IRC log of rif on 2008-09-27

Timestamps are in UTC.

03:43:43 [sandro]
sandro has joined #rif
13:10:44 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
13:12:14 [sandro]
sandro has joined #rif
13:13:46 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
13:13:46 [RRSAgent]
13:15:52 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
13:16:19 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has joined #rif
13:17:38 [mdean]
mdean has joined #rif
13:17:44 [Blaz]
Blaz has joined #rif
13:17:53 [StellaMitchell]
StellaMitchell has joined #rif
13:19:36 [sandro]
13:19:46 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
13:19:50 [sandro]
scribe: DaveReynolds
13:20:01 [DaveReynolds]
ScribeNick: DaveReynolds
13:20:26 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #rif
13:20:43 [AdrianP]
AdrianP has joined #rif
13:21:19 [DaveReynolds]
Discussing resolutions proposed from day 1
13:21:34 [sandro]
topic: profiles (issue-29)
13:21:36 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: RIF will not specify a mechanism for profiles in RIF dialects
13:21:41 [ChrisW]
(closing issue-29)
13:21:43 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
13:21:53 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: RIF will not specify a mechanism for profiles in RIF dialects (closing ISSUE-29)
13:21:56 [josb]
13:22:25 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: clarify that "profiles" means sub-dialects that are not themselves dialects
13:22:59 [sandro]
PROPOSED: RIF will not specify a mechanism for profiles (sublanguages of dialects, which are not themselves a dialect), closing issue-29
13:23:16 [DaveReynolds]
csma: a mechanism for profiles would be a mechanism for specifying a sub-dialect by restriction of an existing dialect only
13:23:56 [DaveReynolds]
Harold: might something like that in CORE
13:24:04 [sandro]
csma: eg "BLD-minus-frames" will not be something that folks can define on their own, without us.
13:24:20 [DaveReynolds]
cmsa: we can define things by reference, the point is to not have a generic mechanism
13:24:23 [csma]
csma has joined #rif
13:24:31 [DaveReynolds]
s/mechanism/mechanism for this/
13:24:53 [sandro]
PROPOSED: RIF will not specify a mechanism for profiles (sub-languages of dialects, which are not themselves a dialect), (addressing part of issue-29)
13:25:23 [sandro]
Harold: How is this different from a specialization using FLD?
13:25:34 [DaveReynolds]
Harold: difference is that the output is a dialect or not a dialect, the profile lacks that status of a formal dialect
13:26:28 [DaveReynolds]
No objections
13:26:35 [sandro]
RESOLVED: RIF will not specify a mechanism for profiles (sub-languages of dialects, which are not themselves a dialect), (addressing part of issue-29)
13:27:08 [BobMoore]
BobMoore has joined #rif
13:27:10 [DaveReynolds]
Next part of issue-29: do we allow dialects which extend only a subset of CORE
13:27:15 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, pointer?
13:27:15 [RRSAgent]
13:27:18 [sandro]
csma: Is CORE the root of all extensions, all dialects?
13:28:18 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: argument against this is that might find later there are things in CORE we find too heavy
13:29:05 [DaveReynolds]
ChrisW: still allows the notion of a CORE, but it might have to change, CORE should remain the LCD
13:29:36 [DaveReynolds]
csma: yesterday we were close to agreeing to allow extensions of subsets of CORE
13:29:42 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: <surprise>
13:30:11 [PaulVincent]
PaulVincent has joined #rif
13:30:15 [DaveReynolds]
Gary: can't stop vendors doing some vendor PRD profile that might not include all of CORE
13:30:46 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: but that would not be RIF
13:32:34 [DaveReynolds]
ChrisW: yesterday's phrasing was to not constrain ourselves as to whether or not there would ever be a RIF dialect with is not a superset of all of CORE
13:33:01 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: but want to discourage that
13:33:25 [BobMoore]
Is the phone bridge active? What is the conference number for today?
13:34:10 [DaveReynolds]
Harold: in the latter case the subset of CORE is random, doesn't make sense on its own. If the subset of CORE is meaningful that might be more acceptable.
13:34:22 [sandro]
Hold on BobMoore
13:34:29 [DaveReynolds]
Harold: must be a community effort, not just vendor
13:34:44 [sandro]
zakim, room for 10 for 600 minutes
13:34:44 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'room for 10 for 600 minutes', sandro
13:34:46 [sandro]
zakim, room for 10 for 600 minutes?
13:34:47 [Zakim]
ok, sandro; conference Team_(rif)13:34Z scheduled with code 26631 (CONF1) for 600 minutes until 2334Z
13:35:14 [sandro]
dialing in the room now, Bob
13:35:31 [Zakim]
Team_(rif)13:34Z has now started
13:35:39 [Zakim]
+ +7.778.41.aaaa
13:36:16 [sandro]
Zakim, +aaaa is BobMoore
13:36:16 [Zakim]
sorry, sandro, I do not recognize a party named '+aaaa'
13:36:17 [Zakim]
13:36:29 [sandro]
Zakim, +7.778.41.aaaa is BobMoore
13:36:29 [Zakim]
+BobMoore; got it
13:36:36 [sandro]
zakim, ?P1 is Meeting_Room
13:36:36 [Zakim]
sorry, sandro, I do not recognize a party named '?P1'
13:36:40 [sandro]
zakim, ??P1 is Meeting_Room
13:36:40 [Zakim]
+Meeting_Room; got it
13:38:08 [DaveReynolds]
csma: we could allow ourselves to specify a sub-CORE in future for such purposes
13:38:16 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: let's deal with that we
13:38:22 [DaveReynolds]
s/we/when the problem arises/
13:38:50 [DaveReynolds]
Paul: in that case the problem is the definition of CORE, not nec. the dialect that wants the subset
13:39:14 [sandro]
PaulVincent, Sandro, Chris: If we find we need "D3" (a dialect extending a subset of Core) then we're in a bad situation, which we'll deal with at the time.
13:39:27 [DaveReynolds]
Chrisw: should close issue-29 and open a new issue "is CORE required by every dialect"
13:39:41 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: don't need an issue there, if it arises then it becomes an issue then.
13:40:27 [csma]
PROPOSED: we do not decide that all future dialect MUST extend Core (closing ISSUE-69)
13:40:29 [DaveReynolds]
Chrisw: issues reflect uncertainty or disagreement, the fact that we considered this and didn't conclude should be carried forward
13:41:11 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
13:41:13 [csma]
PROPOSED: we do not decide that all future dialects MUST extend Core (closing ISSUE-29)
13:42:03 [DaveReynolds]
Chrisw: this would be an issue we postponed in order to record for future working groups
13:42:04 [csma]
PROPOSED: we do not decide that all future dialects MUST extend Core (postponing ISSUE-29)
13:42:06 [GaryHallmark]
future dialects SHOULD extend Core, however the WG recognizes that there is a trade-off between interoperability and ease of translator implementation. Therefore it is not required.
