IRC log of rif on 2009-01-27

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:58:08 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
15:58:08 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:58:12 [ChrisW]
zakim, this will be rif
15:58:12 [Zakim]
ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
15:58:21 [ChrisW]
Chair: Chris Welty
15:58:32 [ChrisW]
Meeting: RIF Telecon 27-Jan-2009
15:58:47 [ChrisW]
15:58:58 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has changed the topic to: 27 Jan RIF Telecon Agenda
15:59:46 [AdrianP]
AdrianP has joined #rif
16:00:32 [ChrisW]
Hi Adrian, can you scribe today?
16:00:50 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
16:00:51 [Zakim]
16:00:55 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:00:55 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
16:01:03 [AdrianP]
Zakim, ??P53 is me
16:01:07 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make logs public
16:01:14 [Zakim]
+AdrianP; got it
16:01:26 [StellaMitchell]
StellaMitchell has joined #rif
16:01:32 [Zakim]
16:01:34 [Zakim]
16:01:36 [Zakim]
16:02:15 [ChrisW]
zakim, ibm is temporarily me
16:02:28 [Zakim]
16:02:31 [AxelPolleres]
AxelPolleres has joined #rif
16:02:37 [Zakim]
16:02:39 [LeoraMorgenstern]
LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
16:02:48 [Zakim]
+ChrisW; got it
16:02:54 [ChrisW]
Scribe: Harold
16:03:00 [ChrisW]
scribenick: Harold
16:03:08 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is here?
16:03:43 [Zakim]
On the phone I see AdrianP, [NRCC], ChrisW, Stella_Mitchell
16:04:00 [AxelPolleres]
16:04:00 [ChrisW]
zakim, nrcc is temporarily Harold
16:04:17 [ChrisW]
16:04:25 [Zakim]
16:04:35 [Zakim]
On IRC I see LeoraMorgenstern, AxelPolleres, StellaMitchell, AdrianP, RRSAgent, Harold, ChrisW, sandro, trackbot, Zakim
16:04:56 [Zakim]
+Harold; got it
16:05:08 [Zakim]
16:05:14 [Zakim]
16:05:14 [Hassan]
Hassan has joined #rif
16:05:32 [AxelPolleres]
(I can scribe, if needed. feeling guilty for not having done quite some time)
16:05:49 [ChrisW]
16:05:54 [Harold]
Im scribe today.
16:06:00 [Gary_Hallmark]
Gary_Hallmark has joined #rif
16:06:00 [ChrisW]
16:06:07 [Zakim]
16:07:13 [Harold]
Re F2F13:
16:07:30 [Zakim]
16:07:39 [Harold]
Chris: Will be last f2f, if things go according to plan.
16:08:27 [AdrianP]
would be great if we can fix dates as early as possible
16:08:54 [Harold]
... Most people who responded so far are ok if F2F13 will be in the US.
16:09:54 [Harold]
Axel: Ideally closer to the AC meeting (Apr 24?).
16:10:17 [AxelPolleres]
no, march 24th, that's why i said, I guess that's unrealistic.
16:11:23 [Harold]
Axel: Perhaps near Madrid, collocated with WWW2009?
16:11:39 [Harold]
... could arrange a meeting room in Madrid.
16:11:52 [AxelPolleres]
16:11:58 [AxelPolleres]
will check back
16:12:18 [Harold]
Re Liasison:
16:12:19 [ChrisW]
TOPIC: Liason
16:13:41 [Harold]
Chris: Split OWL comment into two.
16:14:35 [Harold]
... Try to move fwd with OWL WG collaboration: Axel, Jos would be key.
16:14:48 [Harold]
Axel: Yes.
16:15:03 [ChrisW]
TOPIC: Public COmments
16:15:22 [Harold]
Chris: Seems done?
16:15:45 [ChrisW]
TOPIC: Action Review
16:15:50 [AxelPolleres]
Sandro, when is the next OWL f2f? maybe some overlap or adjacent meeting would make sense?
16:17:11 [Harold]
Gary: Still working on Core as specialization of PRD.
