IRC log of rif on 2008-01-29

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:48:57 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
15:48:58 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:49:17 [csma]
zakim, this will be RIF
15:49:19 [Zakim]
ok, csma; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 11 minutes
15:49:52 [csma]
Meeting: RIF telecon 29 January 2008
15:50:07 [csma]
Chair: Chris Welty
15:50:40 [csma]
15:51:28 [csma]
csma has changed the topic to: 29 Jan RIF agenda:
15:52:33 [csma]
Regrets: IgorMozetic, PaulaLaviniaPatranjan, Leora Morgenstern, PaulVincent
15:52:53 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
15:56:32 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
15:56:39 [Zakim]
15:56:51 [Harold]
zakim NRCC is me
15:57:07 [Harold]
zakim, NRCC is me
15:57:07 [Zakim]
+Harold; got it
15:59:59 [AdrianP]
AdrianP has joined #RIF
16:00:34 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
16:01:14 [Zakim]
+ +49.351.4.aaaa
16:01:28 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
16:01:31 [Zakim]
16:01:33 [AdrianP]
Zakim, aaaa is me
16:01:33 [Zakim]
+AdrianP; got it
16:01:38 [Zakim]
+Dave_Reynolds (was ??P28)
16:01:41 [Zakim]
16:01:50 [Zakim]
+ +6928aabb
16:02:03 [csma]
zakim, aabb is me
16:02:03 [Zakim]
+csma; got it
16:02:09 [StellaMitchell]
StellaMitchell has joined #rif
16:02:15 [csma]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:02:15 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Harold, AdrianP, Dave_Reynolds, josb, csma
16:02:28 [Zakim]
16:02:42 [Zakim]
16:02:58 [csma]
Scribe: Adrian Paschke
16:03:08 [csma]
Scribenick: AdrianP
16:03:10 [Zakim]
16:03:25 [Zakim]
16:03:30 [Zakim]
16:03:31 [Zakim]
+Dave_Reynolds (was ??P35)
16:03:49 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #rif
16:03:55 [Zakim]
16:04:02 [Zakim]
16:04:20 [Zakim]
16:04:36 [Zakim]
16:04:37 [ChrisW]
zakim, ibm is temporarily me
16:04:37 [Zakim]
+ChrisW; got it
16:04:47 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is talking?
16:04:57 [Zakim]
ChrisW, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: 8 (58%), josb (79%), ChrisW (8%)
16:05:13 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:05:13 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Harold, AdrianP, josb, Stella_Mitchell, Dave_Reynolds, Gary_Hallmark, ChrisW, csma
16:05:52 [Zakim]
16:05:55 [Harold]
zakim, who is talking?
16:06:06 [Zakim]
Harold, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: AdrianP (5%), ChrisW (83%), csma (15%)
16:06:37 [csma]
16:06:38 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: Last weeks minutes - any objections?
16:06:52 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: minutes accepted
16:06:54 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: accept minutes of Jan 22 telecon
16:07:00 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: accept minutes of Jan 22 telecon
16:07:04 [AdrianP]
Zakim, mute me
16:07:04 [Zakim]
AdrianP should now be muted
16:07:27 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: Other admin business? no
16:07:48 [ChrisW]
zakim, list agenda
16:07:48 [Zakim]
I see 2 items remaining on the agenda:
16:07:50 [Zakim]
8. Meta data [from csma]
16:07:51 [Zakim]
9. AOB (pick scribe!) [from csma]
16:07:56 [AdrianP]
CSMA: Action review moved to 3rd
16:08:02 [ChrisW]
topic: liason
16:08:09 [Zakim]
16:08:20 [ChrisW]
ack jos
16:08:22 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: Jos any news about OWL-RIF?