13:42:25 [sandro]
... and mostly, we'll have to deal with it at the time.
13:43:35 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Future dialects SHOULD extend Core. (Closing ISSUE-29)
13:43:49 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Future RIF dialects SHOULD extend Core. (Closing ISSUE-29)
13:45:24 [sandro]
RESOLVED: Future RIF dialects SHOULD extend Core. (Closing ISSUE-29)
13:45:38 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
13:45:38 [RRSAgent]
13:45:56 [DaveReynolds]
Next proposed resolution was to remove "at risk" on external frames on BLD
13:46:55 [sandro]
DaveReynolds: MK mentioned the two issues: (1) where do you send the query, and (2) ...?...
13:47:26 [sandro]
DaveReynolds: That's not a motivation -- if you want that, then add a language feature to do that.
13:47:55 [AxelPolleres]
13:48:23 [DaveReynolds]
Gary: possible relates to the issue of PRD systems being unable to put membership in the head, because membership is "externally" defined
13:48:58 [DaveReynolds]
Gary: dismayed by the asymmetry - external member/subclass more interesting for him than external frames
13:49:35 [DaveReynolds]
Gary: that would then explain why it can't go in the head
13:50:05 [DaveReynolds]
csma: right, in PRD case they are always external
13:50:55 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: how would that look?
13:51:10 [DaveReynolds]
Gary/csma: External( ?x # IRIclasss)
13:51:18 [DaveReynolds]
Adrian: better to have typed variables
13:51:28 [DaveReynolds]
csma: this is a redesign
13:51:40 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: could consider it an extension
13:51:45 [DaveReynolds]
MK: easy to add
13:52:11 [DaveReynolds]
MK: just an oversight it wasn't included
13:52:22 [DaveReynolds]
Harold: this is in FLD
13:52:34 [Harold]
BLD: 'External' '(' Atom | Frame ')'
13:53:03 [DaveReynolds]
MK: referenced overnight email
13:53:06 [Harold]
FLD: 'External' '(' ATOMIC ')')
13:53:06 [Harold]
ATOMIC ::= Const | Atom | Equal | Member | Subclass | Frame
13:53:33 [DaveReynolds]
MK: can't know where to address unless you have a convention, irrespective of frames/predicates etc
13:53:46 [DaveReynolds]
MK: in this case the convention could be class
13:54:10 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: no, the class doesn't know about the instances
13:54:55 [AxelPolleres]
We can do ALL external calls with predicates, e.g. External( a [ p-> c] ) could be formulated as: External( call( "?a [ ?p-> ?c]" a b c ) or an external call to a SPARQL or SQL endpoint could be emulated with External( EvalSPARQL( ?X ?Y " SELECT ?X FROM ... WHERE { ... ?Y ... } " ), etc.
13:55:23 [DaveReynolds]
csma: MISMO example: ?x # Mismo:elt
13:55:45 [AxelPolleres]
... so theoretically ther is neither an advantage nor harm in allowing/disallowing whatever terms in External.
13:55:47 [DaveReynolds]
csma: the fact that this is external is only given by the fact that Mismo schema exists
13:57:00 [AdrianP]
we are talking about an external type system
13:58:05 [DaveReynolds]
Dave: talking about three different cases - access to an external data source (c.f. email trail), a builtin with a fixed interpretation and an object where you change the slot values but not the type
13:58:12 [AxelPolleres]
zakim, who is on the queue?
13:58:12 [Zakim]
I see AxelPolleres on the speaker queue
13:58:30 [DaveReynolds]
MK: builtins are external because they are not defined by your ruleset
13:59:00 [DaveReynolds]
Changhai: what does that mean in the case of something like Mismo?
13:59:26 [DaveReynolds]
Sandro: if it is not external, are you somehow assuming there is no information available elsewhere?
13:59:53 [DaveReynolds]
MK: if it isn't external it will try to match against clauses in the ruleset
14:00:45 [DaveReynolds]
csma: if you can assert it then it can't be external
14:01:43 [MichaelKifer]
MichaelKifer has joined #rif
14:01:50 [DaveReynolds]
Axel: we clarified yesterday we could do all external calls with predicates using some query string.
14:02:03 [DaveReynolds]
Axel: two ways to go, either only predicates or allow any TERMs
14:03:43 [PaulVincent]
Axel: its not about "external calls" (I think), its about using a Domain Specific Language with predicate constraints defined by the schema, and this being used to build the rules, with runtime-only access to facts (when you "run the rules with dataset X")...
14:03:56 [DaveReynolds]
csma: is x = y, when x y are integer the same as numeric equals or not
14:03:59 [csma]
14:04:05 [csma]
ack axel
14:04:31 [DaveReynolds]
Harold: re Axel's approach, this would be some sort of builtin
14:04:55 [DaveReynolds]
Axel: yes, we just have a choice of predicates or all TERMs
14:05:17 [DaveReynolds]
MK: in that case the extreme would be to have one builtin called "external" !
14:06:05 [DaveReynolds]
csma: how to distinguish between a membership relation defined externally and the case where you can define or modify it
14:06:12 [AxelPolleres]
I propose the following:
14:06:49 [AxelPolleres]
Change the Definition of External schemas (sec 2.5 as follows:
14:06:54 [DaveReynolds]
MK: there is no issue, if you write external, you go to some place based on some convention and the external source will satisfy the goal
14:07:26 [AxelPolleres]
to allowing ANY term for &tau;
14:07:31 [DaveReynolds]
MK: it doesn't stop you defining something internally as well
14:07:54 [DaveReynolds]
MK: ?X:abc :- External(?X:abc)
14:10:27 [sandro]
DaveReynolds: CSMA, I think you're confusing two things in your example -- use subclass instead of member, since subclass *is* fixed by MISMO.
14:11:49 [sandro]
I'm finding what MichaelKifer said makes sense if I think of "external" as "evaluable" -- but not if I think of external data sources which you could merge with.
14:12:49 [DaveReynolds]
[not as scribe, to Sandro] which is why in the email trail I suggested that the external-data-source version is clearer with a different construct
14:13:08 [AxelPolleres]
+1 sandro. it is that only, not more, not less.
14:13:14 [sandro]
Gary: All external means is you can't put it in the conclusion.
14:13:52 [AxelPolleres]
... thus we can allow any terms in External. is it up to the dialect author to define what that external schema complying to a specific term means.
14:14:08 [sandro]
Gary: So if you want to say some term must never occur in a conclusion, then mark it external.
14:14:29 [AxelPolleres]
... so, I actualy have lost, WHAT we actually are discussing now?