16:17:59 [Hassan]
continued - will work on it this Feb.
16:18:39 [ChrisW]
TOPIC: Issue-50
16:20:31 [AdrianP]
there was a discussion on the last F2F about using meta data to indicate multi-valued
16:20:38 [AdrianP]
16:21:01 [Harold]
Harold: Terminologically, let's separate the more specific "metadata" and more general "annotation".
16:21:26 [Harold]
... Ok with no semantic import on annotations.
16:22:02 [AxelPolleres]
adrian, would such metadata be "per frame" or "per ruleset"?
16:22:02 [Harold]
Adrian: Maybe metadata for multi-valued frames.
16:22:14 [Harold]
... proposed by Michael Kifer?
16:22:35 [Harold]
Chris: Cardinality with metadata?
16:22:44 [Michael_Kifer]
Michael_Kifer has joined #rif
16:23:04 [Harold]
Sandro: Was just in response to PRD discussion.
16:23:27 [Zakim]
16:23:38 [AdrianP]
yes, agree too
16:24:10 [Harold]
Michael: fine.
16:25:03 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: Core, BLD, PRD will not have semantic metadata; removing metadata from a ruleset will not change the entailments - closing ISSUE-50
16:25:07 [AdrianP]
16:25:27 [Harold]
16:25:33 [Gary]
16:25:33 [Michael_Kifer]
16:25:35 [Hassan]
16:25:36 [ChrisW]
Sandro: +1
16:25:40 [AxelPolleres]
16:25:40 [ChrisW]
16:25:56 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: Core, BLD, PRD will not have semantic metadata; removing metadata from a ruleset will not change the entailments - closing ISSUE-50
16:26:22 [ChrisW]
action: Chris to close issue-50
16:26:22 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-699 - Close issue-50 [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-02-03].
16:26:32 [ChrisW]
16:26:46 [ChrisW]
Ambiguity in PS
16:27:57 [Harold]
Hassan: As far as I can remember, all remaining ambiguities are mild.
16:28:55 [Harold]
... First, canonical PS has no serious ambiguity.
16:29:53 [Harold]
... Then, Abridged PS, which is even less binding, may have more (e.g. dash as minus vs. in identifiers)
16:29:59 [AdrianP]
yes, abridge syntax as compact representation, e.g., 2 - 1 (numbers) vs. "2" - "1" (text)
16:30:35 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-83 - the existing presentation syntax ambiguities are resolvable
16:30:36 [Harold]
Chris: Let's deal with ambiguities in Abridged PS as they arise.
16:30:43 [AdrianP]
16:30:45 [Hassan]
16:30:51 [Harold]
16:30:51 [AxelPolleres]
16:31:08 [ChrisW]
16:31:22 [Michael_Kifer]
16:31:22 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-83 - the existing presentation syntax ambiguities are resolvable
16:31:31 [ChrisW]
16:33:08 [Harold]
Chris: Dave had suggested a meta-predicate for equality.
16:33:28 [Harold]
Axel: For normal equality, we have all we need.
16:33:47 [Harold]
... For negated, we may need what Dave suggested.
16:33:56 [ChrisW]
pred:isLiteralEqual(?l1 ?l2)
16:34:40 [ChrisW]
pred:isLiteralNotEqual(?l1 ?l2)
16:34:42 [Harold]
Chris: Is this false if I1 or I2 are not a literal?
16:34:46 [Harold]
Axel: Yes.
16:36:40 [Harold]
Chris: What does it solve?
16:39:30 [Harold]
Harold: Would isLiteralEqual's mapping to false of both "wrong arguments" and "non equal arguments" be acceptable to RIF users (and other communities)?
16:40:03 [Harold]
Axel: Perhaps parameterize.
16:40:31 [Harold]
Chris: maybe type as first arg?
16:41:01 [Harold]
Axel: Def of built-ins could depend on underlying datatypes.
16:41:28 [AxelPolleres]
16:41:42 [AxelPolleres]
isLiteral, isNotLiteral ?