16:08:34 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #rif
16:08:35 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:08:35 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Harold, AdrianP (muted), Stella_Mitchell, Dave_Reynolds, Gary_Hallmark, ChrisW, csma, Sandro
16:08:51 [Zakim]
16:09:18 [AxelPolleres]
16:09:31 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: Action review
16:09:47 [josb]
I am currently having problems with zakim; I will continue trying to dial-in
16:10:27 [Harold]
16:10:38 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: Actio 405 in the agenda
16:10:44 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: Action 404
16:10:48 [AdrianP]
Harold: Done
16:10:55 [AdrianP]
CSMA: still pending discussion
16:11:06 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: Action 403 complete
16:11:19 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: Action 402 continued
16:11:22 [csma]
402 is continued
16:11:34 [Zakim]
+ +39.047.101.aacc
16:11:36 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: 401 done
16:12:18 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: PR developers only 2 weeks left for providing rule selection strategy
16:12:45 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: several open actions
16:13:06 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: all other actions are continued
16:13:23 [AdrianP]
CSMA: Pending review
16:13:38 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: F2F9
16:13:48 [AdrianP]
csma: nothing to add on F2F9
16:14:03 [AdrianP]
cmsa: any questions about procedure to book hotel?
16:14:16 [AdrianP]
harold: will there be anything on the arrival date?
16:14:27 [AdrianP]
csma: I won't be at ILog that day
16:14:33 [AdrianP]
csma: nothing arranged
16:14:54 [AdrianP]
csma: maybe a presentation of ILog
16:15:13 [AdrianP]
harold: will Hassan and Philip arround
16:15:19 [AdrianP]
csma: Hassan will be arround
16:15:34 [AdrianP]
csma: it right before the french school vacations
16:15:46 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: other discussions
16:15:52 [Harold]
16:16:09 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: Issue 46
16:16:20 [DougL]
DougL has joined #rif
16:16:40 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: to close issue 36 without action (that is, direct mapping between presentation and XML syntaxes, e.g. presented as a table).
16:16:52 [Zakim]
16:17:13 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: discussion on this issue?
16:17:25 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: any objections?
16:17:31 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: to close issue 36 without action (that is, direct mapping between presentation and XML syntaxes, e.g. presented as a table).
16:17:58 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: Issue 44
16:18:03 [csma]
ACTION: ChristopherW to close issue 36
16:18:03 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, couldn't find user - ChristopherW
16:18:19 [csma]
ACTION: CWelty to close issue 36
16:18:19 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-406 - Close issue 36 [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-02-05].
16:18:29 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: most people are tired of this issue.
16:18:38 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: proposed resolution from last week
16:18:39 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: to close issue 44 by removing named argument Uniterms from BLD.
16:18:59 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: most people are leaning simplifying things
16:19:19 [AdrianP]
Harold: discussion on the mailing list
16:19:28 [AdrianP]
Harold: several examples
16:19:32 [csma]
zakim, mute me
16:19:32 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
16:19:35 [AdrianP]
Harold: new insights
16:19:45 [AdrianP]
Harold: point is RIF is an interchange format
16:19:46 [csma]
16:19:56 [AdrianP]
Harold: not putting the burden on the translators
16:20:10 [csma]
16:20:25 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: any other engines than OO jDrew
16:20:46 [AdrianP]
Harold: Mikel is not here, but he confirmed that rel. databases are a use case
16:20:52 [csma]
zakim, unmute me
16:20:52 [Zakim]
csma should no longer be muted
16:21:21 [AdrianP]
csma: I responder to Michael and made a proposal
16:21:54 [AdrianP]
csma: small burden on the translators for named arguments
16:22:29 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