14:14:44 [sandro]
indeed. :)
14:14:49 [DaveReynolds]
Paul: do we need to specify things external reference to Mismo in *RIF*, surely it is clear at runtime
14:16:26 [DaveReynolds]
csma: but even if in production rule engines things are always external we should still mark that, to be conformant with other engines
14:16:49 [DaveReynolds]
[scribe can't follow this well enough so nuances may be getting lost]
14:17:02 [DaveReynolds]
Paul: can handle as a constraint in the spec
14:17:41 [DaveReynolds]
csma: we need to differentiate between internal and external #/##, even if at the moment we only use external, but need distinction in future
14:17:43 [GaryHallmark]
choice is External(Atom) or External(ATOMIC) -- can we just vote which we want???
14:18:07 [DaveReynolds]
Paul: at the moment no PR engine deals with non-external member/subclass
14:19:06 [DaveReynolds]
Gary: choice is external(Atom) or external(ATOMIC) can we just vote on that then move on
14:19:31 [AxelPolleres]
+1 for External( ATOMIC )
14:20:04 [DaveReynolds]
Paul: this is a usage issue, if PR engines only deal with external definitions, then is some future hypothetical case where you could also define internally really important to cover
14:20:11 [DaveReynolds]
14:20:38 [AxelPolleres]
sorry, anybody else feeling that we waste valuable WG time here on a minor issue?
14:21:32 [sandro]
I don't think it's minor, AxelPolleres, but I'm not sure this is the most productive approach to it. It seems important to understand externals, but I don't know how we'll get there.
14:21:33 [DaveReynolds]
csma: if there are two cases we need two different syntaxes
14:22:19 [josb]
I agree that we might want to cut short this discussion
14:22:29 [AxelPolleres]
... by reading the definition of exxternal schemata.
14:23:30 [DaveReynolds]
Paul: using external to define a constraint on the implementation, isn't better to do that as a specification?
14:23:40 [DaveReynolds]
s/better/it better/
14:25:19 [DaveReynolds]
Paul: could use test in PR and Logic system but in PR dialect could simply say always external without needed separate syntax, is that more flexible?
14:25:43 [DaveReynolds]
csma: but in future dialects you could have dynamic membership, then you would lack a syntax
14:25:57 [DaveReynolds]
Paul: but just define a new dialect PRDD that supports that new capability
14:26:19 [DaveReynolds]
csma: BLD needs it now so why not define it now and use in PRD?
14:26:58 [DaveReynolds]
Changhai: could use external predicate like instanceOf to represent these tests
14:27:25 [DaveReynolds]
csma: would need to add isntanceOf etc to DTB for PRD
14:27:41 [DaveReynolds]
14:28:26 [PaulVincent]
Response to Axel: it could well be a minor issue - I've no idea whether LP guys will ever want to input production rules and do reasoning on the rules... (I guess this is the potential of a shared core)
14:28:51 [GaryHallmark]
biz rule use case for membership in conclusion: if c#Customer and c[spent->$400] then c#GoldCustomer
14:28:53 [DaveReynolds]
csma: not close to consensus?
14:29:23 [sandro]
Chris: This issue is just External-Atom and External-Atomic
14:29:24 [Harold]
BLD: 'External' '(' Atom | Frame ')'
14:29:31 [Harold]
FLD: 'External' '(' ATOMIC ')')
14:29:31 [Harold]
<Harold> ATOMIC ::= Const | Atom | Equal | Member | Subclass | Frame
14:30:43 [PaulVincent]
I think Gary's example would translate to if ext(c#Customer) and ...
14:30:50 [sandro]
csma: three ways: external(atom), external(atom|Frame), or external(atomic)
14:31:07 [DaveReynolds]
Jos: this would require a new LC for BLD?
14:31:11 [AxelPolleres]
Paul, but this discussion ONLY revolves around the allowed syntax to external calls, which is purely syntactic, the semantics of the External calls is not defined in the rule language, I could interpret an ?X#?Y as "?X goes well with ?Y and creamcheese" or whatever, upto the author defining that external schema.
14:32:09 [AxelPolleres]
... I don't see what this has to do with LP?
14:33:44 [PaulVincent]
Axel: yes, but the issue is whether stuff that is ext will always be ext? ie C is a CreamChees may be ext in a PRD, but not in BLD - so immediately this makes sharing info more difficult? But, it might not be an issue...
14:33:51 [DaveReynolds]
Straw test on choice: external(ATOM) external(ATOMIC) external([ATOM|Frame])
14:34:37 [DaveReynolds]
Straw test on choice: (1) external(ATOM) (2) external(ATOMIC) (3) external([ATOM|Frame])
14:36:14 [AxelPolleres]
Paul, redefining/reusing "#" in an external is as problematic/non-problematic as for instance defining an External( rif:iri( ...) ) predicate.
14:36:35 [AxelPolleres]
... where the latter is even possible with ATOM.
14:38:55 [josb]
Why do people seem to assume that built-ins are the best way to access data sources?
14:39:02 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
14:39:29 [DaveReynolds]
Pref for (1) - 3
14:39:43 [DaveReynolds]
Pref for (2) - 6
14:39:51 [ChrisW]
14:40:02 [ChrisW]
14:40:10 [josb]
re 2: what does external equality mean?
14:40:26 [DaveReynolds]
Pref for (3) - 2
14:40:56 [DaveReynolds]
Object to (1) - 1 (MK)
14:41:01 [PaulVincent]
What is Bob voting? :)
14:41:51 [DaveReynolds]
Object to (2) - 1 (Jos)
14:41:59 [BobMoore]
Bob isn't voting because he is struggling to figure out the consequences
14:42:21 [PaulVincent]
Ah... like me
14:42:49 [BobMoore]
I'm not really in favour of an option that means we HAVE to support dynamic class membership in PRD
14:42:52 [DaveReynolds]
Object to (3) - 1 (Axel)
14:43:26 [BobMoore]
Not that dynamic class membership is not a lot of fun when programming real world applications
14:43:35 [DaveReynolds]
Jos - equality is equality, what makes external equality different from equality
14:44:00 [PaulVincent]
Bob: of course, SRL does allow subclasses of externals to be defined in a ruleset. But I can't remember if you can change object membership at runtime...
14:44:25 [DaveReynolds]
Axel - agrees with Gary's argument that frame but not #/## is strange
14:44:26 [BobMoore]
ah but Nexpert allowed you to do that
14:45:07 [PaulVincent]
Hmmm... but Nexpert was an internal object model and bwd chaining ...
14:46:55 [AxelPolleres]
redefining/reusing "=" in an external schema is as problematic/non-problematic as for instance defining an External( rif:iri( ...) ) predicate.
14:47:54 [PaulVincent]
Axel: I wonder if referencing an external nerual net / fuzzy logic system would be a use case for an ext(=)
14:49:41 [ChrisW]
action: Chris to open an issue on what things are external
14:49:41 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-601 - Open an issue on what things are external [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-10-04].
14:50:23 [ChrisW]
issue: Which to make external: ATOMIC, ATOM, or ATOM|FRAME
14:50:23 [trackbot]
Created ISSUE-78 - Which to make external: ATOMIC, ATOM, or ATOM|FRAME ; please complete additional details at .
