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 http://www.w3.org/2007/11/05-rif-irc
- 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 http://www.w3.org/2007/11/05-rif-minutes.html 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, http://www.w3.org/People/carine/ (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]
- http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/List_of_functions_and_operators
- 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]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/#namespace-prefixes
- 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]
- s/on/in/
- 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]
- s/distinguish/distinguish?/
- 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]
- "ExternalUniterm"
- 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]
- s/anysay/anyway/
- 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]
- s/maye/maybe
- 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]
- <Uniterm>
- 21:50:15 [Harold]
- <op><Const type="rif:local">fn:subtract-dateTimes-yielding-dayTimeDuration</Const></op>
- 21:50:15 [Harold]
- <arg><Var>deliverydate</Var></arg>
- 21:50:15 [Harold]
- <arg><Var>scheduledate</Var></arg>
- 21:50:15 [Harold]
- <arg><Var>diffduration</Var></arg>
- 21:50:17 [Harold]
- </Uniterm>
- 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]
- s/RI F/RIF/
- 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]
- http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-xml-guidelines/
- 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]
- ...strawpoll
- 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]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Nov/0000.html
- 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]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/
- 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: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/byFunction#function-Restriction
- 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)http://www.cs.bu.edu/fac/snyder/publications/BasicParamodulation.pdf
- 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: http://www.math.psu.edu/melvin/logic/node7.html
- 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]
- adjourned
- 23:16:57 [sandro]
- "RIF Consuming Reasoner"