16:42:15 [Harold]
Hassan: Either parameterized type args or already instantiated in built-in identifier.
16:42:26 [Harold]
... (from Jos)
16:42:43 [Harold]
Axel: fair enough.
16:43:01 [Harold]
Chris: There are equal preds for all datatypes?
16:43:23 [Harold]
Axel: Yes, even though not named completely uniformly as such.
16:44:07 [Harold]
Chris: The issue is for numeric-equal if args are of different type.
16:44:59 [Harold]
s/ different type/ different numeric types/
16:45:17 [Harold]
Sandro: XPath tells you how to do the type promotion.
16:46:03 [Harold]
Chris: Yes, e.g. equal for integer and double.
16:47:04 [Harold]
Axel: Idea was to back up each datatype with an equal and a notequal predicate.
16:47:15 [Harold]
... We could have done differently.
16:47:16 [csma]
csma has joined #rif
16:47:27 [Harold]
... Will draft something.
16:47:32 [Harold]
... For email discussion.
16:48:07 [AxelPolleres]
... will draft something on both the generic guards and the generic equals/notequals predicate.
16:48:13 [Zakim]
16:48:23 [csma]
zakim, ??P) is me
16:48:23 [Zakim]
sorry, csma, I do not recognize a party named '??P)'
16:48:24 [ChrisW]
action: axel to report on possibility of closing literal-not-equal issue-80
16:48:24 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-700 - Report on possibility of closing literal-not-equal issue-80 [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-02-03].
16:48:36 [csma]
zakim, ??P0 is me
16:48:36 [Zakim]
+csma; got it
16:48:44 [csma]
zakim, mute me
16:48:44 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
16:49:10 [Harold]
Postpone to next week's telecon ISSUE-81 [10] (Support for additional OWL-RL data types)
16:49:29 [Harold]
ISSUE-81 [10] (Support for additional OWL-RL data types)
16:50:34 [ChrisW]
TOPIC: Test cases
16:50:43 [Harold]
16:50:51 [ChrisW]
Test case:
16:53:50 [Harold]
16:54:01 [Harold]
UNITERM ::= Const '(' (TERM* | (Name '->' TERM)*) ')'
16:55:46 [Michael_Kifer]
maybe call negative syntax examples "syntax errors"?
16:56:01 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: Accept test case
16:56:04 [csma]
+1 to look them all first
16:57:10 [csma]
16:57:29 [AxelPolleres]
What about this one: _p(>color->"green")
16:57:32 [AxelPolleres]
16:57:39 [csma]
ak csma
16:57:55 [csma]
ack csma
16:58:20 [csma]
zakim, mute me
16:58:20 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
16:58:47 [AxelPolleres]
or this one:
16:59:05 [AxelPolleres]
16:59:12 [AxelPolleres]
17:00:00 [Harold]
Stella: Arg names are defined 'negatively': every UNICODESTRING that's not a constant is ok.
17:01:02 [Harold]
Chris: Hassan, does this meet your expectation?
17:01:22 [Harold]
Hassan: Would have been easier to quote them, but it's ok.
17:01:49 [Harold]
Michael: Wasn't this a different case?
17:01:59 [Harold]
Hassan: Right.
17:02:17 [Harold]
Michael: Maybe find a universal solution, maybe single quotes.
17:02:33 [Harold]
Hassan: yes.
17:03:14 [Harold]
Sandro: A valid name could have a space inside, so need single quotes.
17:03:30 [Harold]
Chris: Why not double quotes?
17:04:40 [AxelPolleres]
again the two ugly examples, which seem awkward to parse: _p(">>color->"green") _p(http://ex"ampl""ple#color->"green")
17:05:13 [Harold]
s/Chris: Why not double quotes?/... Why not double quotes?/
17:05:30 [Harold]
Hassan: Keep the grammar as is. Fine.
17:05:44 [Harold]
Michael: Looks a bit strange.
17:06:01 [Hassan]
No - not keep the grammar as is - modify it to allow for STRING there
17:06:05 [AxelPolleres]
ncnames only?
