IRC log of rif on 2008-09-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:55:30 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
14:55:30 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:55:36 [ChrisW]
zakim, this will be rif
14:55:39 [Zakim]
ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes
14:55:53 [ChrisW]
Meeting: RIF Telecon 9-Sep-2008
14:56:32 [ChrisW]
Chair: Chris Welty
14:56:44 [ChrisW]
14:56:57 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has changed the topic to: 9 Sept RIF Telecon agenda
14:57:08 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
14:57:08 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
14:57:14 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make logs public
14:58:07 [ChrisW]
zakim, clear agenda
14:58:07 [Zakim]
agenda cleared
14:58:10 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Admin
14:58:14 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Liason
14:58:19 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Publicity
14:58:23 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Action review
14:58:28 [ChrisW]
agenda+ F2F11
14:58:32 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Core
14:58:36 [ChrisW]
agenda+ PRD
14:58:44 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Test Cases
14:58:49 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Pick a scribe
14:58:53 [ChrisW]
agenda+ AOB
14:59:06 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
14:59:06 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Admin" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:00:42 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
15:01:30 [csma]
csma has joined #rif
15:01:44 [Leora_Morgenstern]
Leora_Morgenstern has joined #rif
15:02:13 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
15:02:20 [Zakim]
15:02:22 [Zakim]
15:02:29 [ChrisW]
zakim, ibm is temporarily me
15:02:29 [Zakim]
+ChrisW; got it
15:02:35 [Zakim]
15:02:43 [csma]
zakim, ??P51 is me
15:02:43 [Zakim]
+csma; got it
15:02:58 [Harold]
zakim, [NRCC] is me
15:02:58 [Zakim]
+Harold; got it
15:03:00 [Zakim]
15:03:06 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
15:03:10 [Zakim]
15:03:28 [MichaelKifer]
MichaelKifer has joined #rif
15:03:35 [Zakim]
15:03:35 [Zakim]
+Dave_Reynolds (was ??P0)
15:04:16 [Hassan]
Hassan has joined #rif
15:04:29 [Zakim]
15:04:41 [Zakim]
15:05:45 [ChrisW]
Scribe: DaveReynolds
15:05:45 [PaulVincent]
PaulVincent has joined #RIF
15:06:15 [DaveReynolds]
ScribeNick: DaveReynolds
15:06:19 [sandro]
zakim, who is here?
15:06:20 [ChrisW]
15:06:24 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ChrisW, Harold, csma, Sandro, LeoraMorgenstern, Dave_Reynolds, Stella_Mitchell, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted)
15:06:31 [Zakim]
On IRC I see PaulVincent, Hassan, MichaelKifer, DaveReynolds, Leora_Morgenstern, csma, Harold, RRSAgent, ChrisW, sandro, trackbot, AdrianP, StellaMItchell, LeoraMorgenstern,
15:06:31 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: accept minutes from Sept 2 telecon
15:06:36 [Zakim]
... YutingZhao, Zakim
15:06:56 [Zakim]
15:07:13 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: accept minutes from Sept 2 telecon
15:07:26 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:07:26 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Liason" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:07:29 [csma]
zakim, mute me
15:07:29 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
15:07:41 [csma]
ack me
15:07:50 [Stella_Mitchell]
Stella_Mitchell has joined #rif
15:08:35 [csma]
zakim, ??P60 is ChanghaiKe
15:08:35 [Zakim]
+ChanghaiKe; got it
15:08:49 [Zakim]
15:09:11 [Harold]
4.3 Reasoning in OWL 2 RL and RDF Graphs using Rules
15:09:11 [Harold]
15:09:38 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
15:09:47 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: OWL WG rule profile is progressing, at some point should look at the rules and check can be written in BLD
15:10:01 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: compare with our embedding, etc.
15:10:09 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: Jos critical path for some of that?
15:10:18 [DaveReynolds]
ChrisW: Impact on last call?
15:11:20 [DaveReynolds]
ChrisW: there were OWL WG participants in the SWC document, does OWL-2 have any impact on that?
15:11:43 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: no evidence there is a problem, but should have someone who knows what they are doing look it over.
