14:58:13 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rif
14:58:14 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/22-rif-irc
14:58:24 <AxelPolleres> AxelPolleres has joined #rif
14:58:36 <Harold> Hi Axel!
14:58:37 <AxelPolleres> Hi!
14:58:47 <AxelPolleres> do we have the Core conf call now?
14:58:59 <AxelPolleres> dial-in number as usual?
14:59:03 <Harold> Can u try to join with the EU phone number?
14:59:16 <AxelPolleres> the normal code?
14:59:18 <Harold> Yes, try it.
15:00:09 <Harold> zakim, who is here?
15:00:09 <Zakim> sorry, Harold, I don't know what conference this is
15:00:10 <Zakim> On IRC I see AxelPolleres, RRSAgent, Zakim, Harold, MoZ, trackbot
15:00:19 <DaveReynolds> DaveReynolds has joined #rif
15:00:47 <Harold> this is RIF-CORE
15:01:06 <Harold> zakim, this is RIF-CORE
15:01:06 <Zakim> sorry, Harold, I do not see a conference named 'RIF-CORE' in progress or scheduled at this time
15:01:16 <Harold> zakim, this is RIF CORE
15:01:16 <Zakim> sorry, Harold, I do not see a conference named 'RIF CORE' in progress or scheduled at this time
15:02:33 <AxelPolleres> maybe one word?
15:02:37 <AxelPolleres> anyway...
15:02:41 <Harold> zakim, this is RIFCORE
15:02:41 <Zakim> sorry, Harold, I do not see a conference named 'RIFCORE' in progress or scheduled at this time
15:02:55 <Harold> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:03:03 <Zakim> sorry, Harold, I don't know what conference this is
15:03:04 <AxelPolleres> in the worst case, we can just save and send around the IRClog manually
15:03:15 <Zakim> On IRC I see DaveReynolds, AxelPolleres, RRSAgent, Zakim, Harold, MoZ, trackbot
15:03:55 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:03:55 <Zakim> sorry, AxelPolleres, I don't know what conference this is
15:03:56 <Zakim> On IRC I see DaveReynolds, AxelPolleres, RRSAgent, Zakim, Harold, MoZ, trackbot
15:04:16 <GaryHallmark> GaryHallmark has joined #rif
15:04:46 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, this is RIF
15:04:46 <Zakim> ok, AxelPolleres; that matches SW_RIF(CORE)11:00AM
15:04:49 <Harold> zakim, this is RIF
15:04:49 <Zakim> Harold, this was already SW_RIF(CORE)11:00AM
15:04:50 <Zakim> ok, Harold; that matches SW_RIF(CORE)11:00AM
15:05:00 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:05:00 <Zakim> On the phone I see [NRCC], ??P9, ??P10
15:05:20 <Zakim> +Dave_Reynolds (was ??P10)
15:05:26 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, ??P9 is me
15:05:26 <Zakim> +AxelPolleres; got it
15:05:41 <AxelPolleres> Zakim, who is on the phone?
15:05:41 <Zakim> On the phone I see [NRCC], AxelPolleres, Dave_Reynolds
15:05:47 <AxelPolleres> perfect
15:06:03 <Zakim> + +1.503.533.aaaa
15:07:59 <MichaelKifer> MichaelKifer has joined #rif
15:08:02 <AxelPolleres> scribe: AxelPolleres
15:08:13 <AxelPolleres> scribenick: Axel Polleres
15:08:52 <AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core
15:09:06 <AxelPolleres> issues are summarized at: ???
15:09:21 <AxelPolleres> harold: let's go through the issues.
15:09:36 <AxelPolleres> ... first one: keep membership "#" in core.
15:09:49 <Zakim> + +1.631.833.aabb
15:10:01 <AxelPolleres> Dave: trying to keep it as small as possible.
15:10:05 <Harold> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:10:05 <Zakim> On the phone I see [NRCC], AxelPolleres, Dave_Reynolds, +1.503.533.aaaa, +1.631.833.aabb
15:10:06 <GaryHallmark> zakim, mite aabb
15:10:08 <Zakim> I don't understand 'mite aabb', GaryHallmark
15:10:13 <GaryHallmark> zakim, mute aabb
15:10:13 <Zakim> +1.631.833.aabb should now be muted
15:10:19 <Zakim> - +1.631.833.aabb
15:10:24 <Harold> Michael, thanks
15:10:36 <Harold> it was again a high-pitch noice.
