IRC log of rif on 2008-05-20

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:00:49 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #rif
15:00:49 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/05/20-rif-irc
15:00:58 [ChrisW]: rrsagent, make minutes
15:00:58 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/20-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
15:01:14 [DaveReynolds]: DaveReynolds has joined #rif
15:01:16 [ChrisW]: Meeting: RIF Telecon 20 May 2008
15:01:27 [Zakim]: +Sandro
15:01:28 [ChrisW]: Chair: Chris Welty
15:01:30 [Zakim]: -Sandro
15:01:42 [ChrisW]: Dave, you ok to scribe?
15:01:52 [Zakim]: + +43.12.aaaa
15:01:54 [Zakim]: -Hassan_Ait-Kaci
15:01:59 [DaveReynolds]: Yes, once I manage to get on the call - having problems with the relay.
15:02:14 [Zakim]: +??P30
15:02:14 [IgorMozetic]: IgorMozetic has joined #rif
15:02:18 [Zakim]: +Sandro
15:02:28 [Zakim]: +Hassan_Ait-Kaci
15:02:29 [sandro]: I had trouble getting on, too. okay now, though.
15:02:32 [LeoraMorgenstern]: LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
15:02:46 [JeffP]: JeffP has joined #rif
15:02:47 [Zakim]: +[IBM]
15:02:51 [AlexKozlenkov]: AlexKozlenkov has joined #rif
15:02:55 [ChrisW]: zakim, ibm is temporarily me
15:02:55 [Zakim]: +ChrisW; got it
15:02:57 [AdrianP]: AdrianP has joined #rif
15:02:58 [csma]: csma has joined #rif
15:02:58 [JeffP]: (I am at IRC only)
15:03:22 [Zakim]: + +1.212.781.aabb
15:03:28 [DaveReynolds]: Scribe: Dave Reynolds
15:03:38 [DaveReynolds]: ScribeNick: DaveReynolds
15:03:40 [LeoraMorgenstern]: zakim, aabb is me
15:03:40 [Zakim]: +LeoraMorgenstern; got it
15:03:41 [Zakim]: +??P34
15:03:49 [IgorMozetic]: zakim, ??P34 is me
15:03:49 [Zakim]: +IgorMozetic; got it
15:03:54 [IgorMozetic]: zakim, mute me
15:03:54 [Zakim]: IgorMozetic should now be muted
15:04:06 [Zakim]: + +49.351.463.4.aacc
15:04:18 [AdrianP]: Zakim, aacc is me
15:04:18 [Zakim]: +AdrianP; got it
15:04:19 [ChrisW]: Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/0142.html
15:04:24 [AdrianP]: Zakim, mute me
15:04:24 [Zakim]: AdrianP should now be muted
15:04:31 [ChrisW]: ChrisW has changed the topic to: May 20 RIF Agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/0142.html
15:04:43 [Harold]: zakim, +43.12.aaaa is me
15:04:43 [Zakim]: +Harold; got it
15:04:43 [ChrisW]: rrsagent, make logs public
15:05:08 [ChrisW]: Topic: Admin
15:05:13 [ChrisW]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/att-0119/05132008-rif-minutes.html
15:05:34 [ChrisW]: PROPOSED: Accept May 13 telecon mins
15:05:43 [ChrisW]: RESOLVED: Accept May 13 telecon mins
15:05:46 [Zakim]: +csma
15:06:50 [csma]: action: to chris to ask mdean for the May 6 minutes
15:06:50 [trackbot-ng]: Sorry, couldn't find user - to
15:06:53 [ChrisW]: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F10
15:07:06 [DaveReynolds]: Draft agenda for F2F10 meeting now available
15:07:13 [csma]: action: chris to ask mdean for the May 6 minutes
15:07:13 [trackbot-ng]: Created ACTION-479 - Ask mdean for the May 6 minutes [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-05-27].
15:07:47 [DaveReynolds]: Chris: main objectives for F2F is to publish BLD and SWC as last Call docs
15:08:01 [DaveReynolds]: Chris: and move the other documents to next working draft
15:08:06 [Zakim]: +Gary_Hallmark
15:09:02 [sandro]: Chris is discussing http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F10#Schedule_.26_Topics
15:09:10 [DaveReynolds]: Chris: aim to resolve decisions by am of 2nd day all for SWC and by end of second day for BLD
15:09:11 [IgorMozetic]: q+
15:09:13 [Zakim]: -Gary_Hallmark
15:09:25 [DaveReynolds]: Chris: may finish a little early on day 3 apart from editors
15:09:41 [ChrisW]: zakim, who is on the phone?