17:06:15 [Harold]
Chris: If 'strangeness' bothers you then the whole named-arg thing should bother you.
17:06:19 [AxelPolleres]
how bout that?
17:07:21 [Harold]
Hassan: Grammar should allow string as arg name.
17:07:32 [AxelPolleres]
we could say: ncnames OR (singlequote uc-strings singlequote)
17:07:33 [Harold]
Chris: Examples?
17:08:01 [Harold]
Axel: Any issues with single quotes?
17:08:29 [Harold]
Chris: Would be (even) harder to read.
17:08:48 [Harold]
Sandro: Bad idea to use up single quotes for corner case.
17:09:00 [Harold]
Michael: agree with Sandro.
17:09:13 [StellaMitchell]
can you just limit it to alphanumeric characters, no spaces, etc
17:09:15 [StellaMitchell]
something like that
17:09:20 [Gary]
of course, we could remove NAUs...
17:09:29 [AxelPolleres]
so, you say: Name ::= UNICODESTRING
17:09:49 [Harold]
Hassan: Suggest to postpone until we finish use cases.
17:10:06 [Harold]
... So can look for solutions for all issues.
17:10:54 [Hassan]
I agree
17:11:31 [Harold]
Chris: Before we decide test case we need to decide syntax.
17:11:45 [Harold]
... No on against stings?
17:11:56 [Harold]
Sandro/Axel: Well, we.
17:12:01 [AxelPolleres]
17:12:21 [Harold]
17:12:57 [Harold]
s/No on/No one/
17:13:38 [AxelPolleres]
17:14:38 [Harold]
Chris: Would those in favor of named args be fine with specializing Name ::= UNICODESTRING with Name ::= CIDENTIFIER.
17:14:48 [Harold]
... Or just use quotes.
17:15:19 [Harold]
Harold: Yes.
17:15:31 [Harold]
(specialized names)
17:16:19 [AxelPolleres]
oh my, full URIs only, no abbreviations?
17:16:26 [Harold]
Chris: Which ones are URIs and which ones only look like URIs?
17:16:27 [ChrisW]
17:16:37 [LeoraMorgenstern]
which is the choice that doesn't allow abbreviations?
17:16:54 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Something that forces you to do full URIs
17:17:20 [StellaMitchell]
+1 ncnames
17:17:28 [AxelPolleres]
+1 NCNames
17:17:28 [Harold]
+1 (to specialized names, which we have anyway, albeit defined 'negatively')
17:17:40 [Gary]
_p is an ncname
17:17:52 [LeoraMorgenstern]
I'm still confused about what an nc name is.
17:18:00 [Hassan]
0 - not sure at this point
17:18:01 [LeoraMorgenstern]
I looked at Axel's link, but need more time.
17:18:10 [AxelPolleres]
-1 to negatively defined (see weird corner cases above)
17:18:36 [Michael_Kifer]
I prefer quotation
17:19:16 [Hassan]
I agree with Axel's proposal (NCNAME or else quoted)
17:19:23 [StellaMitchell]
Gary raised a problem with ncname?
17:19:53 [Harold]
Gary, this is interesting but they can occur elsehwere in an expression, too.
17:20:31 [Harold]
_p(_p->1) might be a problem.
17:20:42 [ChrisW]
straw poll: is this worth redoing last call?
17:20:45 [StellaMitchell]
so, Harold, it would be ncname that is not a valid constant?
17:20:48 [AxelPolleres]
Sandro, why would (ncname or quotetdstring) not work for you, except taste?
17:20:57 [AdrianP]
17:20:57 [Harold]
17:20:59 [LeoraMorgenstern]
17:21:02 [Hassan]
17:21:04 [Michael_Kifer]
17:21:19 [sandro]
sandro has joined #rif
17:21:33 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Given that it's already 12:21, let's accept the 2 test cases we have looked at,
17:21:33 [ChrisW]
17:21:39 [LeoraMorgenstern]
rather than looking at all test cases first.
17:22:03 [sandro]
am I finally connected?