15:12:02 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-573 - Ask for a review of RDF&OWL from OWL-wg [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-09-16].
15:16:13 [ChrisW]
action: DaveReynolds to look at OWL-2-RL rules and consider whether they are implementable in BLD
15:16:13 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - DaveReynolds
15:16:15 [csma]
15:16:27 [csma]
zakim, mute me
15:16:27 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
15:16:28 [ChrisW]
action: Dave to look at OWL-2-RL rules and consider whether they are implementable in BLD
15:16:28 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-574 - Look at OWL-2-RL rules and consider whether they are implementable in BLD [on Dave Reynolds - due 2008-09-16].
15:16:53 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:16:53 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ChrisW, Harold, csma (muted), Sandro, LeoraMorgenstern, Dave_Reynolds, StellaMitchell, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), ChanghaiKe, GaryHallmark
15:16:53 [csma]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:16:57 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ChrisW, Harold, csma (muted), Sandro, LeoraMorgenstern, Dave_Reynolds, StellaMitchell, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), ChanghaiKe, GaryHallmark
15:17:06 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:17:06 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Publicity" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:17:17 [csma]
zakim, unmute me
15:17:17 [Zakim]
csma should no longer be muted
15:17:29 [AdrianPa]
AdrianPa has joined #rif
15:17:39 [Zakim]
15:17:46 [AdrianPa]
Zakim, mute me
15:17:46 [Zakim]
AdrianPa should now be muted
15:18:38 [DaveReynolds]
ChrisW: there is a Wiki page for linking external announcement postings, checking what have been executed
15:18:47 [ChrisW]
15:20:13 [ChrisW]
zakim, unmute AdrianPa
15:20:13 [Zakim]
AdrianPa should no longer be muted
15:22:12 [Zakim]
15:22:54 [csma]
15:23:40 [AdrianPa]
AdrianPa has joined #rif
15:23:40 [sandro]
Harold: Michael posted to xsb, flora-users, [etc]
15:23:54 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:23:54 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Action review" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:24:08 [csma]
15:24:15 [DaveReynolds]
csma: have new public comment
15:24:33 [Zakim]
15:24:42 [AdrianPa]
Zakim, mute me
15:24:42 [Zakim]
sorry, AdrianPa, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
15:24:56 [AdrianPa]
Zakim, AdrianPa is me
15:24:56 [Zakim]
sorry, AdrianPa, I do not recognize a party named 'AdrianPa'
15:25:11 [DaveReynolds]
ChrisW: need to start a wiki page on it, it is mostly about FLD
15:25:17 [DaveReynolds]
Harold: Michael is aware of it
15:25:19 [Harold]
15:26:04 [DaveReynolds]
Harold: created a page for response to Richard OK comments
15:26:53 [DaveReynolds]
ACTION-572 completed by Jos
15:27:15 [DaveReynolds]
15:27:29 [DaveReynolds]
ACTION-570 pending discussion
15:27:53 [AdrianPa]
yes, will put it to top priority
15:28:14 [Hassan]
15:28:41 [DaveReynolds]
ACTION-564 continued, waiting on APS discussions
15:29:02 [DaveReynolds]
Hassan: waiting for syntax to settle
15:29:31 [AdrianPa]
Zakim, mute me
15:29:31 [Zakim]
sorry, AdrianPa, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
15:29:32 [ChrisW]
zakim, list agenda
15:29:33 [Zakim]
I see 6 items remaining on the agenda:
15:29:34 [Zakim]
4. Action review [from ChrisW]
15:29:34 [Zakim]
5. F2F11 [from ChrisW]
15:29:35 [Zakim]
6. Core [from ChrisW]
15:29:35 [Zakim]
8. Test Cases [from ChrisW]
15:29:37 [Zakim]
9. Pick a scribe [from ChrisW]
15:29:37 [Zakim]
10. AOB [from ChrisW]
15:30:24 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:30:24 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "F2F11" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:31:08 [sandro]
15:31:42 [DaveReynolds]
ChrisW: F2F11 proceeding as planned. Any objections to the proposed dinner should be raised now.