15:09:41 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Harold, DaveReynolds, Sandro, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), ChrisW, LeoraMorgenstern, IgorMozetic (muted), AdrianP (muted), csma
15:10:02 [csma]: q?
15:10:03 [Zakim]: +Gary_Hallmark
15:10:10 [DaveReynolds]: Sandro: there has to be an official end time
15:10:17 [AdrianP]: Zakim, unmute me
15:10:17 [Zakim]: AdrianP should no longer be muted
15:11:06 [DaveReynolds]: Chris: make 3pm official end time of day 3?
15:12:20 [DaveReynolds]: Chris: [after discussion] OK, so leave it as 5pm.
15:12:41 [AdrianP]: Zakim, mute me
15:12:41 [Zakim]: AdrianP should now be muted
15:13:02 [DaveReynolds]: Chris: the topics have been up for a while but please review
15:13:10 [IgorMozetic]: ack me
15:13:23 [IgorMozetic]: q+
15:13:38 [Zakim]: -Hassan_Ait-Kaci
15:14:05 [Zakim]: +Hassan_Ait-Kaci
15:14:07 [DaveReynolds]: Igor: why isn't FLD going to Last Call?
15:15:39 [Harold]: Igor, Michael and I were also quite surprise about FLD no longer being a on rec track.
15:15:48 [DaveReynolds]: Sandro: FLD is a little more open since no one will implement it directly and Last Call should focus on implementations
15:16:01 [DaveReynolds]: Chris: FLD hasn't had enough review and feedback yet
15:16:04 [Harold]: Soon we will need FLD for PRD.
15:16:22 [Harold]: (2nd instantiation)
15:16:37 [Hassan]: hak -> harold : good luck ! ;-)
15:16:40 [DaveReynolds]: Igor: move UCR earlier in the agenda?
15:17:15 [Harold]: hak, at least what we need for CORE.
15:17:39 [Hassan]: hak -> harold : yeah - even JUST that ... good luck ! ;-)
15:17:44 [Harold]: (a common core of FLD)
15:17:50 [ChrisW]: q?
15:17:54 [ChrisW]: ack ig
15:18:02 [IgorMozetic]: zakim, mute me
15:18:02 [Zakim]: IgorMozetic should now be muted
15:18:41 [ChrisW]: TOPIC: Action Review
15:19:24 [DaveReynolds]: Action-452 is completed (will discuss at F2F)
15:19:24 [AdrianP]: yes, Igor sent a review for UCR
15:19:41 [DaveReynolds]: Action-434 closed
15:21:35 [DaveReynolds]: Action-470 closed - review scheduled on F2F
15:21:36 [AdrianP]: yes
15:23:04 [ChrisW]: TOPIC: Liason
15:23:08 [csma]: action-470 closed
15:23:20 [AdrianP]: nothing
15:23:36 [ChrisW]: TOPIC: UCR
15:23:40 [AdrianP]: Zakim, unmute me
15:23:40 [Zakim]: AdrianP should no longer be muted
15:23:42 [csma]: zakim, mute me
15:23:42 [Zakim]: csma should now be muted
15:25:04 [DaveReynolds]: Adrian: currently each use case describes scenario, motivation, requirements
15:25:16 [DaveReynolds]: Adrian: added concrete examples now that BLD syntax more stable
15:25:28 [sandro]: q+ on Presentation Syntax
15:25:33 [DaveReynolds]: Adrian: reviewers felt requirements and motivations are not so important and should be removed
15:25:50 [csma]: q+
15:25:53 [sandro]: q+ to say curie syntax seems wrong (uses "< ...>" which it should not)
15:25:59 [DaveReynolds]: Adrian: second question is whether the tailor the use cases to BLD, whereas currently they are more general - e.g. events
15:26:11 [DaveReynolds]: s/the tailor/to tailor/
15:27:10 [csma]: zakim, unmute me
15:27:10 [Zakim]: csma should no longer be muted
15:27:29 [DaveReynolds]: csma: so would just keep the use cases in the document?
15:27:58 [DaveReynolds]: Adrian: compromise from Gary would be to compact the requirements into a smaller section separated from the use cases
15:28:09 [AdrianP]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008May/0135.html
15:28:11 [Harold]: Compactifying the reqs is a good way to to go at this point.
15:28:20 [DaveReynolds]: Gary: just summarize them, get rid of the pictures and the two levels of goals/csf
15:29:13 [DaveReynolds]: Gary: drop "critical success factors" and drop the cross-links between the use cases and requirements (because they are uneven)
15:29:54 [DaveReynolds]: Gary: some of the links are a stretch and some are missing, just remove them
15:30:16 [DaveReynolds]: Chris: it is common to have such links, maybe they need to be more complete?
