: same for PRD
23:00:33 [mdean]
... extensions could be harder to implement
23:00:45 [mdean]
Sandro: profile vs. extension is marketing difference
23:00:50 [mdean]
csma: important for adoption
23:01:16 [mdean]
Sandro: same for equality and negation
23:01:39 [mdean]
Chris: plenty of SQL operators are partially implemented
23:02:19 [mdean]
Chris: nobody needs the full implementation
23:02:26 [mdean]
csma: must jump start implementations
23:03:06 [mdean]
Chris: not ready for resolution, but consensus that we want boolean tests for conformance with some disagreement over what to test
23:03:19 [mdean]
Michael: could also use test cases
23:03:31 [mdean]
Chris: industry likely to do this, publish their test case results
23:04:10 [mdean]
Sandro: BLD querying system vs implementation
23:04:56 [mdean]
Chris: do we need issue regarding equality?
23:05:34 [mdean]
Chris: always boils down to test cases
23:06:23 [sandro]
group of five who wants BLD changed to remove quality, so that it's practical to implement it fully
23:06:34 [mdean]
ACTION (csma): open issue on equality
23:07:14 [mdean]
Google says dinner is 1.1 miles away
23:07:18 [mdean]
reservation at 7pm
23:07:32 [mdean]
walkers meet in lobby at 6:30
23:07:52 [mdean]
otherwise contact Sandro
23:07:56 [sandro]
ACTION: Christian to open issue about removing equality from BLD because it's not so practical to implement.
23:07:56 [rifbot]
Created ACTION-366 - Open issue about removing equality from BLD because it\'s not so practical to implement. [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2007-11-12].
23:07:57 [mdean]
23:16:57 [sandro]
"RIF Consuming Reasoner"