16:22:32 [AdrianP]
csma: anyway you would put the burden on the translators, but not on the translators of systems without named arguments
16:22:42 [AdrianP]
Harold: I think you proposal should be discussed
16:22:48 [Harold]
p[bar,foo]("abc", 2)
16:22:52 [AdrianP]
Harold: but there was no discussion yet
16:23:30 [AdrianP]
csma: proposal is that, if there is standard uniterm then there is an optional list of arguments which might be ignored
16:23:46 [AdrianP]
csma: the burden is on systems who support slooted uniterms
16:24:07 [AdrianP]
csma: systems which use slotted uniterms could rebuild from the list
16:24:21 [AdrianP]
csma: others might simply ignore it
16:24:48 [AdrianP]
csma: very small burden on the translators from slotted uniterms to RIF
16:25:01 [AdrianP]
Harold: Don't understand that this meta data could be ignored
16:25:21 [Michael_Kifer]
Michael_Kifer has joined #rif
16:25:24 [AdrianP]
Harold: remind you on signature, ignoring the signature means loosing information
16:25:49 [AdrianP]
csma: could be ignored by systems which are not able to use it
16:26:18 [sandro]
(the proposal was mine, I guess, but came up in conversation with csma)
16:26:23 [AdrianP]
Harold: in the eMail there seems to be a contradicting between meta data
16:26:42 [AdrianP]
csma: yes, it's Sandros proposal
16:26:46 [Zakim]
16:27:06 [Michael_Kifer]
zakim, mute me
16:27:06 [Zakim]
Michael_Kifer should now be muted
16:27:15 [AdrianP]
Harold: in this proposal you can no longer distinguish from the ordered and loose information
16:27:30 [AdrianP]
csma: if it does not fly we can not use it
16:27:35 [Michael_Kifer]
zakim, unmute me
16:27:35 [Zakim]
Michael_Kifer should no longer be muted
16:27:40 [sandro]
good point, Harold --- it's a lossy transformation, because (a->x, b->y) and (x,y) appear the same to systems ignoring the slot names.
16:27:45 [AdrianP]
csma: then only one proposal remains
16:27:58 [csma]
zakim, mute me
16:27:58 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
16:28:12 [AdrianP]
Axel: I do not object slotted uniterms
16:28:17 [Michael_Kifer]
16:28:25 [AdrianP]
Axel: they are clearly defined
16:28:30 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro/Harold: do systems really use the same name for both positional and named uniterms? Surely renaming apart would be needed in such cases anyway?
16:28:36 [AdrianP]
Axel: I don't have a stron oppinion on that
16:28:52 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: you would not object
16:29:05 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: Igor would remove its objection
16:29:18 [AdrianP]
Michael: Don't understand why we should remove them
16:29:24 [AxelPolleres]
+1 to Michael, I think they are simple enough.
16:29:30 [csma]
16:29:31 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: reason --> simplify BLD
16:29:47 [AdrianP]
Michael: But they don't have to support
16:30:04 [sandro]
-1 mkifer
16:30:05 [AdrianP]
Michael: they don't have implement that- BLD is a container
16:30:21 [AxelPolleres]
+1 to Michael again, I support that BLD is a container.
16:30:28 [AdrianP]
Michael: different vendors have to support the dialects they want
16:30:33 [csma]
-1 to everubody not being required to implement all of BLD
16:30:35 [sandro]
-1! BLD has to be implementable.
16:30:38 [Harold]
Dave, BLD does not differentiate 'alphabets' of Constants used for positional vs. used for named uniterms (it's Hilog-like and uniform).
16:30:43 [DougL]
-1 to Michael
16:30:48 [AxelPolleres]
Was there anybody who said they would implementa all of BLD?
16:31:03 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: your are supposed to translate a RIF rule set into your own language
16:31:05 [josb]
-1 to Michael
16:31:08 [DougL]
16:31:16 [sandro]
If there isn't, Axel, then lets stop working on BLD right now.
16:31:17 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: translate from BLD into language
16:31:34 [AdrianP]
Michael: you might translate from a sub dialect
16:31:46 [Harold]
We need to define Core as *subset* of BLD.
16:31:49 [AdrianP]
ChrisW: there are no subdialects
16:31:56 [csma]
zakim, unmute me
16:31:56 [Zakim]
csma should no longer be muted
16:31:59 [AxelPolleres]
I anyway think that BLD is ready and we should go on and define core and extensibility for the remaining time.
16:32:09 [AdrianP]
Michael: With framework we can easily define a dialect
16:32:10 [AxelPolleres]
so, sandro: I agree.
16:32:25 [Harold]
At the last f2f we decided to work on a Core.