15:30:40 [DaveReynolds]: csma: remove one direction? Leave the motivated-by list but drop the forward links from the use cases?
15:30:54 [JeffP]: JeffP has joined #rif
15:31:34 [DaveReynolds]: Chris: up to Adrian but if have the links one way it seems trivial to have them both ways
15:32:32 [DaveReynolds]: csma: in principle the motivation sections are a good thing but the current ones sometimes don't make sense
15:33:05 [DaveReynolds]: Adrian: the original idea of the motivations was to motivate different dialects but currently not clear
15:33:41 [AdrianP]: there is a terrible echo
15:33:41 [DaveReynolds]: Gary: the current very fine grained linkage is too much, would be happy to just have coarse grained link in the requirements section rather than point by point justification
15:34:04 [DaveReynolds]: Chris: loath to loose work we've already done, the current structure was a result of previous reviews
15:34:17 [Hassan]: I agree with Chris
15:34:19 [IgorMozetic]: zakim, unmute me
15:34:19 [Zakim]: IgorMozetic should no longer be muted
15:34:27 [csma]: q?
15:34:34 [AdrianP]: we don't loose the requirements if we only delete the motivates section
15:34:41 [DaveReynolds]: Igor: agrees that the motivates sections and links got in the way.
15:34:47 [Hassan]: q+
15:35:10 [DaveReynolds]: Igor: would also drop the critical success factors
15:35:18 [Hassan]: q-
15:35:33 [DaveReynolds]: Igor: the requirements are self-evident and don't need individual use case links
15:35:53 [DaveReynolds]: Igor: would drop both the motivates section on each UC and the whole requirements section so UCR -> UC
15:36:40 [Harold]: I agree with Gary's 'summary-reqs' proposal.
15:36:43 [DaveReynolds]: Gary: abbreviate the requirements section but leave it in would be OK, just drop the links and separate motivates sections, summary where we are on requirements and which have been met or not
15:37:07 [DaveReynolds]: Chris: as a process matter it may be pretty difficult to completely get rid of the requirements section
15:37:14 [AdrianP]: +1 with Garry
15:37:39 [AdrianP]: Use Case and Requirements somehow belong together
15:38:01 [DaveReynolds]: Sandro: could put the deleted bits (motivates text, critical success factors) into some design analysis document?
15:38:22 [DaveReynolds]: Sandro: the last published version of UCR didn't have the motivates sections, though did have the critical success factors
15:38:54 [csma]: ack csma
15:39:06 [LeoraMorgenstern]: It would be good if it were well done.
15:39:12 [LeoraMorgenstern]: The problem is that it is uneven.
15:40:05 [DaveReynolds]: csma: need to keep the specific requirements, e.g. the implement-by-translators
15:40:38 [DaveReynolds]: Chris: but could take some of the goals section and summarize as an intro paragraph to the requirements section
15:40:41 [AdrianP]: q+
15:40:49 [IgorMozetic]: zakim, mute me
15:40:49 [Zakim]: IgorMozetic should now be muted
15:41:31 [DaveReynolds]: Chris: so actions are remove motivates section from use cases, remove goals section and try to summarize as an intro to the requirements section
15:41:36 [Harold]: Process-wise, can we point out into W3C wiki pages from W3C publications?
15:41:49 [DaveReynolds]: Chris: what about RIFRAF?
15:42:00 [AdrianP]: q-
15:42:15 [IgorMozetic]: zakim, unmute me
15:42:15 [Zakim]: IgorMozetic should no longer be muted
15:42:20 [DaveReynolds]: Gary: reads like an outline of some future document, not clear enough as it stands
15:42:30 [DaveReynolds]: Igor: RIFRAF should go out, didn't find it relevant
15:43:15 [IgorMozetic]: zakim, mute me
15:43:15 [Zakim]: IgorMozetic should now be muted
15:44:30 [DaveReynolds]: Chris: several of the requirements use the word "cover" which was hard to pin down. If take out coverage section maybe reword those requirements, use some more informal word like "supports"?
15:44:46 [DaveReynolds]: Sandro: not a change to make lightly
15:45:18 [sandro]: q?
15:45:19 [DaveReynolds]: Adrian: should have it before the F2F
15:45:40 [sandro]: <cpt:reject>
15:45:53 [DaveReynolds]: Sandro: misusing the presentation syntax, <> around curis, just get rid of the <>
15:47:05 [Zakim]: -Gary_Hallmark
15:47:15 [DaveReynolds]: Adrian: have to update the examples with latest change, also to have more frame logic examples
15:47:31 [ChrisW]: TOPIC: XML Style
15:47:40 [sandro]: zakim, who is on the call>
15:47:40 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'who is on the call>', sandro
15:47:42 [sandro]: zakim, who is on the call?