17:22:18 [Michael_Kifer]
+1 accept case 2
17:22:29 [LeoraMorgenstern]
+1 accept case 1 and accept case 2
17:22:38 [Hassan]
+1 accept both
17:22:55 [ChrisW]'
17:23:14 [Harold]
Stella, some parsers might not notice that both _p's in _p(_p->1) have the same name.
17:23:14 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris, the link doesn't work for me
17:23:23 [sandro]
link worked for me.
17:23:42 [LeoraMorgenstern]
17:23:46 [Harold]
17:23:56 [ChrisW]
17:23:57 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Right, I have the case; just pointing out that clicking on that link isn't working for me.
17:24:35 [AxelPolleres]
3 and 4 are problematic with respect to what we discussed now.
17:24:35 [sandro]
17:25:07 [AxelPolleres]
_p(">>color->"green") _p(http://ex"ampl""ple#color->"green") are similar to 4.
17:25:25 [Hassan]
Stella, Harold, Gary: solution is to tokenize _foo as as Local no matter what and reject _p as named-argument
17:26:07 [AxelPolleres]
17:26:35 [csma]
ack axel
17:26:52 [Harold]
Sandro: Just editorial change, since onely changing non-normative PS, not changing normative XML.
17:27:42 [ChrisW]
17:27:52 [AxelPolleres]
17:27:54 [LeoraMorgenstern]
17:27:54 [ChrisW]
17:27:55 [Harold]
17:27:58 [Hassan]
17:27:58 [sandro]
sandro: My preference is for a solution where argument names can be (ncname|string) -- users get to pick whether to have quotes.
17:27:59 [sandro]
17:28:09 [Michael_Kifer]
17:28:13 [Gary]
17:28:14 [StellaMitchell]
17:28:22 [ChrisW]
17:28:29 [sandro]
17:28:31 [LeoraMorgenstern]
17:28:33 [Harold]
17:28:38 [Gary]
17:28:40 [ChrisW]
17:28:41 [AdrianP]
17:28:42 [Hassan]
17:28:43 [AxelPolleres]
17:28:44 [csma]
17:28:54 [csma]
17:28:54 [ChrisW]
17:29:09 [ChrisW]
17:29:36 [csma]
17:29:53 [csma]
yes to accept the action
17:30:03 [ChrisW]
action: csma to put this on agenda (syntax discussion on NAU names)
17:30:04 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-701 - Put this on agenda (syntax discussion on NAU names) [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-02-03].
17:30:04 [sandro]
note that ncnames are allowed to contain minus signs.
17:30:08 [Harold]
Chris: put on agenda for next week Sandro's My preference is for a solution where argument names can be (ncname|string).
17:30:16 [Zakim]
17:30:18 [Hassan]
+1 to adjourn
17:30:22 [ChrisW]
zakim, list attendees
17:30:22 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been AdrianP, Stella_Mitchell, ChrisW, LeoraMorgenstern, Harold, Sandro, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, GaryHallmark, Michael_Kifer, csma
17:30:25 [Zakim]
17:30:25 [Zakim]
17:30:27 [Zakim]
17:30:27 [Zakim]
17:30:28 [Zakim]
17:30:29 [Zakim]
17:30:34 [ChrisW]
Regrets: DaveReynolds PaulVincent JosDeBruijn
17:30:41 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:30:41 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
17:31:19 [csma]
zakim unmute me
17:31:19 [Zakim]
17:31:26 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
17:31:26 [Zakim]
On the phone I see ChrisW, Sandro, csma (muted)
17:31:37 [ChrisW]
ack csma
17:33:05 [Zakim]
17:33:08 [Zakim]
17:33:10 [Zakim]
17:33:11 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
17:33:13 [Zakim]
Attendees were AdrianP, Stella_Mitchell, ChrisW, LeoraMorgenstern, Harold, Sandro, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, GaryHallmark, Michael_Kifer, csma
17:57:50 [csma]
csma has left #rif
18:02:44 [Gary_Hallmark]
Gary_Hallmark has joined #rif
19:35:50 [sandro]
sandro has joined #rif