16:32:26 [AdrianP]
csma: you can define any dialect, but then there is interoperability
16:32:32 [sandro]
Also -- we have a resolution to have a "handful of dialects"
16:32:40 [csma]
16:32:42 [AdrianP]
Michael: suppose you remove the named arguments
16:32:55 [AxelPolleres]
yes, but we discuss still for wweeks now nitty gritty details on changing/cutting BLD.
16:32:58 [AdrianP]
Michael: it is a burden to translate into this cut-down BLD
16:33:01 [Harold]
Core = BLD - Equality - Frames - Slots
16:33:18 [mdean]
mdean has joined #rif
16:33:40 [Harold]
16:33:41 [AdrianP]
csma: if there is a need for additional features we will later add this feature
16:33:44 [DaveReynolds]
Harold - I understand that, my point was that I would imagine most system and most users would use different names for the two different cases so the times where there is an aliasing clash to resolve seem very rare and easy to handle
16:33:50 [AdrianP]
Michael: Why then care about equality etc.
16:33:51 [Michael_Kifer]
16:33:54 [AxelPolleres]
harold: - fuinction symbols
16:33:55 [Michael_Kifer]
zakim, mute me
16:33:55 [Zakim]
Michael_Kifer should now be muted
16:34:05 [Zakim]
16:34:05 [csma]
zakim, mute me
16:34:06 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
16:34:38 [AdrianP]
Doug: appearance of simplicity does not mean
16:34:53 [csma]
ack dougl
16:35:12 [AdrianP]
Zakim, unmute me
16:35:12 [Zakim]
AdrianP should no longer be muted
16:35:38 [AxelPolleres]
I can take over...
16:35:54 [Zakim]
16:35:58 [AxelPolleres]
scribenick: AxelPolleres
16:36:04 [AxelPolleres]
scribe: Axel Polleres
16:36:27 [AxelPolleres]
harold, can you repeat that on the irc?
16:37:07 [Harold]
So Doug wants to keep slotted uniterms.
16:37:13 [DougL]
16:37:57 [Harold]
I want to empasize that we will need a susbet, the Core, which will not have Equality and will not have slots. So we can and should keept both in BLD.
16:38:05 [AxelPolleres]
Harold: What about to propose a resolution to leave them in?
16:38:16 [Harold]
16:38:21 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: to close issue 44 by removing named argument Uniterms from BLD.
16:38:28 [AxelPolleres]
so, we had two objections against removing and one against leaving them...
16:38:46 [AxelPolleres]
so, we should ALSO ask the other way around.
16:39:16 [sandro]
16:39:24 [DaveReynolds]
16:39:30 [josb]
16:39:32 [AxelPolleres]
16:39:32 [Harold]
16:39:34 [DougL]
16:39:38 [sandro]
(+1 from Gary)
16:39:47 [Michael_Kifer]
16:39:52 [csma]
16:39:54 [mdean]
16:40:12 [Michael_Kifer]
zakim, unmute me
16:40:12 [Zakim]
Michael_Kifer should no longer be muted
16:40:44 [sandro]
Gary: if we have N.A.U's we really have to tell people how to interchange them with normal Uniterms. I would probably object to leaving them in.
16:41:08 [sandro]
Gary: Implementors will go off and do what they want, without interoperation.
16:41:58 [josb]
How come we go from 1 person objecting to 3 persons objecting?
16:42:22 [AxelPolleres]
yes, it is not clear how these are related... so ... what?
16:43:11 [csma]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:43:12 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Harold, Stella_Mitchell, Dave_Reynolds, Gary_Hallmark, ChrisW, csma (muted), Sandro, AxelPolleres, josb (muted), DougL, Michael_Kifer, Mike_Dean
16:43:45 [AxelPolleres]
josb, I even changed my objection from -1 to -0 this time, so more people switched to leaving them in. I honestly really think we should close this issue and work on with what we have in order to not loose more time.
16:44:57 [csma]
zakim, unmute me
16:44:57 [Zakim]
csma should no longer be muted
16:45:00 [DaveReynolds]
+1 to Gary, a well articulated explanation of what interoperability and RIF is about
16:45:19 [ChrisW]
16:45:43 [josb]
Well, there was never any agreement within the working group to include named argument terms. So, there's not really any reason to include them.
