RIF Telecon 7-Oct-08 -- 07 Oct 2008

<csma> <Zakim> -Hassan

<csma> scribe: Changhai Ke

<ChrisW> scribe: ChanghaiKe

<csma> scribenick: ChanghaiKe

Admin

We get started

Accept minutes from last week and week ago

<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Sep/att-0206/2008-09-23-minutes-revised.html

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: accept minutes of Sept 23 telecon

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept minutes of Sept 23 telecon

<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Oct/att-0003/20080930-rif-minutes.html

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: accept minutes of Sept 30 telecon

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept minutes of Sept 30 telecon

Any agenda amendment?

all right

Liason

Public comments

In wiki, answers to public comments, in good shape

Comment priod closed, is there any comment or discussion?

Action Review

For Gary, deadline will be 13/10

<ChrisW> ACTION: csma to put f2f12 on agenda next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-rif-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-613 - Put f2f12 on agenda next week [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2008-10-14].

where can I find the list of actions currently under review?

<DaveReynolds> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/open

<LeoraMorgenstern> disconnected, but will reconnect in a minute

Action 588 status

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 588

Actions: 583 & 580

Not here

583 and 580 are ongoing discussions

<Gary> action 591 is continued...

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 591

<ChrisW> ACTION: leora to start discussion on what test cases we need [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-rif-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-614 - Start discussion on what test cases we need [on Leora Morgenstern - due 2008-10-14].

Action 576 is closed

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 576

<Hassan> yes

<scribe> ACTION: 564 to update due date to end oct [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-rif-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 564

<sandro> ChanghaiKe, you don't need to be recording these action details -- Christian is using the web interface to do it.

<sandro> (or at least he said he was.)

OK, thanks.

<StuartTaylor> sorry I'm here

<StuartTaylor> phone doesn't seem to work

<csma> yes, I am doing it

<StuartTaylor> yes, I'll talk to Jeff about the test cases

Publication plans

Plan for most of them. Have frozen version by 3rd week oct. working group reviews for weeks

<scribe> New draft BLD

<StuartTaylor> Hassan, I think that you have my phone identifier

What about core? Are the issues actually blocking the publication? We can publish without solving all the issues.

BLD is too large for rule engines

Publish a working draft next month?

<csma> dave, harold: yes

<Gary> we don't take Columbus day off

<StuartTaylor> csma is +49 the country code, or something else?

<csma> @stuart: yes, it is

<DaveReynolds> OK for me

<LeoraMorgenstern> IBM does not give off for Columbus Day

<Gary> monday is fine w/ me

are core people avalable for next monday, 13/10?

Yes for Gary

and some others

<csma> First week of Nov for next version of PRD

<csma> 04/11.

<csma> Corrected: 07/11

This will be the second draft of PRD

Do we maintain weekly meeting the week of BRF end oct?

<ChrisW> ACTION: csma to decide if we will cancel Oct 28th telecon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-rif-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-615 - Decide if we will cancel Oct 28th telecon [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2008-10-14].

<csma> Ok, action 615 is done: we do not have a telecon on Oct 28th

OWL2-RL

<DaveReynolds> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWLRL

<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Sep/0138.html

pushed by oracle. Implementable in core quite easily

<DaveReynolds> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWLRL#Datatypes_supported

<mkifer> sorry, have to disconnect - we have a fire drill

We do not support some data types

<sandro> DaveReynolds: I'm not sure about float & double. I don't remember where we are. They don't support double.

<Harold> "datatypes which differs from that supported by RIF" looks like a DTB issue more than a Core issue.

<sandro> DaveReynolds: They support many subtypes that we don't bother with. And they have "real" rather than double, and datetime, and the binary blob types.

List of data types: any objection to add data types to DTB?

<sandro> rdfs:Literal

<sandro> why we need these data types?

<ChrisW> ACTION: jos to draft comment to OWL WG on the datatypes we don't support [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-rif-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - jos

<trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jdebruij2, jderoo)

<sandro> ACTION: josb to draft comment to OWL WG on the datatypes we don't support [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-rif-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-616 - Draft comment to OWL WG on the datatypes we don't support [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2008-10-14].