15:47:42 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Harold, DaveReynolds, Sandro, ChrisW, LeoraMorgenstern, IgorMozetic (muted), AdrianP, csma, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted)
15:48:01 [csma]: ack csma
15:48:11 [ChrisW]: ack sandro
15:48:11 [Zakim]: sandro, you wanted to say curie syntax seems wrong (uses "< ...>" which it should not)
15:48:21 [sandro]: Present: Harold, DaveReynolds, Sandro, ChrisW, LeoraMorgenstern, IgorMozetic, AdrianP, csma, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Gary
15:48:48 [AdrianP]: Zakim, mute me
15:48:48 [Zakim]: AdrianP should now be muted
15:48:59 [sandro]: STRAWPOLL: The XML syntax for BLD should avoid abbreviations, using eg Variable instead of Var
15:49:02 [Harold]: q+
15:49:14 [JeffP]: (Sandro, I am on IRC)
15:49:31 [AlexKozlenkov]: (Sandro, I am on IRC)
15:49:32 [ChrisW]: ack harold
15:49:53 [csma]: q+
15:50:04 [sandro]: Harold: we talked about Const vs Constant, at great length. We can't just say "Constant" for the mathematical set.
15:50:19 [ChrisW]: q?
15:50:27 [csma]: ack csma
15:51:03 [sandro]: csma: the terms "Var" and "Const" are VERY WIDELY used. But "Pred" vs "Predicate" is a better example.
15:51:05 [Hassan]: q+
15:51:14 [DaveReynolds]: csma: Const and Var are sufficiently common that they are not good examples, Pred etc are less common
15:51:14 [AdrianP]: +1 with csam
15:51:17 [ChrisW]: ack hassan
15:51:18 [Harold]: q+
15:51:20 [sandro]: ack Hassan
15:51:32 [JeffP]: +1 with csam
15:51:51 [JeffP]: s/csam/csma
15:52:01 [DaveReynolds]: Hassan: doesn't follow the argument for e.g. Const v. Constant, why not call it by it's full name?
15:52:13 [csma]: +1 with calling Const 'foobar' instead
15:52:20 [ChrisW]: q?
15:52:24 [ChrisW]: ack harold
15:52:39 [csma]: zakim, mute me
15:52:39 [Zakim]: csma should now be muted
15:52:53 [Zakim]: +Gary_Hallmark
15:52:56 [csma]: q+
15:53:24 [DaveReynolds]: Harold: but even for Hassan "op" was OK because it is so common, similarly "Const" is similarly a kind of symbol but if you spell it out as "Constant" it can't be used in a math text
15:53:30 [csma]: ack csma
15:54:21 [GaryHallmark]: GaryHallmark has joined #rif
15:54:25 [DaveReynolds]: csma: if we agree some can be abbreviated because those abbreviations are so common we then have a problem that we have to decide case by case which ones to use - it would be easier to just do one or other everywhere
15:54:29 [csma]: zakim, mute me
15:54:29 [Zakim]: csma should now be muted
15:54:30 [AlexKozlenkov]: "Constant" sounds like it almost comes from physics
15:55:15 [ChrisW]: 1: Use abbreviations everywhere
15:55:26 [ChrisW]: 2: Use full names everywhere (no abbrevs)
15:55:41 [ChrisW]: 3: Use abbrevs when common/familiar
15:56:02 [Harold]: q+
15:56:03 [ChrisW]: 4: Decide on a case by case by basis
15:56:11 [GaryHallmark]: sure, WTF...
15:56:20 [csma]: wrt 3: who decides what is common or familiar?
15:56:50 [AlexKozlenkov]: op. 3 creates process issues
15:57:02 [GaryHallmark]: I'll ask my kids what the cool new text abbrevs are, lol
15:57:04 [DaveReynolds]: Harold: can't vote for 1, because e.g. that would mean using "declare" instead of "dec"
15:57:11 [csma]: ack csma
15:57:14 [sandro]: zakim, who is on the phone?
15:57:14 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Harold, DaveReynolds, Sandro, ChrisW, LeoraMorgenstern, IgorMozetic (muted), AdrianP (muted), csma, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), Gary_Hallmark
15:57:19 [csma]: q+
15:57:26 [csma]: ack csma
15:57:29 [ChrisW]: ack harold
15:57:40 [sandro]: q+ to ask Harold why we can't use "Constant"
15:58:29 [DaveReynolds]: csma: case 1 is "allow" rather than force abbreviations everywhere [scribe couldn't follow the point]
15:59:03 [DaveReynolds]: Sandro: why can't we use the world "Constant" in the mathematical English?