16:45:58 [Zakim]
16:46:13 [Zakim]
16:46:29 [AxelPolleres]
we do care because BLD makes up a clean implementable framework for logical dialects!
16:47:12 [csma]
zakim, mute me
16:47:12 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
16:47:21 [AxelPolleres]
josb, that's why I said that we should propose a resolution the other way around, and see what happens then.
16:47:23 [Harold]
Chris, what about Equality?
16:47:44 [Harold]
We dont know if anyone will implement it completely?
16:48:11 [csma]
harold, there will be a Core, without equality (but without logic fct either)
16:48:22 [Harold]
But it's in BLD (because we know it will be out of Core).
16:48:57 [Harold]
Same should be kept for Slotted Uniterms: they are MUCH more easier to implement.
16:49:29 [Harold]
We can hardly keep Equality but omit Slotted Uniterms.
16:49:47 [sandro]
AxelPolleres, I thought you were scribing.....?
16:49:59 [csma]
actually, if we wanted to have more in BLD than Core+equality+logic fct, that would be negation, I guess, not NAU...
16:50:19 [DougL]
16:50:20 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: let us see how the proposal works the other way artound.
16:50:26 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
16:51:02 [sandro]
STRAW-PROPOSED: to close issue 44 by KEEPING named argument Uniterms in BLD.
16:51:11 [AxelPolleres]
MichaelK/ChrisW/sandro: some discussion before on whether BLD should be implementable fragment for all for interchange or not
16:51:16 [DougL]
I won't be here next week, probably (trip), but please consider my proxy for it as +1
16:51:21 [sandro]
16:51:21 [DaveReynolds]
16:51:23 [GaryHallmark]
16:51:23 [Harold]
16:51:27 [Michael_Kifer]
16:51:35 [josb]
16:51:35 [AxelPolleres]
16:51:39 [mdean]
16:52:02 [Harold]
(+1 from AdrianP)
16:52:15 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: Harold and Doug, neither of you objected last time.
16:52:23 [AxelPolleres]
... something changed?
16:52:47 [AxelPolleres]
DougL: saw some useful examples when I further thought about it.
16:52:48 [sandro]
16:53:20 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: any specific languages you're thinking of?
16:53:49 [Michael_Kifer]
zakim, mute me
16:53:49 [Zakim]
Michael_Kifer should now be muted
16:53:50 [Harold]
Use Cases: CLIPS, Relational Algebra, 4 from NRC.
16:53:51 [Michael_Kifer]
16:54:34 [AxelPolleres]
DougL: uncompatible evolution for languages/rulebases with large numbers of arguments.
16:54:36 [Harold]
CLIPS is supporting slotted uniterms.
16:54:56 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: Is there anything except ooJDrew?
16:55:31 [AxelPolleres]
DougL: cyc? supports named args in uniterms.
16:55:56 [csma]
ack harold
16:56:03 [AxelPolleres]
Harold: I rediscovered some use cases.
16:56:33 [Michael_Kifer]
zakim, unmute me
16:56:33 [Zakim]
Michael_Kifer should no longer be muted
16:56:42 [Harold]
Keys (local to a table) are not OIDs (global).
16:56:50 [AxelPolleres]
GaryHallmark: All use cases typically have hidden some kind of object identity.
16:57:30 [AxelPolleres]
MichealK: the issue is not that we can map it, the issue is, what does it take to do the mapping... you need for instance function symbols.
16:57:59 [ChrisW]
16:58:17 [AxelPolleres]
...why then have features like frames, etc at all, all can be done with positional terms.
16:58:33 [AxelPolleres]
GaryHallwmark: my system only has frames, no uniterms.
16:59:19 [AxelPolleres]
MichealK: if we mangle features like frames and uniterms, we will use roundtrippability.
16:59:27 [AxelPolleres]
16:59:42 [DougL]
Philosphers continually wrangle about this issue here (Davidsonians vs. non-Davidsonians)
16:59:55 [AxelPolleres]
... but if this ok, then simply let's choose potitional uniterms.