<Harold> Our question to the OWL WG might focus owl:real, which seems most unusual for an ontology language.

<DaveReynolds> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWLRL#Datatype_rules_with_extended_builtins

<ChrisW> ACTION: chris to open an issue on extending DTB with Dave's extended builtins (http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWLRL#Datatype_rules_with_extended_builtins) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-rif-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-617 - Open an issue on extending DTB with Dave's extended builtins (http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/OWLRL#Datatype_rules_with_extended_builtins) [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-10-14].

<ChrisW> action chris to open issue on extended OWL2RL datatypes

<trackbot> Created ACTION-618 - Open issue on extended OWL2RL datatypes [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-10-14].

PRD

Proposed resolutions for PRD

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: Add "New" construct with Gary's proposed syntax (�New� (Var �#�)? Const) and semantics to represent the creation of new frame objects in then-part of PRD rules; not excluding extending it later with the use of constructors once we resolve how to call "methods".

<Gary> I think Dave had some concerns about some new-like thing maybe should be in CORE

<csma> proposed amendment. Propose not to resolve the exact syntax.

<csma> Gary's proposed syntax will be just for example, keep some room for syntax

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: Add "New" construct with e.g Gary's proposed semantics to represent the creation of new frame objects in then-part of PRD rules; not excluding extending it later with the use of constructors once we resolve how to call "methods".

<csma> for "do", we do not exclude using it for other statements, what's the reason

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: Add "New" construct with Gary's proposed semantics to represent the creation of new frame objects in then-part of PRD rules; not excluding extending it later with the use of constructors once we resolve how to call "methods".

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: Add "New" construct with Gary's proposed semantics to represent the creation of new frame objects in then-part of PRD rules; not excluding extending it later with the use of constructors once we resolve how to call "methods".

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: Add "Do" construct with Gary's proposed syntax (�Do� Var* �(� ACTION+ �)�) and semantics to represent the declaration of local variables for binding to New frames in the then-part of PRD rules ; not excluding that later resolutions might extend the use of local variables in the action part.

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: Add "Do" construct with Gary's proposed semantics to represent the declaration of local variables for binding to New frames in the then-part of PRD rules ; not excluding that later resolutions might extend the use of local variables in the action part.

<ChrisW> i prefer "Let"

<ChrisW> Do has a "loop"y connotation to me

<csma> do(action*)

<csma> bind(var* pattern*)

<csma> do(bind action*)

<Gary> Do ?var (action+) like Exists ?var (forumla)

<Harold> Bind(var* And/seq(action+)) or Exists(var* And/seq(action+))

It's not a formula, we cannot use exists

<Harold> Instead do(bind action*) use bind(var* And/seq(action+))

<csma> PROPOSED: Add a construct with Gary's proposed semantics to represent the declaration of local variables for binding to New frames in the then-part of PRD rules ; not excluding that later resolutions might extend the use of local variables in the action part.

<Harold> bind(var* do(action+)), except for names.

<Harold> E.g. uppercase Bind and Do or a name better than Do.

Any objection to this?

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: Extend "Retract" construct with Gary's proposed syntax (�Retract(� [Atom|Frame|TERM] �)�) and semantics to add represent the removal of a frame object in then-part of PRD rules, that is, to represent the removal of an object from the instances of its class as well as all the frames with that object in the object position.

<csma> RESOLVED: Add a construct with Gary's proposed semantics to represent the declaration of local variables for binding to New frames in the then-part of PRD rules ; not excluding that later resolutions might extend the use of local variables in the action part.

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: Extend "Retract" construct with Gary's semantics to add represent the removal of a frame object in then-part of PRD rules, that is, to represent the removal of an object from the instances of its class as well as all the frames with that object in the object position.

I agree with this

<csma> PROPOSED: Extend "Retract" construct with Gary's semantics to represent the removal of a frame object in then-part of PRD rules, that is, to represent the removal of an object from the instances of its class as well as all the frames with that object in the object position.

<csma> RESOLVED: Extend "Retract" construct with Gary's semantics to represent the removal of a frame object in then-part of PRD rules, that is, to represent the removal of an object from the instances of its class as well as all the frames with that object in the object position.