15:10:39 <AxelPolleres> Dave: syntactic suger should rather not be included.
15:10:58 <AxelPolleres> ... similar to but not quite the same as rdf:type.
15:11:12 <Zakim> + +1.631.833.aacc
15:11:22 <GaryHallmark> zakim, mute aacc
15:11:22 <Zakim> +1.631.833.aacc should now be muted
15:11:24 <AxelPolleres> ... preferences for avoiding confusion.
15:11:32 <Harold> We are discussing Agenda items
15:11:45 <Harold> Michael, maybe u have to type here.
15:11:56 <MichaelKifer> zakim, aacc is me
15:11:56 <Zakim> +MichaelKifer; got it
15:12:00 <Harold> Open Core issues [2] and initial PROPOSED resolutions
15:12:06 <AxelPolleres> Can we summarize the diffs between # and rdf:type again?
15:13:18 <Harold> Michael, re "PROPOSED: Keep membership/subclass in Core", what is the benefit of "(maybe limiting these constructs to rule bodies)"?
15:13:31 <AxelPolleres> Axel: type is ok, only subclass is discussed.
15:15:10 <Harold> Is it this? When we allow membership/subclass only in rule bodies, # and ## cannot be reDEFINEd.
15:15:12 <AxelPolleres> Gary: main issue is that they are both (subclass/##, membership/#) should not be allowedi n the conclusions
15:15:28 <AxelPolleres> s/edi n/ed in/
15:15:59 <Harold> Michael, can u type in something here???
15:16:34 <AxelPolleres> Gary: datamodels translated into RIF might have memership/subclass (e.g. Java Beans) 
15:16:38 <MichaelKifer> I think the benefit is that in PRD the ##/# things cannot be augmented/redefined by rules.
15:17:49 <AxelPolleres> ... datamodel could be translated rather with OWL or an ontology language rather than RIF
15:18:19 <AxelPolleres> Dave: you want membership test in Core?
15:18:35 <Harold> Thanks, Michael!
15:18:40 <AxelPolleres> ... in a PR setting, you say you can't change membership, yes?
15:18:59 <Harold> Dave, would you be even less object with such a restriction?
15:19:04 <AxelPolleres> Gary: it is the same status as equal foe me, just as equal.
15:19:21 <Harold> Dave, would you even less object with such a "(maybe limiting these constructs to rule bodies)" restriction?
15:19:43 <AxelPolleres> Dave: seems reasonable, #/## only in rule bodies.
15:22:01 <AxelPolleres> Axel: BUT rdf:type is the same as #, so we can't allow one and disallow the other in Core.
15:22:41 <DaveReynolds> Dave response to Axel: the use of # is a syntactic restriction only, RDF users could still have rdf:type in conclusion
15:22:46 <Harold> Dave: Even with the restriction,  #/## could still be possibly confused with the similar RDF constructs.
15:22:53 <AxelPolleres> Gary: Not everyone has to implement RDF as their datamodel
15:24:45 <AxelPolleres> Axel: Either #/## in both body and head or nowehere, all other is unclear, if the rdf versions are allowd (rdf:type, rdfs:subClassOf)
15:24:52 <DaveReynolds> Gary: subclass is so rarely used don't require its inclusion in Core
15:25:29 <Harold> All: Since we are scribing in a distributed manner, "PersonName: ..." (colon) should be restricted to taking notes about what PersonName said. "PersonName, ..." (comma) should be used for addressing PersonName.
15:26:21 <AxelPolleres> "PROPOSED: Keep membership/subclass in Core"
15:26:25 <AxelPolleres> was the original
15:26:30 <DaveReynolds> PROPOSED: RIF Core will not include subclass (##)
15:27:38 <DaveReynolds> PROPOSED: RIF Core will include member (#) but syntactically restricted to use in rule bodies. Note that in RIF-RDF the equivalent property rdf:type would still be permitted in rule heads.
15:27:49 <DaveReynolds> s/to use/its use/
15:28:30 <GaryHallmark> rationale: PRD rules almost always start with "if p is a person and p.age > 16 and ... then ...
15:29:03 <GaryHallmark> also, almost no PRD system allows ... then p is a person
15:29:36 <AxelPolleres> Dave: In XML syntax we have "member" for # but also rdf:type is allowed.