14:50:28 [sandro]
ACTION-601 closed
14:50:29 [trackbot]
ACTION-601 Open an issue on what things are external closed
14:51:02 [ChrisW]
rraagent, pointer?
14:51:09 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, pointer?
14:51:09 [RRSAgent]
14:52:01 [BobMoore]
from a pragmatic perspecitve if I am building a rule or logic engine, everything is internal at "execution" time even if I have to "import" external definitions
14:52:07 [DaveReynolds]
csma: so do not remove "at risk" on external frames but perhaps point to issue-78 in the text
14:52:35 [BobMoore]
... the problem arises when I try to map my internal representations back to an external representation
14:53:05 [PaulVincent]
Bob: yes, its internal with constraints on what I can do... which is what I was commenting with Christian - PRDs using external schemas are just constrained on what they do...
14:53:47 [DaveReynolds]
MK: have another option from Dave of adding another argument to external to specify the source see
14:54:23 [DaveReynolds]
Next discussion: proposed modified text to BLD conformance clause
14:56:50 [DaveReynolds]
"In addition, conformant BLD producers and consumers should preserve all annotations where possible"
14:57:39 [AxelPolleres]
"In addition, conformant BLD producers and consumers SHOULD preserve all annotations"
14:57:57 [AxelPolleres]
... "where possible" is subsumed by should, isn't it?
15:00:05 [sandro]
DaveReynolds: The "where possible" is good because it acknowledges that it may not always be possible.
15:01:01 [AxelPolleres]
"In addition, conformant BLD producers and consumers External(should) preserve all annotations where possible OR 1=2."
15:01:24 [Harold]
We could say: When you omit existing annotations, then you MUST add an annotation (* "annotation omitted" *)" at the enclosing syntactic construct.
15:02:12 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: remove round-tripping clause from conformance, add sentence to RIF_BLD clauses
15:02:19 [josb]
15:02:27 [Harold]
15:02:30 [AxelPolleres]
15:02:33 [AdrianP]
15:02:36 [Blaz]
15:02:37 [GaryHallmark]
15:02:41 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: remove round-tripping clause from BLD conformance, add sentence to RIF_BLD clauses
15:02:51 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: remove round-tripping clause from BLD conformance, add sentence to RIF_BLD clauses, closing round-tripping issue
15:03:08 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: remove round-tripping clause from BLD conformance, add sentence to RIF_BLD clauses, closing round-tripping issue 26
15:03:32 [DaveReynolds]
No objections
15:03:33 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: remove round-tripping clause from BLD conformance, add sentence to RIF_BLD clauses, closing round-tripping issue 26
15:06:19 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, pointer?
15:06:19 [RRSAgent]
15:29:39 [Zakim]
15:32:35 [Zakim]
15:32:37 [Zakim]
Team_(rif)13:34Z has ended
15:32:39 [Zakim]
Attendees were BobMoore, Meeting_Room
15:34:15 [PaulVincent]
PaulVincent has joined #rif
15:41:31 [PaulVincent]
Presume Bob will join the PRD conflict resolution discussion ...
15:42:04 [mdean]
mdean has joined #rif
15:42:46 [BobMoore]
Just dropped off the phone, will call back in when you restart
15:43:35 [DaveReynolds_]
DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif
15:44:34 [AxelP]
AxelP has joined #rif
15:45:16 [MichaelKifer]
MichaelKifer has joined #rif
15:45:50 [PaulVincent]
Paul to scribe...
15:46:00 [PaulVincent]
Bob - we are restarting
15:46:23 [AdrianP]
AdrianP has joined #rif
15:47:29 [Zakim]
Team_(rif)13:34Z has now started
15:47:30 [saidtabet]
saidtabet has joined #rif
15:47:36 [Zakim]
15:47:55 [csma]
csma has joined #rif
15:47:56 [GaryHallmark]
bob, slides are coming
15:47:59 [BobMoore]
Waiting for the meeting room to dial back in
15:48:04 [GaryHallmark]
and we will dial in soon
15:48:29 [PaulVincent]
Bob - can you dial in now?
15:49:23 [BobMoore]
I am already on the phone
15:49:39 [PaulVincent]
CR = conflict resolution
15:50:16 [csma]
zakim, what is the code?
15:50:16 [Zakim]
the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), csma
15:50:19 [Zakim]
15:51:02 [BobM]
BobM has joined #rif
15:51:16 [PaulVincent]
CSMA: details what is CR - which rule to fire when many can
15:52:00 [mdean]
mdean has joined #rif
15:54:00 [PaulVincent]
CSMA: CR covers all fireable instances of rules at a point in time including e.g. those handled by rule priority, also rules that may not be placed on agenda due to "no repeat" constraints
15:54:38 [PaulVincent]
Gary: usually fire 1 rule, this may change WM, then other rules may not be fired
15:55:18 [PaulVincent]
CSMA: yes ,we aretalking about rule execution cycle eg fire all actions without reinstantiating...
15:55:55 [PaulVincent]
Gary: example of "fire all actions" could be a DB Trigger, but not commonly PR engines
15:56:49 [PaulVincent]
Said: early CLIPS systems etc might execute all instance actions in same cycle
15:57:32 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #rif
15:57:34 [PaulVincent]
CSMA: example of differentiation is sequential processing mode in BREs
15:57:55 [BobMoore]
BobMoore has joined #rif
15:59:42 [BobMoore]
BobMoore has joined #rif
16:02:03 [PaulVincent]
Changkai: strategy could be set per rule
16:02:26 [ChrisW]
FYI: FLD discussion is on the #fld channel
16:02:33 [PaulVincent]
CSMA: Strategy defined per rule/ruleset, OR have a default
16:02:56 [PaulVincent]
Said: multiple strategies is not practicable
16:03:51 [PaulVincent]
CSMA: propose an annotation as default-for-all is unlikely; a standard set of annotations makes sense
16:04:38 [PaulVincent]
Gary: lets discuss what the strategies are before discussing annotations
16:05:07 [PaulVincent]
Said: also can have case of multiple cooperating engines
16:05:28 [PaulVincent]
CSMA: OK so 3rd option is a programmable strategy
16:09:39 [PaulVincent]
Changkai: practice might be a tag for strategy independent from execution mode
16:11:07 [PaulVincent]
CSMA: Discussion on No Repeat / refraction / noloop - loops will continue to fire if the condition still holds
16:12:09 [PaulVincent]
CSMA: eg if emp.salary < 10000 then emp.salary=emp.salary*1.1 ==> repeats until all emp have salary are >= 10000
16:15:32 [PaulVincent]
CSMA: eg if alarm(X) then print alarm, alarm(1) and alarm(2), but on no-repeat print alarm only fires once
16:16:12 [PaulVincent]
CSMA: no-repeat above applies on actions only in the same rule
16:16:55 [BobMoore]
I'm quite happy with the concept of "no repeat" since it is the default behaviour of Blaze Advisor and I believe OPS5/Clips/Drools
16:18:06 [BobMoore]
... what maybe more of a problem is converting the description of the notion of "no repeat" into a more formal definition suitbable for the PRD specification
16:20:48 [BobMoore]
Alarm example is weaker here than the salary example
16:21:39 [PaulVincent]
CSMA: if alarm(X) and X.a>100 then print alarm(X) and no-repeat so will print once for alarm(1) and alarm(1).a>100 fact doesn't change
16:21:42 [BobMoore]
Point in the salary example is you fire the rule to increase salary from 500 to 550, but not again to fire the rule from 550 to 605
16:22:41 [PaulVincent]
Bob: votes for preferring Gary's example...
