IRC log of rif on 2009-05-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:33:56 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
14:33:56 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:34:21 [ChrisW]
zakim, this will be rif
14:34:21 [Zakim]
ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 26 minutes
14:34:25 [ChrisW]
Chair: Chris Welty
14:35:14 [ChrisW]
Meeting: RIF Telecon Cinco di mayo 2009
14:35:43 [ChrisW]
14:35:56 [ChrisW]
ChrisW has changed the topic to: Cinco di mayo RIF telecon agenda
14:36:15 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
14:36:15 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
14:36:25 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Admin
14:36:30 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Liason
14:36:37 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Action Review
14:36:51 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Review LastCallPlan
14:37:03 [ChrisW]
agenda+ Lists
14:37:10 [ChrisW]
agenda+ AOB
14:37:20 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make logs public
14:37:39 [ChrisW]
Regrets: DaveReynolds
14:37:51 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
14:37:51 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
14:55:45 [Harold]
Harold has joined #rif
14:59:38 [csma]
csma has joined #rif
15:00:40 [StellaMitchell]
StellaMitchell has joined #rif
15:00:57 [AdrianP]
AdrianP has joined #rif
15:01:06 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started
15:01:07 [LeoraMorgenstern]
LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
15:01:15 [Zakim]
15:01:31 [csma]
zakim, christian is me
15:01:31 [Zakim]
+csma; got it
15:01:42 [csma]
zakim, mute me
15:01:42 [Zakim]
sorry, csma, muting is not permitted when only one person is present
15:01:53 [Zakim]
15:01:54 [Zakim]
15:01:56 [Zakim]
15:02:02 [Zakim]
15:02:08 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
15:02:13 [ChrisW]
zakim, ibm is temporarily me
15:02:13 [Zakim]
+ChrisW; got it
15:02:20 [csma]
zakim, mute me
15:02:20 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
15:02:29 [Zakim]
15:02:38 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:02:38 [Zakim]
On the phone I see csma (muted), Stella_Mitchell, ChrisW, Hassan_Ait-Kaci
15:02:40 [Zakim]
15:03:28 [Zakim]
15:04:00 [Zakim]
+ +1.503.533.aaaa
15:04:13 [josb]
josb has joined #rif
15:04:14 [Zakim]
+ +43.158.801.1aabb
15:04:33 [Gary_Hallmark]
Gary_Hallmark has joined #rif
15:05:00 [Zakim]
15:05:02 [ChrisW]
Scribe: LeoraMorgenstern
15:05:15 [Zakim]
15:05:22 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:05:22 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "Admin" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:05:53 [ChrisW]
15:06:00 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: Accept APril 28 minutes
15:06:05 [csma]
15:06:07 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: Accept APril 28 minutes
15:06:13 [josb]
15:06:44 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Jos: Would like to speak briefly on built-ins in DTB that rely on XPATH definitions.
15:06:51 [ChrisW]
ack jos
15:06:51 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Jos: numerics, and possibly others
15:06:54 [Zakim]
15:06:58 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:06:58 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "Liason" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:07:23 [cke]
cke has joined #RIF
15:07:26 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Everything is fine with the OWL working group
15:07:41 [ChrisW]
zakim, ??p17 is cke
15:07:41 [Zakim]
+cke; got it
15:07:47 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:07:47 [Zakim]
agendum 2 was just opened, ChrisW
15:07:55 [ChrisW]
zakim, close item 2
15:07:55 [Zakim]
agendum 2, Liason, closed
15:07:56 [Zakim]
I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:07:57 [Zakim]
3. Action Review [from ChrisW]
15:07:57 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:07:57 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "Action Review" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:08:34 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Action 802 on Harold: Done
15:08:34 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - 802