15:32:09 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:32:09 [Zakim]
agendum 6. "Core" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:32:15 [csma]
PROPOSED: Core will not have named-argument uniterms
15:33:02 [DaveReynolds]
ChrisW: seemed to be consensus on closing this at last discussion.
15:33:31 [DaveReynolds]
Gary: so why are they in BLD?
15:33:43 [DaveReynolds]
ChrisW: it was a close decision even there.
15:34:29 [DaveReynolds]
ChrisW: at that point there was an explicit flag that being in BLD didn't mean necessarily having them in Core
15:34:29 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is talking?
15:34:40 [Zakim]
ChrisW, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Sandro (24%), ChrisW (5%), GaryHallmark (63%)
15:34:48 [ChrisW]
sandro - breathing
15:34:50 [DaveReynolds]
Gary: this doesn't seem like a painful thing to implement
15:34:57 [sandro]
sorry, I'll stop breathing.
15:35:22 [csma]
15:35:37 [AdrianPa]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:35:37 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ChrisW, Harold, csma, Sandro, LeoraMorgenstern, Dave_Reynolds, StellaMitchell, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), ChanghaiKe, GaryHallmark, AdrianP
15:35:52 [AdrianPa]
Zakim, AdrianP is me
15:35:52 [Zakim]
+AdrianPa; got it
15:35:57 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: don't object but it would be nice to have a clear rationale to explain the decision to others
15:35:58 [AdrianPa]
Zakim, mute me
15:35:58 [Zakim]
AdrianPa should now be muted
15:36:23 [DaveReynolds]
csma: want to keep the option of dialects that don't have it, if it is in Core then all dialects have to have it
15:36:25 [sandro]
csma: reason -- we want to keep the possibility of having dialects that don't have it. that's why not in core.
15:36:30 [MichaelKifer]
MichaelKifer has joined #rif
15:37:16 [Zakim]
15:38:28 [DaveReynolds]
ChrisW: current open issues for Core - classification constructs (46), decideable (71), access to external functions (71), skolem functions (72), no predicates (74), disjunction (75)
15:38:28 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
15:38:28 [Zakim]
Michael_Kifer should now be muted
15:40:24 [DaveReynolds]
Harold/Gary: disjunction not a no-brainer. Gary would like it or some equivalent.
15:41:20 [DaveReynolds]
Harold: equality not-in-head already agreed, 76 is about equality in body
15:42:12 [DaveReynolds]
ChrisW: straw poll for NOT equality-in-head in Core
15:42:18 [DaveReynolds]
[No objections voiced]
15:42:42 [DaveReynolds]
ChrisW: what would be needed to resolve 76?
15:42:56 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
15:42:56 [Zakim]
Michael_Kifer should no longer be muted
15:43:03 [DaveReynolds]
Harold: relates to the issue of builtins - predicates or functions
15:43:14 [AdrianPa]
we discussed restricted equality in the body
15:43:23 [DaveReynolds]
Michael: disagrees, just an identity relationship, sees no reason not to include it
15:44:13 [DaveReynolds]
Hassan: becomes syntactic equality, most trivial
15:44:56 [Harold]
Even if you don't have an equality construct for the body, everyone could define it in one fact: eq(?x ?x).
15:46:42 [AdrianPa]
in PRD it is a single assignment function
15:47:13 [AdrianPa]
slightly different from equality assignment which might reduce to identy equality if both sides are bound
15:47:17 [Hassan]
= thens means are these two pointers identical
15:47:32 [Hassan]
15:48:17 [Hassan]
Can we have an example of where it is useful?
15:49:11 [DaveReynolds]
Dave: doesn't this require equation rewriting
15:49:18 [DaveReynolds]
Gary: yes but need that any way
15:49:21 [Harold]
15:49:32 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
15:49:32 [Zakim]
Michael_Kifer should now be muted
15:49:59 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
15:49:59 [Zakim]
Michael_Kifer should no longer be muted
15:50:15 [csma]
Adrian, what do you mean with "in PRD, it is a single assignment function"? You mean: equality?