16:25:34 [PaulVincent]
Gary: does issue change if there are intermediate changes?
16:26:12 [PaulVincent]
CSMA: intermediate cycles have no effect (unless facts change)
16:29:37 [DaveReynolds_]
DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif
16:32:31 [PaulVincent]
Gary: JESS actions cannot add new instances during a rule action in the same rule cycle
16:33:56 [AxelPolleres]
Dave, can you paste a link to the OWL Full/DL implementation you just mentioned?
16:36:37 [PaulVincent]
Changkai: Rule agenda is key
16:36:40 [BobMoore]
I think we are tiptoeing around the big problem which is that production rules are non-monatonic
16:37:28 [BobMoore]
you can't understand what is going on without a veiw of the current state of working memory and the current state of the agenda
16:39:14 [PaulVincent]
Said: qu is what you do to put rules on the agenda
16:40:57 [PaulVincent]
CSMA: semantic description: we can consider that the agenda is always rebuilt, regardless of mechanisms to optimize this
16:42:01 [BobMoore]
BobMoore has joined #rif
16:42:25 [AxelPolleres]
BTW... the example misses External ( ... )
16:43:54 [AxelPolleres]
Do you agree that Exists ?x (And (ex:p(?x) pred:isNotInteger(?x) pred:isNotString(?x))) is true in RIF?
16:49:01 [AxelPolleres]
ok, I overlooked/misread that.
16:51:29 [PaulVincent]
Gary: need to define what is monitored for change in rules?
16:52:01 [PaulVincent]
Axel: are you on the right IRC channel?
16:58:22 [PaulVincent]
Paul: suggestion to check out all the various BRE semantics
16:58:35 [AxelPolleres]
yes, I am
16:58:50 [AxelPolleres]
ooops :-)
16:58:56 [AxelPolleres]
on the wring
16:59:02 [PaulVincent]
Changkai: ... but we can agree on refraction?
16:59:11 [AxelPolleres]
17:00:45 [PaulVincent]
CSMA: summary 1: no repeat: remove same instance as long as some condition holds
17:01:39 [PaulVincent]
CSMA: 1b: what is "same instance"?
17:04:02 [PaulVincent]
CSMA: 1b: ... binding variable in condition, or in action, or in both?
17:08:02 [PaulVincent]
CSMA/Gary: looks at Example 1 again...
17:14:29 [PaulVincent]
Paul: questions whether action references are indeed having any affect on agenda...
17:16:22 [PaulVincent]
CSMA: proposal 1 doesnt work, possibly proposal 2 doesnt
17:16:33 [BobMoore]
Paul - yes action references do have an effect on agenda
17:16:49 [BobMoore]
... or at least for some engines!
17:17:36 [PaulVincent]
Bob - ues I recall SRL pattern - action can involve a fire-once response...
17:18:57 [PaulVincent]
,,, which is why we need to list examples to determine the subset for default in RIF...
17:19:10 [BobMoore]
Paul - in SRL if you do not use a pattern (ie PRD variable) in the action the rule will only fire once. If you put in any action INCLUDING "ignore", the rule fires for all binding which satisfy the rule conditions
17:20:01 [PaulVincent]
Bob - thx - so ignore is the BA switch for semantics...
17:20:33 [BobMoore]
Paul - in effect yes
17:23:22 [PaulVincent]
Bob - OK we need to include action references in the example list :)
17:24:31 [PaulVincent]
CSMA: summary: we made some progress on mutual understanding
17:25:00 [BobMoore]
Suggestion - we go back to the drawing board. and map out two or three scenario examples and those of us with a production rule engine say what the execution sequence will be for our engine and then compare notes to
17:25:08 [BobMoore]
... determine common ground
17:25:21 [PaulVincent]
17:25:40 [BobMoore]
I think we are aguing about what PR system might do while for RIF we need to be clear about what real ones actually do
17:26:56 [PaulVincent]
CSMA: Important: we need to define "keys" for strategies
17:27:08 [PaulVincent]
closing discusssion
17:27:36 [PaulVincent]
CSMA: correction: what are the variables for no repeat - but may only be UNIQUE keys
17:28:19 [PaulVincent]
CSMA: reply to Bob - need common ground, agree
17:29:09 [Zakim]
17:29:13 [Zakim]
17:29:15 [Zakim]
Team_(rif)13:34Z has ended
17:29:15 [Zakim]
Attendees were BobMoore
17:29:36 [BobMoore]
when will you be back from lunch?
18:17:49 [DaveReynolds_]
DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif
18:22:19 [csma]
We are back
18:22:30 [csma]
not started yet, though
18:22:34 [csma]
I will ping you
18:26:34 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
18:33:10 [csma]
Bob, we start (Actions in PRD)
18:33:23 [DaveReynolds_]
DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif
18:33:57 [csma]
We are dialing right now
18:34:36 [Zakim]
Team_(rif)13:34Z has now started
18:34:40 [GaryHallmark]
zakim, what is the code?
18:34:40 [Zakim]
the conference code is 26631 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+ tel:+44.117.370.6152), GaryHallmark
18:34:43 [Zakim]
18:34:56 [saidtabet]
saidtabet has joined #rif
18:35:07 [PaulVincent]
PaulVincent has joined #rif
18:35:31 [PaulVincent]
Bob - we are reconvening FYI
18:37:21 [GaryHallmark]
18:37:23 [GaryHallmark]
ASSERT ::= Atom | Frame
18:37:24 [GaryHallmark]
New ::= 'New' ( Var '#' )? Const
18:37:26 [GaryHallmark]
Retract ::= 'Retract' '(' Atom | Frame | TERM ')'
18:37:27 [GaryHallmark]
ACTION_BLOCK ::= 'And' '(' ASSERT+ ')' | 'Do' Var* '(' ACTION* ')'
18:37:36 [csma]
zakim, ??P0 is MeetingRoom
18:37:37 [Zakim]
+MeetingRoom; got it
18:38:15 [GaryHallmark]
rrsagent, delete action 30
18:38:15 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'delete action 30', GaryHallmark. Try /msg RRSAgent help
18:38:20 [AdrianP]
AdrianP has joined #rif
18:38:38 [Blaz]
Blaz has joined #rif
18:40:36 [AdrianP]
AdrianP has joined #rif
18:41:02 [AdrianP]
Zakim, who is on the phone?