17:00:24 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: Let's move on.
17:00:26 [Michael_Kifer]
zakim, mute me
17:00:26 [Zakim]
Michael_Kifer should now be muted
17:00:53 [AxelPolleres]
(scribe cap off): why not just leaving it, we had two polls pointing in this direction?
17:01:30 [josb]
ack me
17:01:32 [ChrisW]
Topic: OWL - RDF compatibility
17:01:36 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: Let's talk about RIF-OWL compatibility task force.
17:02:19 [AxelPolleres]
josb: Last time I talked about OWL full vs OWL DL compatibility.
17:03:13 [Zakim]
17:03:17 [Zakim]
17:03:24 [AxelPolleres]
josb: annotation properties are different from binary preedicates, so another possiblity is ignoring them
17:04:10 [ChrisW]
Topic: Builtins
17:04:24 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: let's move on to issue 40.
17:04:45 [csma]
zakim, unmute me
17:04:45 [Zakim]
csma should no longer be muted
17:04:52 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: What is the status of errors?
17:06:17 [AxelPolleres]
17:06:47 [AxelPolleres]
Christian: summarizes 3 proposals.
17:07:41 [josb]
17:07:53 [AdrianP]
AdrianP has joined #rif
17:08:15 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: first-order or third truth-value? opinions?
17:08:22 [DaveReynolds]
17:08:22 [ChrisW]
ack jos
17:08:30 [Michael_Kifer]
zakim, unmute me
17:08:30 [Zakim]
Michael_Kifer should no longer be muted
17:08:42 [AxelPolleres]
josb: the issue only comes up if we talk about partial functions.
17:09:11 [AxelPolleres]
... for total functions, there is no problem.
17:09:23 [AxelPolleres]
michaelk: this is not true.
17:09:25 [AxelPolleres]
17:09:45 [ChrisW]
ack ax
17:10:48 [AxelPolleres]
michaelk: it is not only for functions, but also for predicates, which are only partially defined.
17:10:51 [Zakim]
17:11:08 [Zakim]
17:12:27 [AxelPolleres]
... most systems give errors for e.g. adding strings with numbers, so if we define some different (2-valued) behaviot for these predicates, we crate additional burden for implementors.
17:12:30 [josb]
17:13:31 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: christian just said that we shouldn't fix it in the model theory.
17:13:34 [ChrisW]
ack jos
17:13:45 [csma]
zakim, mute me
17:13:45 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
17:14:11 [AxelPolleres]
josb: I havean idea here... whenever a variable assignment is not allowed, the satisfaction is not defined.
17:14:22 [AxelPolleres]
17:14:28 [csma]
action: jos to draft a strawman on error
17:14:28 [trackbot-ng]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - jos
17:14:28 [trackbot-ng]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jdebruij2, jderoo)
17:15:06 [csma]
action: jdebruij2 to draft a strawman proposal on error (in ExtTerm)
17:15:07 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-407 - Draft a strawman proposal on error (in ExtTerm) [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2008-02-05].
17:15:43 [josb]
17:15:50 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: action on jos to draft proposal.
17:15:51 [ChrisW]
ack ax
17:15:53 [csma]
ack daver
17:16:40 [AxelPolleres]
Dave: using the predicate form rather with additional argument for the value is preferrable... (?)
17:16:51 [csma]
zakim, unmute me
17:16:51 [Zakim]
csma should no longer be muted
17:16:57 [csma]
17:17:00 [ChrisW]
P(?x ?y ?result) vs F(?x ?y) => ?result
17:17:11 [josb]
indeed, equality is not required
17:17:19 [csma]
zakim, mute me
17:17:19 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
17:17:21 [Michael_Kifer]
p(?X, 1+2).
17:17:49 [Harold]
Special case: Equal(?X, 1+2).
17:18:04 [Michael_Kifer]
p(?X) :- q(?X,1+?X).
17:18:50 [csma]
17:18:54 [Harold]
That Equal could be defined in one fact: Equal(?X, ?X).