15:50:26 [GaryHallmark]
A(?x) := A(?x - 1) requires expression rewriting for PRD
15:50:39 [GaryHallmark]
15:50:41 [Hassan]
I agree with Dave. We should spell out the criteria of what is or isn't in Core.
15:51:44 [sandro]
I think so, yes, some builting in core
15:51:44 [GaryHallmark]
i.e. rewrite to A(?x+1) :- A(?x)
15:51:51 [Hassan]
15:52:05 [DaveReynolds]
Michael: doesn't require any new mechanism beyond what you need for builtins anyway
15:54:13 [DaveReynolds]
Dave: but for builtins we have on the table the possibility of binding patterns to restrict use, that wouldn't apply to syntax constructs like this equality
15:54:45 [DaveReynolds]
Michael: binding pattern's aren't going to fly in Core anyway
15:55:55 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: trying to see where someone would need it
15:55:55 [Harold]
My above eq(?x ?x) could be used for (single-)assignments, the above pred:numeric-equal(?arg1 ?arg2) could not.
15:56:15 [DaveReynolds]
Michael: consider use in prolog
15:56:15 [Harold]
This is because of the modes ("binding patterns")
15:56:45 [Harold]
eq(?myvar 1) is fine.
15:56:47 [DaveReynolds]
Dave: what about SWC and interaction with owl:sameAs
15:56:59 [DaveReynolds]
Michael: it is not identity over datatypes
15:57:04 [Harold]
pred:numeric-equal(?myvar 1) is not fine.
16:01:24 [DaveReynolds]
Dave: is there a difference between this equality and an untyped equality buitin?
16:01:39 [DaveReynolds]
ChrisW: seems the same
16:03:37 [ChrisW]
zakim, take up item 7
16:03:37 [Zakim]
agendum 7. "PRD" taken up [from ChrisW]
16:03:39 [Hassan]
gotta go - bye
16:03:43 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
16:03:43 [Zakim]
Michael_Kifer should now be muted
16:03:45 [Zakim]
16:03:46 [DaveReynolds]
ChrisW: wants to get this one closed, at least agree on a resolution next week
16:04:36 [DaveReynolds]
ChrisW: this is action-554 and issue-66
16:05:14 [DaveReynolds]
Gary: made several suggestions on object creation
16:05:32 [DaveReynolds]
Gary: basic issue is whether there is something that should be shared with Core/BLD
16:06:03 [AdrianPa]
I would vote for a special new built-in, too
16:06:24 [csma]
Why is that a builtin?
16:06:57 [AdrianPa]
this would allow new logic RIF dialects which support object creation
16:06:58 [csma]
I mean, why is that "New" construct a builtin, not an action (like Assert, Retract, etc)?
16:07:12 [DaveReynolds]
Gary: proposed options including builtin, skolem function like approach and new syntax
16:07:31 [DaveReynolds]
Gary: so would the group like something that can be in Core or should PRD go off in its own direction?
16:08:30 [DaveReynolds]
csma: don't understand why it is sometimes referred to as a builtin, isn't another action alongside assert?
16:09:18 [DaveReynolds]
csma: consider RETRACT, there is an action and associated keyword (same for ASSERT even if done differently)
16:10:01 [DaveReynolds]
csma: new is not a builtin because if you call it multiple times it gives different instances
16:10:28 [DaveReynolds]
Gary: yes, hence the need for an occurrence number - confusing the different options
16:10:48 [AdrianPa]
Zakim, unmute me
16:10:48 [Zakim]
AdrianPa should no longer be muted
16:10:59 [AdrianPa]
16:12:59 [DaveReynolds]
Adrian: advantage of a builtin is that it can be used in other dialects, so can call it in the body of a new
16:14:32 [DaveReynolds]
Gary: builtin is a pure mathematical function, fixed interpretation function, so Gensym is not legal
16:15:31 [csma]
ack adrian
16:15:34 [DaveReynolds]
csma: preference is for option (a) then?