18:41:02 [Zakim]
On the phone I see MeetingRoom
18:41:12 [PaulVincent]
Gary: assert atom = add a tuple, assert a frame = add a slot, and inverse for retract; retract term is remove all slots and membership
18:41:50 [MichaelKifer]
MichaelKifer has joined #rif
18:42:11 [MichaelKifer_]
MichaelKifer_ has joined #rif
18:42:17 [PaulVincent]
Gary: new creates a new obj and adds onjid into membership for given class
18:42:19 [MichaelKifer_]
18:42:35 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
18:43:26 [PaulVincent]
CSMA: constructor gives default values means this must be explicitly defined in action part
18:44:44 [PaulVincent]
18:45:28 [BobMoore]
Dialing in now - I can only stay for a short while as it is family supper time soon
18:45:58 [Zakim]
18:46:25 [PaulVincent]
Gary: Looking at example 2.11
18:47:24 [MichaelKifer_]
MichaelKifer_ has joined #rif
18:48:40 [PaulVincent]
CSMA: why not allow initialization with values?
18:50:08 [PaulVincent]
Gary: in OBR we do Java new + setProperty calls
18:53:22 [PaulVincent]
Gary: multiple "new"s require multiple variables
18:53:38 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
18:56:19 [PaulVincent]
ary: reviews draft semantics in 3.3
18:57:55 [sandro]
topic: issue-61
18:58:11 [sandro]
oooops wrong channel
19:00:31 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif
19:02:24 [Zakim]
19:02:25 [BobMoore]
Supper time - I'll be back in 30 mins or so
19:03:34 [PaulVincent]
Gary: working memory union with asserted atom a may need to be defined as not a set union but mappings to the domain
19:04:05 [csma]
PROPOSED: add construct DO in then-part of PRD rules to declare ?local variables for New frames (according to Gary's proposal)
19:04:15 [PaulVincent]
Harold: clarify this is just the action part of a rule
19:04:35 [csma]
PROPOSED: add construct New with Gary's proposed syntax and semantics in then-part of PRD rules
19:05:55 [GaryHallmark_]
GaryHallmark_ has joined #rif
19:07:18 [csma]
PROPOSED: add possibility to Retract a TERM in then-part of PRD rules with Gary's proposed syntax, to remove a frame object
19:08:43 [PaulVincent]
Paul: issue is with external constructors and mapping from multiple asserts to that
19:12:00 [PaulVincent]
CSMA: methods needed too per yesterday discussion
19:12:53 [PaulVincent]
CSMA: no time to discuss modify semantics
19:14:03 [GaryHallmark_]
GaryHallmark_ has joined #rif
19:15:12 [csma]
PROPOSED: add possibility to Retract a TERM in then-part of PRD rules with Gary's proposed syntax, to remove a frame object, that is, remove any reference to that object in the working memory
19:17:07 [Zakim]
19:17:08 [Zakim]
Team_(rif)13:34Z has ended
19:17:08 [Zakim]
Attendees were MeetingRoom, BobMoore
19:17:26 [csma]
PROPOSED: add possibility to Retract a TERM in then-part of PRD rules with Gary's proposed syntax, to remove a frame object, that is, remove object from the instances of its class as well as all the frames with that object
19:18:11 [PaulVincent]
Gary: can't use ext constructors as these are methods (could be added later, but need to handle asserts now)
19:19:12 [csma]
PROPOSED: add possibility to Retract a TERM in then-part of PRD rules with Gary's proposed syntax, to remove a frame object, that is, remove object from the instances of its class as well as all the frames with that object in the object position
19:22:20 [csma]
PROPOSED: add construct DO in then-part of PRD rules to declare ?local variables for New frames (according to Gary's proposal)
19:22:24 [PaulVincent]
Adrian: would like to re-use Do for local vars for other uses
19:22:33 [PaulVincent]
CSMA: ... but this would be a separate different proposal
19:23:45 [csma]
PROPOSED: add construct DO in then-part of PRD rules to declare ?local variables for New frames (according to Gary's proposal); not excluding that later resolutions might extend the use of local variables in the action part.
19:24:57 [PaulVincent]
Paul: concern that new(obj) --> pattern of rif statements --> new(obj) is an overload
19:25:15 [PaulVincent]
CSMA: later we could use aliases for that, but want to retain compatibility
19:26:15 [csma]
PROPOSED: add construct New with Gary's proposed syntax and semantics in then-part of PRD rules
19:29:07 [csma]
PROPOSED: add construct New with Gary's proposed syntax and semantics in then-part of PRD rules; not excluding extending the use of constructors once we resolve how to call "methods".
19:31:19 [csma]
PROPOSED: add construct New with Gary's proposed syntax and semantics in then-part of PRD rules; not excluding extending it later with the use of constructors once we resolve how to call "methods".
19:45:19 [DaveReynolds_]
DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif
19:45:33 [Zakim]
Team_(rif)13:34Z has now started
19:45:40 [Zakim]
19:46:32 [BobMoore]
can the meeting room rejoin?
19:47:37 [DaveReynolds]
Bob - doing it now
19:48:29 [Zakim]
19:49:15 [Harold]
19:49:26 [sandro]
topic: Debrief of "FLD" Breakout
19:49:38 [DaveReynolds]
zakim, ??P1 is Meeting_Room
19:49:38 [Zakim]
+Meeting_Room; got it
19:50:23 [josb]
another nasty test case:
19:50:31 [Harold]
Chris: FLD should have Modules (Michael).
19:52:55 [Harold]
Based on Jos' test cases that use negative guards, eq in head, and sneak in disjunction.
19:54:51 [Harold]
topic: Debrief of "DTB" Breakout
19:56:03 [Harold]
Chris: String compare operators from XPath are not symmetric between strings and numbers.
19:57:36 [Harold]
Issue 61 (casting to/from IRIs) should be formally closed, since it was de facto already in a telecon.
19:58:35 [ChrisW]
19:58:45 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Close issue-61, since the underlying decision was already settled in 08-05 meeting
19:59:01 [sandro]
RESOLEVED: Close issue-61, since the underlying decision was already settled in 08-05 meeting
19:59:07 [sandro]
issue-61 closed
19:59:22 [sandro]
action: chris close issue 61
19:59:22 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-605 - Close issue 61 [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-10-04].
19:59:47 [DaveReynolds]
19:59:56 [Harold]
Discussed rdf:text (int'lized string).
20:00:16 [Harold]
Should bring in DTB built-ins.
20:00:18 [sandro]
RESOLVED: Close issue-61, since the underlying decision was already settled in 08-05 meeting
20:00:59 [sandro]
Chris: we agreed rdf:text should have accessor functions for its two components. casting is not resolved.