17:18:56 [Michael_Kifer]
:- is(1+2,?Y)
17:18:59 [AxelPolleres]
MichaelK: I think we don't need equal for functions, but rather an assignment built-in.
17:19:09 [csma]
+1 to michael: what Dave needs is assignment, not equality
17:19:10 [josb]
17:20:03 [AxelPolleres]
josb: don't understand why we would need the assignment.
17:20:14 [DaveReynolds]
p(?z) <- q(?x), r(?y), add(?x, ?y, ?z).
17:20:18 [Harold]
Builtin fcts can (normally) not be called with any argument being free.
17:20:32 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: assignment is simpler, because it is simpler than full equality.
17:20:42 [josb]
p(?x+?y) :- ...
17:20:50 [AxelPolleres]
.... and to passover values to different variables.
17:21:09 [AxelPolleres]
s/passover/pass over/
17:21:25 [AxelPolleres]
josb: works equally with functions.
17:21:53 [csma]
17:21:57 [csma]
17:22:02 [josb]
17:22:05 [AxelPolleres]
Dave+Jos: assignment/functions both solve that issue.
17:22:15 [csma]
ack sandro
17:22:39 [csma]
17:22:53 [AxelPolleres]
Sandro: one problem with predicates is: if bld is a proper extension of core than functions and predicates might be overlapping (?)
17:23:07 [csma]
ack csma
17:23:08 [Harold]
I also agree, ideally no duplication of builtins as fcts and preds.
17:23:23 [AxelPolleres]
josb: preference for not having functions.
17:23:47 [GaryHallmark]
+1 to functions
17:23:50 [AxelPolleres]
csma (without chairhat): in PRD preference for functions.
17:24:15 [DougL]
+1 for having functions and predicates both
17:24:26 [DougL]
17:24:56 [AxelPolleres]
josb: only preds or only function symbols it not an option.
17:25:00 [csma]
17:25:01 [DougL]
17:25:10 [ChrisW]
having both
17:25:13 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: who is in favor of having both?
17:25:16 [Michael_Kifer]
17:25:16 [josb]
17:25:17 [ChrisW]
sandro: +1 (on phone)
17:25:21 [AxelPolleres]
17:25:21 [DaveReynolds]
17:25:21 [Harold]
17:25:24 [GaryHallmark]
we are talking about builtins only
17:25:25 [mdean]
17:26:15 [GaryHallmark]
is a predicate == boolean function?
17:26:22 [csma]
17:26:23 [DougL]
one could have a predicate sumEquals and a function Plus
17:26:29 [AxelPolleres]
we are voting onwhat now?
17:26:39 [AxelPolleres]
17:26:46 [AxelPolleres]
s/onwhat/on what/
17:26:47 [Harold]
In Core, we could have the kind of Prolog-like 'is' primitive Micheal mentioned: then functional builtins would work in Core, too.
17:26:56 [csma]
dougl, thats exactly what i call duplicating every fct
17:27:04 [DougL]
do both
17:27:15 [GaryHallmark]
I vote for a + b, not a + b = c
17:27:17 [josb]
Harold, see my example above; we do not need is in Core
17:27:37 [Harold]
You mean by flatteing?
17:27:58 [Harold]
s/ flatteing/ flattening/
17:27:58 [DaveReynolds]
Jos: that does imply repeating sub expressions, whereas with variable binding you just repeat the variable
17:28:20 [AxelPolleres]
I sense that there are several questions: a) whether to generally model functions as predicates. b) whether the same built-in should be (dis)allowed to have both a function and a predicate version.
17:28:21 [josb]
when you use 'is', the formula is just as flat as when using functions directly
17:28:45 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: volunteers for an action?
17:28:49 [josb]
Dave, that is correct
17:28:51 [AxelPolleres]
I can try...
17:29:04 [AxelPolleres]
but I am very unsure whether I understood it, to be honest :-)
17:30:01 [csma]
action: axel to draft an emali separating the different issues in the question about fct vs predicate forms for builtins
17:30:02 [trackbot-ng]
Created ACTION-408 - Draft an emali separating the different issues in the question about fct vs predicate forms for builtins [on Axel Polleres - due 2008-02-05].