15:59:08 [AlexKozlenkov]: "Constant" as in fine-structure constant, sorry, difficult to accept
15:59:33 [DaveReynolds]: Harold: because want to be able to write the maths without font switches so the words have to separable form the rest of the text
15:59:39 [AdrianP]: there is a distiction between definabel and computable constants
15:59:42 [sandro]: Harold: the term "Constant" when it occurs in the text doesn't stand out as a symbol.
16:00:35 [Hassan]: ???
16:00:39 [DaveReynolds]: Harold: better to use a new word for the name of a set to make the semantics text clearer
16:00:39 [ChrisW]: q?
16:00:39 [csma]: The point was just that allowing abbrev did not mean allowing aliases: if we abbreviate "declare" as <dec>, the tag <declare> does not exist (as Harold seemed to suggest)
16:00:50 [sandro]: Chris: paraphrasing Harold: It's better to use a new made-up word, instead of re-use an existing word, for sets in the semantics.
16:00:55 [csma]: zakim, mute me
16:00:55 [Zakim]: csma should now be muted
16:00:57 [DaveReynolds]: q+
16:00:57 [sandro]: ack sandro
16:00:58 [Zakim]: sandro, you wanted to ask Harold why we can't use "Constant"
16:01:22 [Hassan]: ++++1 with Dave
16:01:33 [Harold]: q+
16:01:38 [csma]: +1 with Dave
16:01:42 [sandro]: DaveReynolds: but isn't this question about the XML? I don't need the mathematical english to use the same word as the XML syntax tag.
16:01:50 [sandro]: q+ to suggest rif:Constant
16:01:59 [sandro]: ack DaveReynolds
16:02:00 [ChrisW]: ack DaveReynolds
16:02:05 [ChrisW]: ack Harold
16:02:21 [DaveReynolds]: Harold: to simplify the mapping of the semantics to the syntax, so using the same word is simpler
16:02:32 [Hassan]: q+
16:02:37 [DaveReynolds]: s/so //
16:02:43 [AdrianP]: there are also other arguements for abbreviations
16:02:44 [ChrisW]: ack sandro
16:02:44 [Zakim]: sandro, you wanted to suggest rif:Constant
16:03:18 [DaveReynolds]: Sandro: one trick is to put a prefix in the mathematical english, e.g. rif:Constant
16:03:38 [ChrisW]: ack hassan
16:03:42 [ChrisW]: q?
16:03:49 [DaveReynolds]: Harold: Michael probably wouldn't like namespaces in the maths
16:04:13 [DaveReynolds]: Hassan: worry about making the XML tags depend on the symbols in the grammar, grammars are not unique
16:04:17 [Harold]: q+
16:05:16 [DaveReynolds]: Hassan: Harold wants a direct map from BNF the XML tags, but then the XML depends on the BNF grammar - the grammar is not canonical, it is the language which is canonical
16:05:50 [AdrianP]: abbreviated XML tags are more compact -> e.g. creates less traffic on the wire if RIF rule sets are interchanged
16:06:01 [AdrianP]: that can be critical for practical scalable applications
16:06:04 [sandro]: q?
16:06:08 [DaveReynolds]: Hassan: which is why annotations are commonly used
16:06:47 [Hassan]: q+
16:07:11 [DaveReynolds]: Harold: XML grammars have sort of visible non-terminals, some of our non-terminals don't appear (TERM) and some (Const) appear, classical tools don't make that distinction
16:07:29 [sandro]: [let's wrap this up with a quick strawpoll. I think we've gotten a better sense of the issue.]
16:07:43 [Harold]: q+
16:07:52 [sandro]: STRAWPOLL: The XML for BLD should be changed to avoid abbreviations, using eg Variable instead of Var
16:08:21 [DaveReynolds]: Hassan: the grammar might evolve in ways which don't preserve the conventions, by separating the grammar and the XML we allow more flexibility
16:09:28 [sandro]: STRAWPOLL: The XML for BLD should be changed to avoid abbreviations, using eg Variable instead of Var
16:09:39 [sandro]: 0
16:09:40 [csma]: 0
16:09:41 [AdrianP]: -1
16:09:44 [Harold]: -1
16:09:47 [LeoraMorgenstern]: -1 (I like option 3)
16:09:51 [AlexKozlenkov]: -1
16:09:53 [DaveReynolds]: +0
16:10:00 [JeffP]: -1
16:10:01 [ChrisW]: 0^100^100
16:10:02 [IgorMozetic]: 0
16:10:11 [GaryHallmark]: 0 i guess - I'd like to use more English words in PS and XML
16:10:35 [GaryHallmark]: I think it would be silly to diverge XML and PS
16:12:02 [AdrianP]: abbreviations should be of course meaningful
16:12:14 [ChrisW]: Rigid RDF [13] VS concise XML [14] (and all in between)
16:12:39 [csma]: I care about XML being Rigid RDF
16:12:52 [csma]: s/XML/RIF XML/
16:13:18 [csma]: +1 to Gary
16:13:21 [sandro]: STRAWPOLL: Who is interested in using rigid RDF for the BLD serialization format?