15:08:36 [ChrisW]
action-802: closed
15:08:36 [trackbot]
ACTION-802 Update the xml syntax for generalized quanitifiers by may 7 notes added
15:08:36 [trackbot]
If you meant to close ACTION-802, please use 'close ACTION-802'
15:08:43 [Zakim]
15:08:47 [ChrisW]
close action-802
15:08:47 [trackbot]
ACTION-802 Update the xml syntax for generalized quanitifiers by may 7 closed
15:08:53 [AdrianP]
Zakim, ??P29 is me
15:08:53 [Zakim]
+AdrianP; got it
15:09:32 [csma]
15:09:34 [LeoraMorgenstern]
close ACTION-801
15:09:34 [trackbot]
ACTION-801 Update PRD presentatoin syntax closed
15:09:42 [LeoraMorgenstern]
close ACTION-800
15:09:42 [trackbot]
ACTION-800 Add PRD conformance clause closed
15:10:01 [LeoraMorgenstern]
close ACTION-799
15:10:01 [trackbot]
ACTION-799 Extend SWC with lists, with 1-to-1 and extensions as alternatives closed
15:10:15 [LeoraMorgenstern]
close ACTION-798
15:10:15 [trackbot]
ACTION-798 Write conformance section for SWC closed
15:10:29 [LeoraMorgenstern]
close ACTION-797
15:10:29 [trackbot]
ACTION-797 Update xml syntax of lists closed
15:10:46 [LeoraMorgenstern]
close ACTION-793
15:10:46 [trackbot]
ACTION-793 Write a core version of factorial closed
15:11:05 [LeoraMorgenstern]
continue ACTION-792
15:11:36 [csma]
both continued
15:12:22 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Harold still working on action 780
15:12:35 [csma]
763 is done
15:12:38 [LeoraMorgenstern]
765 continued
15:12:48 [csma]
zakim, unmute me
15:12:48 [Zakim]
csma should no longer be muted
15:12:52 [LeoraMorgenstern]
close ACTION-763
15:12:52 [trackbot]
ACTION-763 Add lists to PRD. closed
15:12:58 [csma]
zakim, mute me
15:12:58 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
15:13:16 [LeoraMorgenstern]
762 continued
15:13:29 [LeoraMorgenstern]
close ACTION-761
15:13:29 [trackbot]
ACTION-761 Add the restriction on list in Core closed
15:13:43 [LeoraMorgenstern]
close ACTION-758
15:13:43 [trackbot]
ACTION-758 Update CORE to implement issue-99 and issue 100 closed
15:13:51 [csma]
gary, I did 744, too
15:13:57 [LeoraMorgenstern]
close ACTION-755
15:13:57 [trackbot]
ACTION-755 Update xml schema syntax for import closed
15:14:26 [LeoraMorgenstern]
close ACTION-749
15:14:26 [trackbot]
ACTION-749 Draft E-S safety and make informative instead of at-risk, update conformance requirment closed
15:14:33 [Harold]
s/Harold still working on action 780/Harold still working on monolithic version before Gary's action 780/
15:14:42 [LeoraMorgenstern]
close ACTION-745
15:14:42 [trackbot]
ACTION-745 Draft some text for BLD about consumers doing translations-to-Core when they can. closed
15:14:48 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Harold: that is last sentence of intro
15:14:55 [csma]
744 is done
15:14:57 [Harold]
(of BLD)
15:15:03 [LeoraMorgenstern]
close ACTION-744
15:15:03 [trackbot]
ACTION-744 Add text to PRD about how folks should get rid of do/assert when they can. closed
15:15:21 [LeoraMorgenstern]
740 continued
15:15:27 [LeoraMorgenstern]
close ACTION-738
15:15:27 [trackbot]
ACTION-738 Add all boolean builtins closed
15:15:45 [LeoraMorgenstern]
733 continued
15:15:54 [LeoraMorgenstern]
708 continued
15:16:53 [LeoraMorgenstern]
708 is moved to Stella (adding category to test cases: import rejection)
15:16:57 [LeoraMorgenstern]
15:17:04 [LeoraMorgenstern]
close ACTION-588
15:17:04 [trackbot]
ACTION-588 Remove examples in 4.4 that we have no dialect for, and add comment to make that clear closed
15:17:46 [LeoraMorgenstern]
564 continued
15:18:03 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:18:03 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "Review LastCallPlan" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:18:33 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: First step in Last Call Plan was to finish up all documents today.
15:18:46 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Then internal reviewers could review it, and we could vote next week.
15:19:17 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Harold: Dave recently did final edit; I only need to update XSD; reviewers can basically review it anyway.
15:19:31 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Adrian: But Jos is revising safeness condition, and there is still some editing going on.