17:30:31 [Michael_Kifer]
zakim, unmute me
17:30:31 [Zakim]
Michael_Kifer was not muted, Michael_Kifer
17:30:39 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: we will not spend much time on the named arg issue nextr week ,but need to turn to more urghent issues.
17:30:51 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: adjorn.
17:30:55 [Zakim]
17:30:58 [Zakim]
17:31:01 [Zakim]
17:31:03 [Zakim]
17:31:03 [Zakim]
17:31:08 [ChrisW]
zakim, list attendees
17:31:08 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Harold, +49.351.4.aaaa, AdrianP, Dave_Reynolds, josb, +6928aabb, csma, Stella_Mitchell, Gary_Hallmark, ChrisW, Sandro, AxelPolleres,
17:31:11 [Zakim]
... +39.047.101.aacc, DougL, Michael_Kifer, Mike_Dean
17:31:12 [Zakim]
17:31:24 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:31:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
17:31:26 [AxelPolleres]
chrisW: publication plan status?
17:32:02 [AxelPolleres]
michealk: did a lot of work on the framework recently. BLD should be short base on that.
17:32:16 [csma]
zakim, who is on the phone?
17:32:16 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Harold, ChrisW, csma, AxelPolleres, Michael_Kifer, Sandro
17:32:27 [AxelPolleres]
... framweork by end of the week (sunday)
17:32:43 [AxelPolleres]
... short BLD will then be much shorter than the original.
17:33:20 [AxelPolleres]
... I am not deleting stuff, but create new documents (copy-pasting).
17:33:35 [AxelPolleres]
... hope also BLD will be in shape by end of the week.
17:34:01 [AxelPolleres]
... will publish/adapt links on the wiki.
17:34:51 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW: keep link BLD for the new one, and have a link oldBLD for the old one.
17:35:02 [AxelPolleres]
Sandro: on wiki migration.
17:35:39 [AxelPolleres]
MichaelK: I would prefer to work on html anyway.
17:36:06 [AxelPolleres]
sandro: in mediawiki you can use a flag to use simply normal html.
17:36:39 [AxelPolleres]
... I just run through wikiTR and then put the html into mediawiki.
17:36:43 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make logs public
17:37:05 [AxelPolleres]
ChrisW, so I can stop scribing? :-)
17:37:11 [ChrisW]
yes, sorry
17:37:14 [ChrisW]
you can go!
17:37:28 [AxelPolleres]
ok, I just need the URI...
17:37:34 [AxelPolleres]
got it.
17:37:37 [ChrisW]
i will have adrian do it
17:37:48 [AxelPolleres]
ok. fine with me.
17:37:51 [AxelPolleres]
17:37:58 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has left #rif
17:38:10 [Zakim]
17:39:42 [ChrisW]
Regrets: IgorMozetic PaulaLaviniaPatranjan Leora Morgenstern PaulVincent Hassan At-Kaci
17:39:46 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:39:46 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
17:42:44 [csma]
zakim, mute me
17:42:44 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
17:47:46 [csma]
zakim, unmute me
17:47:46 [Zakim]
csma should no longer be muted
17:49:17 [Zakim]
17:49:24 [Zakim]
17:49:30 [Zakim]
17:49:34 [Zakim]
17:49:37 [Zakim]
17:49:38 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
17:49:39 [Zakim]
Attendees were Harold, +49.351.4.aaaa, AdrianP, Dave_Reynolds, josb, +6928aabb, csma, Stella_Mitchell, Gary_Hallmark, ChrisW, Sandro, AxelPolleres, +39.047.101.aacc, DougL,
17:49:41 [Zakim]
... Michael_Kifer, Mike_Dean
17:53:06 [sandro]
sandro has joined #rif
18:08:09 [csma]
csma has left #rif
19:35:36 [sandro]
sandro has joined #rif
19:38:03 [sandro]
sandro has joined #rif
20:49:03 [sandro]
sandro has joined #rif