16:13:23 [AdrianP]: What is that - rigid RDF?
16:13:39 [Harold]: q+
16:13:46 [ChrisW]: ack hassan
16:13:57 [ChrisW]: zakim, mute hassan
16:13:57 [Zakim]: Hassan_Ait-Kaci should now be muted
16:13:57 [DaveReynolds]: Gary: seems like we are nearly there anyway, if it is a minor change, it would at least give us a justification to point to
16:14:14 [ChrisW]: ack harold
16:14:26 [Harold]: ...disadvantages:
16:14:27 [Harold]: * it makes the XML syntax even more verbose
16:14:27 [Harold]: * the elements from the RDF namespace can be confusing, even
16:14:27 [Harold]: off-putting (especially to people who are allergic to RDF)
16:14:27 [Harold]: * it prevents us from making arbitrary (non-striped) XML constructs
16:14:27 [Harold]: that might be useful and elegant.
16:14:29 [Harold]: * it's a course change, late in the day
16:14:43 [DaveReynolds]: Sandro: [describes Rigid RDF as expressed in the email thread]
16:15:16 [csma]: ack csma
16:15:20 [csma]: q+
16:15:35 [sandro]: Harold: Some people don't want the little bits of the rdf namespace.
16:15:37 [csma]: ack csma
16:15:37 [AlexKozlenkov]: @Gary, I do not understand that "justfication" point. Any _syntactic_ mention of RDF makes RIF dependent on RDF
16:15:42 [sandro]: Chris: Who? Where? Are they on the WG?
16:16:00 [Harold]: The Web Services community (all in XML) doesn't want dependency on rdf name space.
16:16:02 [DaveReynolds]: Harold: some production rule folks don't even want namespace dependencies like having rdf:
16:16:02 [Hassan]: We are using RDF in JRules
16:16:07 [sandro]: zakim, who is on the call?
16:16:08 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Harold, DaveReynolds, Sandro, ChrisW, LeoraMorgenstern, IgorMozetic (muted), AdrianP (muted), csma, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), Gary_Hallmark
16:16:46 [DaveReynolds]: csma: doesn't mind about that, rigid RDF does not require knowledge of RDF
16:17:08 [DaveReynolds]: Gary: agreed namespaces have been in XML tools for ages, that's simply not an issue
16:18:15 [DaveReynolds]: Chris: this is XML not RDF
16:18:34 [DaveReynolds]: Harold: thought the current XML, since it is fully striped, is all we need
16:18:58 [DaveReynolds]: Sandro: not quite, e.g. handling of datatypes in consts
16:18:59 [sandro]: STRAWPOLL: Who is interested in using rigid RDF for the BLD serialization format?
16:19:21 [ChrisW]: q?
16:19:34 [DaveReynolds]: Harold: OWL2 uses XML and then has mapping to RDF, propose doing same for RIF
16:19:35 [LeoraMorgenstern]: Could someone summarize the downsides of using rigid RDF?
16:19:55 [ChrisW]: they were put into the irc above by Harold
16:19:56 [DaveReynolds]: Sandro: that is proposed but not agreed, the normative piece is the functional syntax
16:20:04 [AlexKozlenkov]: I do not want even to face my managers if I even mention RDF
16:20:23 [AlexKozlenkov]: ...in any shape or form
16:21:12 [GaryHallmark]: +1 for rigid rdf (I have nothing really for or against RDF. If our customers want it, we'll be happy to sell them some)
16:21:24 [DaveReynolds]: Sandro: pretty neutral, but one additional argument - fallback processing seems easier to write in RIF than XSLT and then in turn is easier in the Rigid RDF
16:21:50 [LeoraMorgenstern]: Thanks, Chris.
16:21:57 [csma]: Alex, you will not have to mention RDF. Somewhere deep inside a RIF document, sometimes, there might be a reference to the RDF namespace...
16:22:07 [sandro]: STRAWPOLL: Who is interested in using rigid RDF for the BLD serialization format?