15:19:37 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Jos: It's done, now.
15:19:56 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Jos: rewrote normal safeness condition; strong safeness is now informative.
15:20:14 [DaveReynolds]
15:20:30 [ChrisW]
ack dave
15:20:54 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Dave: email discussion on grand lists (check) would affect the syntax of Core.
15:20:57 [josb]
15:21:08 [ChrisW]
ack jos
15:21:20 [MichaelKifer]
MichaelKifer has joined #rif
15:21:28 [AdrianP]
we should keep ground lists in Core
15:21:44 [LeoraMorgenstern]
s/ground lists/grand lists/
15:22:00 [csma]
15:22:10 [Zakim]
+ +1.631.833.aacc
15:22:20 [MichaelKifer]
zakim, aacc is me
15:22:20 [Zakim]
+MichaelKifer; got it
15:22:45 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: does not like the term ground lists; has several possible alternative terms
15:23:06 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: super-safe constructor list --- nobody sees reason for it.
15:23:19 [AdrianP]
I don't know the term "supersafe" - never heared of it
15:23:23 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: can people review Core exclusive of list section?
15:23:42 [AdrianP]
I think "ground" is well defined in many logic programming text books
15:23:43 [csma]
15:24:31 [LeoraMorgenstern]
changkai: ok, will review Core with the understanding that section on lists, and Harolds' changes to xml schema, may change
15:24:32 [sandro]
AdrianP, the reason supersafe doesn't exist in literature is because it's not a useful thing to do. None-the-less, it's what you've spec'd in core.
15:24:44 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: BLD document is not affected by the lists issue
15:24:49 [csma]
15:24:52 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Harold: yes, BLD is ready for review
15:24:54 [csma]
15:25:10 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: How does SWC stand?
15:25:26 [josb_]
josb_ has joined #rif
15:25:39 [LeoraMorgenstern]
jos: I did everything, except for two alternative semantics for connecting lists, plus did not completely go through proofs in appendix, But these are not crucial
15:25:52 [LeoraMorgenstern]
jos: I did go through the OWL-2 specs
15:26:19 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: what about DTB? Only thing left is the numeric paths, to be discussed today.
15:26:29 [csma]
zakim, unmute me
15:26:29 [Zakim]
csma should no longer be muted
15:26:30 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: PRD. How does that stand?
15:27:07 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: PRD is ready to be reviewed. I still plan to move sections on built-ins and conformance in front of XML, and do some other minor editorial changes.
15:27:40 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: for DTB, there is also discussion about built-ins
15:27:46 [csma]
zakim, mute me
15:27:46 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
15:27:48 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: that still needs to be done
15:27:55 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: FLD
15:28:27 [sandro]
yeah, XSD went to CR.
15:28:38 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Harold: I think it's ready for review; must check about new XSD spec, but this should not affect review.
15:28:43 [sandro]
(which bodes well for us depending on them)
15:29:08 [StellaMitchell]
15:29:22 [ChrisW]
zakim, list agenda
15:29:22 [Zakim]
I see 3 items remaining on the agenda:
15:29:23 [Zakim]
4. Review LastCallPlan [from ChrisW]
15:29:23 [Zakim]
5. Lists [from ChrisW]
15:29:24 [Zakim]
6. AOB [from ChrisW]
15:29:35 [ChrisW]
zakim, next item
15:29:35 [Zakim]
agendum 5. "Lists" taken up [from ChrisW]
15:29:39 [sandro]
15:29:50 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: Several things regarding lists:
15:29:58 [sandro]
15:30:03 [sandro]
PREMISE: forall ?i (
15:30:04 [sandro]
if ex:p(?i) then ex:q(List(ex:foo ?i))
15:30:04 [sandro]
15:30:04 [sandro]
15:30:04 [sandro]
CONCLUSION: ex:q(List(eg:foo 1))
15:30:06 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Sandro: I sent a test case illustrating the issues:
15:30:23 [LeoraMorgenstern]
(cut and pasted above)
15:30:58 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Sandro: should rule above be in Core?
15:31:03 [josb]
15:31:18 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Sandro: as I understand the current Core specs, that would be a syntax error, and I don't think it should be.