20:01:05 [Harold]
Casting of rdf:text discussed: string and lang tag.
20:02:07 [Harold]
We need to decide on fn:compare.
20:02:28 [sandro]
would look like: PROPOSED: Add fn;string-less-than, etc, in addition to fn:compare, to make string comparison symmetric with numeric comparison.
20:02:34 [Harold]
Also, remaining editor notes.
20:02:55 [Harold]
Dave: Did you discuss subdialects.
20:04:36 [Harold]
Chris: One possibility: 3 dialects, taking out equality in head, negative guards, or both.
20:04:47 [Harold]
(from BLD.)
20:06:08 [Harold]
topic: Debrief of "PRD" Breakout
20:07:01 [Harold]
Christian: Slides on Conflict Resolution
20:09:47 [Harold]
"Same instance" and "Same binding" discussions.
20:10:46 [Harold]
Nothing to propose here at this point.
20:11:02 [Harold]
Christian: Actions in PRD
20:11:31 [StellaMitchell]
StellaMitchell has joined #rif
20:11:58 [Harold]
PROPOSED: 'New' construct for action part of PRD rules.
20:12:48 [Harold]
PROPOSED: 'Do' for action part of PRD rules.
20:13:22 [Harold]
Makes specified variables local to its scope.
20:14:19 [Harold]
PROPOSED: 'Retract' for action part of PRD rules extended from atoms and frames to TERMs.
20:18:09 [Harold]
The TERM-identified frame information is removed: their object from the Member relation and the frames describing this object.
20:18:59 [Harold]
Michael: why not use Erase?
20:20:06 [Harold]
Jos: TERM is ambiguous here.
20:20:20 [Harold]
Discussion: doesn't seem so.
20:20:53 [Harold]
Christian: Can we pass these resolutions.
20:21:10 [Harold]
Dave: Two of the three.
20:21:33 [Blaz]
Blaz has joined #rif
20:21:40 [Harold]
Michael: What about obj[], ie nullary?
20:23:27 [Harold]
Dave/Michael/Christian: Since there are no function symbols in Core there is no ambiguity.
20:24:16 [Harold]
Michael: Yet, a new name (Erase?) would be good.
20:25:20 [Harold]
Michael: What is 'Do' ?
20:25:43 [Harold]
Gary: Corresponds to 'Exists' in BLD.
20:25:45 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #rif
20:25:47 [Harold]
... W
20:26:15 [Harold]
e need to clarify single-assignment vs. re-assignment.
20:26:36 [Harold]
Further discussion in coming Taskforce telecon.
20:27:20 [Harold]
topic: Process wrt f2f minutes
20:27:46 [Harold]
Sandro: Gets better and better.
20:28:14 [Harold]
Cool stuff like moves all Resolutions to the top.
20:29:11 [Harold]
Easier to fix typos, inaccurate renderings of what people said, etc.
20:29:41 [Harold]
(especially for scribes)
20:30:40 [Harold]
When command Scribenick was forgotten, can still be easily fixed now.
20:31:37 [Harold]
Christian: The way the history is changed is visible from the original archive.
20:32:03 [Harold]
... Benefit of wiki: everyone can edit.
20:32:37 [Harold]
Sandro: What about: If you edit something in the history , send email to the scribe.
20:33:16 [Harold]
Point them to the diff of your changes.
20:34:16 [Harold]
There is also topic:, subtopic: subsubtopic:
20:34:31 [Harold]
Creates indentation in toc.
20:42:25 [Blaz]
Blaz has joined #rif
20:58:12 [AdrianP]
AdrianP has joined #rif
20:58:29 [sandro]
chris: how close are we to next WD of PRD?
20:58:38 [AdrianP]
scribenick AdrianP
20:58:48 [sandro]
csma: we have three items we're working on.....
20:59:16 [AdrianP]
Christian: close on the action side as next step
20:59:30 [AdrianP]
reasonable close on the semantics
21:01:17 [AdrianP]
csma: conflict resolution progress in next 2 weeks
21:01:43 [AdrianP]
csma: frozen version of PRD by October 28th
21:02:41 [AdrianP]
csma: review two weeks after in Nov.
21:03:01 [AdrianP]
axel: same schedule for DTB
21:04:32 [AdrianP]
adrian: action was to add the test cases to working draft
21:04:42 [AdrianP]
stella: need some feedback from the grouü
21:04:54 [AdrianP]
21:05:25 [AdrianP]
adrian same schedule for Test Cases; in two weeks
21:05:34 [AdrianP]
chris: two weeks from now we freeze
21:07:16 [AdrianP]
michael: FLD open issues are aggregates, modules, ..
21:07:59 [AdrianP]
michael: October, 28th for frozen version
21:09:00 [AdrianP]
chris: any open issues for BLD?
21:09:49 [AdrianP]
chris: nothing changes; some clarifications wrt entailment
21:10:03 [AdrianP]
michael: have to fix defitions
21:10:16 [AdrianP]
josb: how are changes documented?
21:11:15 [AdrianP]
harold: could we point to the diff from WIKI?
21:12:05 [sandro]
ACTION: MichaelKifer add "Changes Since Last Call" section to BLD
21:12:05 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - MichaelKifer
21:12:12 [sandro]
ACTION: Kifer add "Changes Since Last Call" section to BLD
21:12:12 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-606 - Add \"Changes Since Last Call\" section to BLD [on Michael Kifer - due 2008-10-04].
21:12:46 [sandro]
chris: pure grammar/spelling changes + clarificaitons + more detailed bugfix change.
21:14:32 [AdrianP]
sandro: new section "change log"
21:14:51 [Harold]
After: 10 Appendix: RIF Media Type Registration
21:15:07 [Harold]
10 Appendix: change log
21:15:08 [AdrianP]
jos: SWC; fixed an error
21:15:10 [sandro]
ACTION: Jos to add change log to SWC
21:15:10 [trackbot]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Jos
21:15:10 [trackbot]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jdebruij2, jderoo)
21:15:16 [sandro]
ACTION: Josb to add change log to SWC
21:15:16 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-607 - Add change log to SWC [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2008-10-04].
21:15:27 [AdrianP]
jos: end of October as deadline for SWC
21:15:40 [Harold]
11 Appendix: Changes since Last Call
21:16:17 [sandro]
Chris: CR?
21:17:00 [AdrianP]
chris: candidate recommendation Nov. 14th
21:20:07 [AdrianP]
Sandro: DTB has to CR at the same time
21:20:19 [AxelPolleres]
negative guards were introduced for modeling if-then-else behavior in terms of "type-checking", which you can no longer do really if you restrict the domain for negative guards.
21:20:50 [AdrianP]
Sandro: we need to get DTB to last call before BLD CR
21:21:03 [AxelPolleres]
... so, basically, before restricting the intended domain for neg guards, I'd rather drop them entirely.