16:22:15 [sandro]: +0.5
16:22:17 [DaveReynolds]: +0.5
16:22:18 [Harold]: -1
16:22:21 [AlexKozlenkov]: -1
16:22:29 [IgorMozetic]: 0
16:22:30 [Zakim]: -csma
16:22:31 [AdrianP]: -1
16:22:32 [Zakim]: -AdrianP
16:22:32 [Hassan]: All these problems again are caused by dependence on the grammar ....
16:22:33 [JeffP]: 0
16:22:35 [csma]: +1
16:22:47 [AlexKozlenkov]: I'm going to lose all support here even of RDF is mentioned
16:22:52 [csma]: I just got cut off by Zakim...
16:22:56 [AlexKozlenkov]: *if
16:23:01 [AdrianP]: and we should not map to rdf datatypes
16:23:13 [csma]: Alex, RDF will NOT be mentionned
16:23:19 [sandro]: AlexKozlenkov, it's very frustrating that you're on IRC but NOT the call.....
16:23:21 [AdrianP]: I also was thrown out
16:23:38 [sandro]: calling back AdrianP
16:23:43 [Harold]: -1 (from Michael)
16:24:04 [GaryHallmark]: +1
16:24:35 [Zakim]: +csma
16:24:55 [GaryHallmark]: Alex, mere use of the rdf namespace does not commit you to rdf any more than having an rdf mapping to frames commits you to rdf
16:25:12 [csma]: I understand that the cost is near zero, and I heard people saying they found it useful
16:25:18 [csma]: PR people, btw...
16:25:19 [ChrisW]: testing
16:25:21 [AdrianP]: XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes are very well known in many communities but I don't think that people want to read about RDF datatypes if they don't care about RDF
16:25:40 [AlexKozlenkov]: it seems like an entirely unnecessary sneaking of RDF via back door
16:25:45 [csma]: We already have RDF datatypes, btw...
16:26:03 [Zakim]: + +49.351.6.aadd
16:26:15 [AdrianP]: Zakim, aadd is me
16:26:15 [Zakim]: +AdrianP; got it
16:26:21 [AdrianP]: Zakim, mute me
16:26:21 [Zakim]: AdrianP should now be muted
16:26:31 [csma]: Harold, you have already the RDF namespace in BLD
16:26:40 [sandro]: Sandro: Harold -- are there any technical reasons? Or is this solely marketing reasons?
16:26:51 [csma]: zakim, unmute me
16:26:51 [Zakim]: csma was not muted, csma
16:26:59 [csma]: # rdf:XMLLiteral
16:26:59 [csma]: # rif:text
16:27:01 [AlexKozlenkov]: For me, web services is key, I cannot see RDF making it there--at all
16:27:14 [GaryHallmark]: harold, there is nothing really to "buy into"
16:27:38 [DaveReynolds]: [Not as scribe] - Alex the proposal is not RDF but XML, there is zero impact on web services
16:27:39 [GaryHallmark]: all web services use namespaces
16:27:49 [sandro]: AlexKozlenkov, just because of Bad Blood? Or is there some technical reason?
16:28:02 [DaveReynolds]: csma: already have rdf namespace in RIF at least for some literals
16:28:07 [AlexKozlenkov]: and any rdf namespace is not the one I would like to see there
16:28:27 [csma]: q+
16:28:42 [DaveReynolds]: Harold: the current syntax is better and took a lot of work to get here. And can use stripe skipping on it.
16:28:48 [csma]: q?
16:29:14 [DaveReynolds]: Chris: so can't you stripe skip the Rigid RDF syntax?
16:29:20 [sandro]: FWIW, as I replied to Gary -- I don't *think* you can stripe skip & be extensible.
16:29:23 [AlexKozlenkov]: Guys, it is about extending the reach of the standard, the smaller the dependencies, the better
16:29:51 [AlexKozlenkov]: It is Occam's razor again
16:29:54 [DaveReynolds]: Harold: can stripe skip the current syntax with one XSLT rule and get to the prior nice syntax
16:29:55 [csma]: alex, Rigid XML means zero dependency
16:30:04 [csma]: s/XML/RDF/
16:30:10 [sandro]: Ah -- oh, maybe this kind of skipping single-property slots.... maybe.
16:30:18 [DaveReynolds]: [Not as scribe] As a reviewer I did NOT say the proposed XML syntax was "very good"
16:30:36 [Hassan]: +1 with Sandro!!!
16:31:02 [DaveReynolds]: Sandro: the problem with an argument based on stripe skipping is that stripe skipping harms extensibility and metadata everywhere
16:31:16 [AlexKozlenkov]: OK< so why are you calling it Rigid "RDF"?