15:29:42 <GaryHallmark> but ok ... then p.type = "person"
15:29:49 <AxelPolleres> ... so the compromise might work.
15:30:38 <DaveReynolds> Axel: would prefer both allowed, without restrictions.
15:30:48 <DaveReynolds> Gary: would object if they are allowed in conclusions.
15:32:09 <AxelPolleres> Axel: Dave's proposals are fine for me
15:32:20 <Harold> > > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/71
15:32:20 <Harold> > > PROPOSED: Core should keep unrestricted equality and external function 
15:32:20 <Harold> > > calls in rule bodies and keep external functions calls in rule heads. 
15:32:21 <AxelPolleres> next one issue 71
15:33:43 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Core should keep unrestricted equality and external function and predicate calls in rule bodies and keep external functions calls in rule heads.
15:34:05 <AxelPolleres> Objections?
15:34:11 <DaveReynolds> Seems fine.
15:34:27 <Harold> (The above PROPOSED for issue 48 was accepted by us here.)
15:34:36 <AxelPolleres> agreed by all.
15:34:53 <AxelPolleres> next one: 
15:34:53 <Harold> > > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/74
15:34:53 <Harold> > > PROPOSED: Core should keep both frames/objects and
15:34:53 <Harold> > > (positional-argument) predicates/relations.
15:36:01 <AxelPolleres> Dave: we don't have predicates in RDF, we have to simulate that, but should work. Just frames would be better for us.
15:36:13 <AxelPolleres> ... but I won't gonna object.
15:36:29 <GaryHallmark> Just frames is better for us, too
15:36:47 <AxelPolleres> Harold: Also better for you Gary?
15:37:01 <MichaelKifer> are all these PROPOSED things the ones to be proposed to the WG?
15:37:49 <Harold> Michael, yes, that's the idea.
15:37:51 <AxelPolleres> ... Is there a standard relation between datalog rules and frames-only?
15:38:08 <Harold> Gary: I think that's ok.
15:38:16 <AxelPolleres> Gary: should be ok.
15:38:26 <Harold> Axel: Emulate by introducing new IDs?
15:38:35 <Harold> Gary: Using Java beans.
15:39:01 <AxelPolleres> Gary: right, new id/object per tuple.
15:39:48 <AxelPolleres> Harold: Should translator be part of the spec?
15:39:50 <Harold> We could have a 'standard' translation of this kind.
15:40:03 <AxelPolleres> ...(from tuples to object)
15:40:06 <Harold> "Two-level Core".
15:41:01 <Harold> Axel: Cannot be part of spec, since eg in RDF u would use BNodes, in Flogic somthing else...
15:41:25 <Harold> But maybe some Rel-to-Obj mapping.
15:41:30 <AxelPolleres> Gary: A Note, as opposed to a concrete guidance, seems suficient here.
15:41:53 <Harold> (Like there is a more or less standard Obj-to-Rel mapping.)
15:43:38 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Core should keep both frames/objects and (positional-argument) predicates/relations.
15:43:44 <Harold> > > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/75
15:43:44 <Harold> > > PROPOSED: Core should keep disjunction in rule bodies (cf. Gary's UC).
15:46:06 <AxelPolleres> Gary, you would allow then a(X) :- Or( b(X) c(Y) ). ?
15:47:39 <GaryHallmark> axel, no I don't need that case
15:48:49 <GaryHallmark> e.g. if p is a person and p.age < 14 or p.age > 33 or p.smoker = "yes" then ...
15:48:59 <AxelPolleres> Dave: if it is only a syntactic transformation, then fine.
15:49:43 <GaryHallmark> note p is bound outside of the Or (i.e. by a membership
15:50:52 <DaveReynolds> Axel: the issue is safety again, see above rule example, if C(Y) is true then X can be unbound
15:51:01 <Harold> Strict SafeNESS
15:52:09 <AxelPolleres> Axel: Or in thbodies is strongly related to safeness.
15:52:46 <AxelPolleres> ... I can formulate the various safeness definitions by the F2F, probably, but won't have time before to write it down :-(
15:53:22 <AxelPolleres> PROPOSED: Core should keep disjunction in rule bodies, only if this is permitted by the solution to issue-70.