21:21:31 [AdrianP]
Sandro: ... maybe "ongoing last call for DTB" will work
21:21:58 [AdrianP]
Chris: Core?
21:22:13 [DaveReynolds]
Axel - an example would be the OWL RL rules, for literal values need type checking rules which need to negative guards but only over primitive datatypes
21:23:12 [AxelPolleres]
Dave - you don't need "real" negation semantics there is what you say?
21:23:18 [josb]
Also the embedding of OWL DLP combinations requires the negative guards with the current semantics
21:23:19 [AdrianP]
Chris: UCR?
21:23:20 [josb]
21:23:31 [AdrianP]
Chris: Same schedule for UCR as for other documents
21:23:42 [AdrianP]
Chris: next f2f
21:23:53 [AdrianP]
csma: December in Portland?
21:24:08 [josb]
w/o "real" negative guards, I don't think OWL DLP combinations can be embedded
21:24:34 [AdrianP]
chris: January Portland?
21:25:34 [sandro]
ACTION: Gary to tell Sandro what dates work for F2F12.
21:25:34 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-608 - Tell Sandro what dates work for F2F12. [on Gary Hallmark - due 2008-10-04].
21:25:36 [AdrianP]
Gary: will send possible dates
21:25:46 [AdrianP]
Chris: Core?
21:25:54 [AxelPolleres]
... yup jos, what I tried to say was: restricting the domain doesn't seem to let us end up in something very useful, does it?
21:25:57 [Harold]
21:25:58 [sandro]
topic: Core
21:25:59 [AdrianP]
Harold: sent extract from Monday telecon
21:26:11 [josb]
not so useful, it seems
21:27:36 [AdrianP]
Harold: discussions from this telecon need to be discussed furhter
21:29:02 [AdrianP]
Chris: Can we close issues?
21:29:39 [AdrianP]
mk: equality can not be on data types
21:31:59 [AdrianP]
christian: does unrestricted equality make sense in PRD?
21:32:38 [AdrianP]
´PROPOSED: Core should keep unrestricted equality and external function and predicate calls in rule bodies and keep external functions calls in rule heads.
21:33:35 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Core should keep unrestricted equality and external function and predicate calls in rule conditions and keep external functions calls in rule conclusions
21:33:53 [sandro]
csma: +0
21:34:16 [sandro]
RESOLVED: Core should keep unrestricted equality and external function and predicate calls in rule conditions and keep external functions calls in rule conclusions
21:34:42 [sandro]
21:35:36 [csma]
My question was whether we will still want unrestricted equality in conditions in PRD, if we are allowed externally specified equality...
21:35:57 [sandro]
(That closes issue-76, Equality in Core)
21:36:20 [sandro]
ACTION: Chris to close issue-76
21:36:20 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-609 - Close issue-76 [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-10-04].
21:36:49 [sandro]
PROPOSED: close issue-71, given we're retaining equality in conditions in core
21:37:00 [sandro]
RESOLVED: close issue-71, given we're retaining equality in conditions in core
21:37:03 [AdrianP]
chris: closed issue 71 and 76
21:37:04 [sandro]
ACTION: Chris to close issue-71
21:37:04 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-610 - Close issue-71 [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-10-04].
21:38:13 [Zakim]
21:38:28 [AdrianP]
PROPOSED: Core should keep both frames/objects and (positional-argument) predicates/relations.
21:39:34 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Close issue-74, saying Core will have both Predicates (with positional arguments) and Frames (no comment on having membership)
21:39:43 [sandro]
RESOLVED: Close issue-74, saying Core will have both Predicates (with positional arguments) and Frames (no comment on having membership)
21:40:04 [sandro]
action: chris closs issue-74
21:40:04 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-611 - Closs issue-74 [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-10-04].
21:40:31 [AdrianP]
PROPOSED: Core should keep disjunction in rule bodies, only if this is permitted by the solution to issue-70.
21:40:35 [AdrianP]
Jos: Why?
21:40:56 [sandro]
Jos: Why have disjunction in rule bodies?
21:41:00 [AdrianP]
Gary: disj. often used in business rules
21:41:07 [sandro]
Gary: It's frequently used in real rules.
21:41:41 [AdrianP]
Gary: counterproposal is two write a huge number of rules
21:42:01 [AdrianP]
Jos: now you put the burden on rule engine vendors without disjunction
21:42:25 [AdrianP]
csma: question is should Core be the largest common subset between PR and logic languages
21:42:38 [AdrianP]
dave: we agreed smaller then that
21:43:11 [AdrianP]
csma: burden is always somewhere
21:43:33 [AdrianP]
csma: nothing changes for PRD
21:43:58 [AdrianP]
Gary: can interchange between logic and production language using Core
21:45:04 [AxelPolleres]
I reckon there is not necesarily a blowup, you can introduce new symbols in the rewriting of discjuntions, the rewriting would not be exponential.
21:45:11 [AdrianP]
Sandro: you don't want to send out a huge RIF document if you can avoid it
21:45:20 [AxelPolleres]
21:45:43 [AdrianP]
Paul: whole idea is interchange
21:46:02 [AdrianP]
csma: I do not go through Core, but use directly PRD
21:46:14 [AdrianP]
csma: question is are there users which make use of Core
21:46:48 [AdrianP]
gary: would like to represent rules in smallest possible dialect
21:47:01 [AdrianP]
chris: sounds like we can not close issue today
21:47:23 [AdrianP]
harold: was consensus in the task force
21:48:04 [AdrianP]
gary: my system can handle disjunctions with bound variables
21:48:26 [AdrianP]
axel: some people need to rewrite in non disjunctive rules
21:49:43 [AdrianP]
jos: the way it is phrased there are no restrictions on the disjunction
21:49:55 [AdrianP]
csma: it's related to issue 70
21:50:45 [AdrianP]
jos: nesting of disjunction is the problem
21:51:01 [AdrianP]
michael: you either get it or have to explode by your self
21:51:19 [AdrianP]
gary: better in the translator than having large rule sets
21:51:29 [AdrianP]
chris: postpone it to next telecon
21:52:34 [AdrianP]
chris: other business?
21:52:38 [Harold]
21:52:47 [AdrianP]
dave: take a look at OWL RL
21:53:15 [AdrianP]
axel: have to look into our guard solutions
21:55:01 [AdrianP]
dave: translate into RIF Core rules, we support different datatypes,
21:56:27 [AdrianP]
dave: we can implement translator from OWL RL into RIF
21:56:56 [sandro]
21:58:22 [cke]
cke has joined #rif
21:58:44 [AdrianP]
22:04:22 [Zakim]
22:04:24 [Zakim]
Team_(rif)13:34Z has ended
22:04:26 [Zakim]
Attendees were BobMoore, Meeting_Room
23:35:22 [PaulVincent]
PaulVincent has joined #rif