16:31:37 [Zakim]: -Hassan_Ait-Kaci
16:31:38 [AdrianP]: bye
16:31:40 [Zakim]: -IgorMozetic
16:31:41 [Zakim]: -Harold
16:31:41 [Zakim]: -AdrianP
16:31:43 [Zakim]: -LeoraMorgenstern
16:31:45 [Zakim]: -Gary_Hallmark
16:31:49 [csma]: because it makes the XML parsable by an RDF parser.
16:31:49 [ChrisW]: zakim, list attendees
16:31:49 [Zakim]: As of this point the attendees have been Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Sandro, DaveReynolds, ChrisW, +1.212.781.aabb, LeoraMorgenstern, IgorMozetic, +49.351.463.4.aacc, AdrianP, Harold, csma,
16:31:50 [JeffP]: bye
16:31:53 [Zakim]: ... Gary_Hallmark, +49.351.6.aadd
16:32:00 [sandro]: ROFL, AlexKozlenkov. I'll try to think of a better name!
16:32:04 [csma]: Pars-able. Does not mean you have to do it
16:32:16 [csma]: but people who want to do it, can
16:32:17 [ChrisW]: Regrets: MichaelKifer JosDeBruijn PaulVincent DavidHirtle
16:32:23 [csma]: So, it extends the reach
16:32:25 [ChrisW]: rrsagent, make minutes
16:32:25 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/05/20-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
16:32:33 [sandro]: Does "RDF-Aligned XML" have the same problem, AlexKozlenkov?
16:33:03 [AlexKozlenkov]: yes
16:33:15 [Zakim]: -DaveReynolds
16:33:18 [sandro]: Any reference to "RDF" is bad for these folks, AlexKozlenkov?
16:33:21 [ChrisW]: zakim, who is on the phone?
16:33:21 [Zakim]: On the phone I see Sandro, ChrisW, csma
16:33:35 [AlexKozlenkov]: that's right
16:34:04 [AlexKozlenkov]: Look, we are talking buy-in questions
16:34:24 [DaveReynolds]: So RIF is a W3C semantic standard which shouldn't mention RDF anywhere?
16:34:36 [AlexKozlenkov]: not being stubborn but looking at the chalenges I'm facing in ensuring the buy-in, RDF does not help
16:34:54 [Harold]: RIF has a lot of RDF through Jos' document.
16:34:58 [AlexKozlenkov]: What about XML?
16:35:28 [AlexKozlenkov]: It is an W3C standard and RDF is completely complementary, and side-by-side...
16:35:50 [Harold]: Think of W3C's Web Services standards.
16:36:45 [AlexKozlenkov]: Exactly
16:37:44 [csma]: Rigid RDF is just a name. It does not make RIF XML depends on RDF (well, it puts constraints on the design, but no dependeny from the implementor nor user point of view)
16:38:26 [Harold]: Sandro wrote:
16:38:26 [Harold]: * the elements from the RDF namespace can be confusing, even
16:38:27 [Harold]: <Harold> off-putting (especially to people who are allergic to RDF)
16:38:38 [AlexKozlenkov]: csma, I disagree, it introduces an _unnecessary_ link to RDF
16:38:58 [csma]: If it made RIF XML dependent on RDF, even so slightly, I would be against
16:39:03 [AlexKozlenkov]: violating Occam's razor if anything
16:39:09 [csma]: what link to RDF does it introduce?
16:39:25 [csma]: (the RDF namespace is already there)
16:40:02 [Zakim]: -ChrisW
16:40:03 [Zakim]: -Sandro
16:40:04 [Zakim]: -csma
16:40:04 [Zakim]: SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
16:40:06 [Zakim]: Attendees were Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Sandro, DaveReynolds, ChrisW, +1.212.781.aabb, LeoraMorgenstern, IgorMozetic, +49.351.463.4.aacc, AdrianP, Harold, csma, Gary_Hallmark,
16:40:08 [Zakim]: ... +49.351.6.aadd
16:40:15 [Harold]: (is only a hack to use XMLLiteral, not seen if you dont use it)
16:40:27 [AlexKozlenkov]: it is a form of RDF/XML
16:40:29 [csma]: Alex, sorry, I have to go
16:40:53 [AlexKozlenkov]: Sure Christian, thanks for discussing this
16:41:03 [AlexKozlenkov]: ...bye...
16:41:17 [csma]: Let's continue that discussion by email. Read Sandro's emails
16:41:32 [csma]: csma has left #rif
18:08:12 [sandro]: sandro has joined #rif
18:58:37 [Zakim]: Zakim has left #rif
19:10:42 [sandro]: sandro has joined #rif
19:31:56 [sandro]: sandro has joined #rif
19:32:42 [sandro]: sandro has joined #rif