15:53:30 <AxelPolleres> :-)
15:53:38 <Zakim> -MichaelKifer
15:53:43 <Harold> > > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/76
15:53:43 <Harold> > > PROPOSED: Core should keep unrestricted equality in rule bodies (cf.
15:53:43 <Harold> > > ISSUE-71).
15:53:43 <Harold> >
15:53:43 <Harold> > Agreed.
15:54:14 <AxelPolleres> fine... we don't need that anymore.
15:54:29 <Harold> > > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/70
15:54:29 <Harold> > > PROPOSED: Parameterize the conformance clauses of Core with
15:54:29 <Harold> > > safeness requirements "strict", "weak", and "none" (default: "none").
15:54:53 <Harold> My clarification:
15:54:53 <Harold> I meant "strictly-safe" (a), "weakly-safe" (b), and "unsafe" (d)
15:54:53 <Harold> conformance levels similarly as defined/linked in/from issue 70.
15:54:53 <Harold> Perhaps a version of Dave's (c) could become another level.
15:56:33 <Harold> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/70
15:58:07 <DaveReynolds> Harold: to see safeness have to do data flow analysis, which may not always be possible so have to default back to unsafe
15:58:44 <GaryHallmark> I think strict safeness is ok for PRD
15:58:45 <DaveReynolds> Axel: unless binding patterns are declared can't find anything more out. What would be an example?
15:59:05 <DaveReynolds> Harold: if you know the query, the constants in the query would propagate.
15:59:27 <DaveReynolds> Axel: but that is safe *use* of ruleset, not that the ruleset itself is safe
16:00:27 <DaveReynolds> Axel: how would you define weakly safe core without binding patterns?
16:03:23 <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to write down the definitions of strict and weak safety of a ruleset.
16:03:23 <trackbot> Created ACTION-577 - Write down the definitions of strict and weak safety of a ruleset. [on Axel Polleres - due 2008-09-29].
16:06:03 <Zakim> +MichaelKifer
16:06:37 <Harold> Michael, can u say something?
16:06:53 <AxelPolleres> Michael, can you type instead?
16:07:02 <Harold> I only hear the high-pitch noice.
16:07:05 <AxelPolleres> ... on IRC?
16:07:23 <AxelPolleres> BTW: I have not much time left (5-10min)
16:09:28 <AxelPolleres> I am afraid they kick me out of the room in some minutes.
16:10:14 <Harold> It's called SafeNESS.
16:10:19 <AxelPolleres> Dave: In jena we have both LP style and PR style
16:11:17 <GaryHallmark> probably the stricter the better (but don't forbid disjunction completely) is best for PRD
16:11:42 <AxelPolleres> Michael: binding patterns depend on execution strategy
16:11:54 <AxelPolleres> ... strict safety is ok.
16:12:21 <Harold> The 'Safeness' discussion seems to move us towards procedural semantics ...
16:14:11 <Harold> PROPOSED:  Core will have a strict safeness restriction.
16:14:46 <AxelPolleres> Dave: would object.
16:15:45 <Harold> PROPOSED: Parameterize the conformance clauses of Core with safeness requirements "strict" and "none" (default: "none").
16:17:11 <AxelPolleres> ok, seems we have all, I need to leave!
16:17:24 <Harold> (modulo nice word for "none")
16:17:31 <Harold> All agree.
16:17:36 <AxelPolleres> bye!
16:17:48 <Harold> zakim, make minutes
16:17:49 <Zakim> I don't understand 'make minutes', Harold
16:17:51 <Zakim> -AxelPolleres
16:18:01 <DaveReynolds> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:18:01 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/22-rif-minutes.html DaveReynolds
16:19:23 <DaveReynolds> RRSAgent, make public
16:19:23 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make public', DaveReynolds.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:20:00 <DaveReynolds> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:20:16 <DaveReynolds> RRSAgent, make minutes
16:20:16 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/22-rif-minutes.html DaveReynolds
16:20:47 <Zakim> - +1.503.533.aaaa
16:20:58 <Zakim> -[NRCC]
16:20:59 <Zakim> -Dave_Reynolds
16:21:01 <Zakim> -MichaelKifer
16:21:01 <Zakim> SW_RIF(CORE)11:00AM has ended
16:21:03 <Zakim> Attendees were [NRCC], Dave_Reynolds, AxelPolleres, +1.503.533.aaaa, +1.631.833.aabb, +1.631.833.aacc, MichaelKifer
18:27:49 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rif