16:15:53 [DaveReynolds]
16:15:56 [DaveReynolds]
16:15:59 [AdrianPa]
Stakeholder for Assert and Retract are is e.g. a RIF Prolog dialect
16:16:26 [GaryHallmark]
16:16:35 [AdrianPa]
Most prolog engines support assert and retract built-ins in the body of a rule
16:17:12 [AdrianPa]
Zakim, mute me
16:17:12 [Zakim]
AdrianPa should now be muted
16:18:51 [DaveReynolds]
Dave: do have some interest in option C, relates to issue of Skolem functions in Core.
16:19:16 [DaveReynolds]
ChrisW: so if have (a) in PRD and Skolem in Core how would they interact?
16:19:43 [csma]
q? to express concern about using a skolem function
16:19:59 [DaveReynolds]
Gary: the import becomes more difficult because it might be faced with either formulation
16:21:27 [DaveReynolds]
csma: Object creation is intrinsically non-logical concept, if we used skolem functions for this doesn't this confuse things at least for implementers
16:22:41 [DaveReynolds]
ChrisW: need to get these issues moved to closure, time is running out
16:23:19 [DaveReynolds]
ChrisW: would like Gary and Harold to organize telecons for PRD and Core to progress these issues further
16:23:59 [AdrianPa]
yes, good idea. Let's have a PRD task force with telecons
16:24:03 [DaveReynolds]
csma: include others, not just editors, not closed
16:24:48 [DaveReynolds]
ChrisW: yes, announce telecons on the mail list so stakeholders can participate
16:25:14 [DaveReynolds]
csma: resolutions would still be made in the whole WG telecons
16:26:48 [DaveReynolds]
ChrisW: free to use Zakim bridge for this
16:27:26 [ChrisW]
zakim, list agenda
16:27:26 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda:
16:27:28 [Zakim]
6. Core [from ChrisW]
16:27:28 [Zakim]
8. Test Cases [from ChrisW]
16:27:30 [Zakim]
9. Pick a scribe [from ChrisW]
16:27:30 [Zakim]
10. AOB [from ChrisW]
16:27:36 [ChrisW]
zakim, take up item 8
16:27:36 [Zakim]
agendum 8. "Test Cases" taken up [from ChrisW]
16:28:04 [AdrianPa]
16:28:45 [DaveReynolds]
ChrisW: plan is to go through TestCases and approve them
16:29:09 [DaveReynolds]
ChrisW: in first OWL WG used these to given evidence that there are implementations and they are doing what the spec says
16:29:20 [DaveReynolds]
16:29:49 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, unmute me
16:29:49 [Zakim]
Michael_Kifer should no longer be muted
16:29:50 [AdrianPa]
unfortunately I will be travelling next week
16:30:01 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, mute me
16:30:01 [Zakim]
Michael_Kifer should now be muted
16:30:08 [ChrisW]
zakim: take up item 10
16:30:11 [AdrianPa]
so can not particiapte but will cordinate with the other test case editors
16:30:14 [AdrianPa]
16:30:24 [Zakim]
16:30:26 [Zakim]
16:30:27 [Zakim]
16:30:28 [Zakim]
16:30:28 [Zakim]
16:30:30 [Zakim]
16:30:30 [ChrisW]
scribe for next week: MichaelKifer
16:30:38 [ChrisW]
zakim, list attendees
16:30:38 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been ChrisW, csma, Harold, Sandro, LeoraMorgenstern, Dave_Reynolds, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, ChanghaiKe, GaryHallmark, StellaMitchell, AdrianPa,
16:30:42 [Zakim]
... Michael_Kifer
16:30:58 [ChrisW]
Regrets: JosDeBruijn AxelPolleres StuartTaylor
16:31:03 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:31:03 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
16:31:29 [Zakim]
16:33:46 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:33:46 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ChrisW, csma, Sandro, ChanghaiKe
16:34:00 [ChrisW]
zakim, drop ChanghaiKe
16:34:00 [Zakim]
ChanghaiKe is being disconnected
16:34:02 [Zakim]
16:36:35 [Zakim]
16:36:38 [Zakim]
16:36:39 [Zakim]
16:36:39 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
16:36:41 [Zakim]
Attendees were ChrisW, csma, Harold, Sandro, LeoraMorgenstern, Dave_Reynolds, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, ChanghaiKe, GaryHallmark, StellaMitchell, AdrianPa, Michael_Kifer