15:31:20 [csma]
ack sandro
15:31:39 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Sandro: It's a syntax error because lists don't take variables. But this behavior is goofy.
15:32:02 [ChrisW]
ack sandro
15:32:04 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Sandro: perhaps there should be a built-in for lists.
15:32:05 [ChrisW]
ack jos
15:32:16 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: two different understandings of resolution at F2F.
15:32:45 [josb]
List(ex:foo ?i)
15:32:50 [LeoraMorgenstern]
jos: Sandro's understanding: safe lists in Core; others' understanding was that inside lit terms there can be no variables
15:33:02 [LeoraMorgenstern]
s/list terms/lit terms/
15:33:21 [sandro]
15:33:24 [AdrianP]
yes, I added a restriction for ground lists, which are variable free
15:33:33 [Zakim]
15:34:10 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Harold: it's not a restriction; it's just that if there are no variables in the list, it's automatically safe.
15:34:19 [Zakim]
15:34:23 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Sandro: no, this winds up not being allowed.
15:34:46 [josb]
15:35:41 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: what happens if we go to the Core spec that Sandro wants?
15:36:29 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Harold: we need both built-in and function symbol for construcdting lists
15:37:09 [josb]
15:37:10 [AdrianP]
we probably need a kind of external list built-in anyway, e.g. to map Java lists to RIF lists (at least from a practical point of view in PRD)
15:37:49 [josb]
actually non-ground lists are in Core:
15:38:01 [ChrisW]
15:38:04 [ChrisW]
ack jos
15:38:05 [DaveReynolds]
Jos - yes I was just looking at that
15:38:08 [Harold]
myemployees( List(John Mary Fred) )
15:38:48 [LeoraMorgenstern]
jos: to correct what I said earlier: I said variables not allowed in lists, but that's not in the formal spec of the language. BNF doesn't agree with the informative spec.
15:39:09 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: let's take the list constructor out of Core. Makes everything a lot simpler.
15:39:21 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: you would do it all externally
15:39:54 [LeoraMorgenstern]
jos: how can you work with liss if they are not in the language?
15:40:03 [LeoraMorgenstern]
15:40:25 [LeoraMorgenstern]
jos: sounds very awkward
15:41:23 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: can you explain again the objection?
15:41:33 [LeoraMorgenstern]
jos: need to support constructed terms, need to support unification.
15:42:02 [LeoraMorgenstern]
jos: this way you just consider lists as atomic and just pass them to externals which do the processing for you.
15:42:25 [Harold]
As it stands now, we can bind variables to ground lists in Core.
15:42:38 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: lists got into Core, inherited downward from PRD. Would this affect PRD?
15:42:41 [csma]
15:43:06 [LeoraMorgenstern]
gary: I don't see the difference between Core and PRD wrt the arguments Sandro is making.
15:43:15 [csma]
PRD is not restricted to "ground" lists, as far as I know
15:43:18 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: so, Gary, you would want a built-in, too?
15:43:37 [sandro]
Gary: The semantics of the builtin are fine, but the syntactic sugar of the List keyword is nice, yeah.
15:44:39 [LeoraMorgenstern]
gary: I'd be okay with getting rid of the LIST keyword and having everything in exernals.
15:45:16 [josb]
To me it seems awkward to have lists, but not be able to get the out, e.g., through querying
15:45:20 [LeoraMorgenstern]
hassan: We have a need for collections, for aggregates, in PRD. Lists are one way of doing it.
15:45:24 [csma]
zakim unmute me
15:45:25 [josb]
s/the out/them out/
15:45:41 [Harold]
In Core, with the stored fact ouremployees( List( List(Peter Mark Lisa) List(John Mary Fred) ) ), we can query ouremployees( List( ?X ?Y )) getting bindings ?X = List(Peter Mark Lisa) and ?Y = List(John Mary Fred).
15:45:47 [csma]
zakim, unmute me
15:45:47 [Zakim]
csma should no longer be muted
15:45:57 [cke]
Lists are useful to provide a list of values: color in (red, blue, green, etc.)
15:45:59 [csma]
zakim, mute me
15:45:59 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
15:46:08 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: are we losing something we want, if we get rid of lists?
15:46:15 [LeoraMorgenstern]
harold: yes. See above example.
15:46:19 [csma]
hassan, te idea was to have indexable lists
15:46:53 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Chris: remember, we didn't have lists a month ago. PRD wanted them, we added them to BLD.
15:47:40 [sandro]
Harold: use func:mklist
15:48:22 [LeoraMorgenstern]
Harold: wants a built-in for lists.
15:48:28 [Harold]
New builtin mklist returns List terms.
15:49:17 [sandro]
candidate names: List and mklist .... drop List from syntax, but keep in Alphabet.
15:49:36 [Harold]
mklist( (2+3 mklist(a b) ) returns List( 5 List(a b)).
15:49:45 [AdrianP]
such a built-in constructor makes sense, since it can be used to creat RIF lists from "external" data values
15:50:13 [josb]
15:50:22 [josb]
not a built-in
15:52:26 [LeoraMorgenstern]
harold: no open lists, just n-ary lists
15:52:33 [sandro]
mklist only has to think about closed lists, so no problem here.
15:53:27 [DaveReynolds]
15:53:32 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: "list" can stay on the syntax: maybe we should have a more arcane term so users will be steered away from it (since its functionality is so limited)
15:53:51 [ChrisW]
'(a b c)
15:53:56 [ChrisW]
(list 'a 'b 'c)
15:54:40 [sandro]
sandro: yes, it is like that.
15:54:51 [josb]
15:54:53 [csma]
deciding whether to use the term or the built-in: isn't that something for the implementation?
15:55:04 [DaveReynolds]
ack me
15:55:27 [AdrianP]
safeness for external built-ins would automatically apply to mklist built-in
15:55:28 [ChrisW]
action: adrian to update mathematic syntax for Core to reflect restricted lists
15:55:28 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-803 - Update mathematic syntax for Core to reflect restricted lists [on Adrian Paschke - due 2009-05-12].
15:55:34 [MichaelKifer]
but it is not a constant
15:55:36 [LeoraMorgenstern]
dave: call it something like "list constant"
15:55:42 [csma]
and we would use only one PS for both?
15:55:54 [Harold]
List(a b c) is analogous to Quote( mklist(a b c) ) except we have no Quote.
15:56:35 [csma]
15:56:36 [ChrisW]
action: sandro to add make-list to DTB
15:56:36 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-804 - Add make-list to DTB [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-05-12].
15:56:43 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: sandro will add mklist (or actually make-list)
15:56:46 [ChrisW]
ack jos
15:56:55 [sandro]
sandro: csma, yeah, this naming issue only matters for people write in the presentation syntax.
15:57:13 [LeoraMorgenstern]
jos: have to update safeness criteria with respect to this discussion.
15:59:05 [AdrianP]
ground lists are safe, they don't need bindings since they have no variables
15:59:50 [csma]
ack csma
16:00:13 [csma]
zakiim, mute me
16:00:26 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: I heard failed lists should be out of Core?
16:00:37 [csma]
I did not hear
16:00:38 [Harold]
Open lists (tailed lists) are not needed for any Core builtin etc.
16:00:41 [LeoraMorgenstern]
<didn't hear response, and not sure htat I heard the question>
16:00:41 [ChrisW]
16:00:59 [csma]
so you want them out of Core?
16:02:15 [csma]
zakim, mute me
16:02:15 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
16:02:18 [Harold]
Open lists are only useful when there is a variable in the tail (after the "|"), but there are no variables in Core lists.
16:02:47 [josb]
16:02:55 [ChrisW]
16:02:58 [csma]
It has never been decided, nor discussed, that they were not in core
16:03:10 [csma]
that's why i wanted to ascertain
16:03:18 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: open lists ae not in Core; they are in PRD; the PRD folks can take them out if they want.
16:03:34 [ChrisW]
csma - yes they appear to NOT be in Core
16:03:46 [josb]
16:03:51 [ChrisW]
ack jos
16:03:55 [cke]
Open lists are not in PRD
16:04:08 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: <get this from Sandro>
16:04:21 [csma]
ok, i will remove them from prd, then
16:04:58 [josb]
in this case, deep-equal becomes redundant
16:05:04 [sandro]
yes, jos
16:05:12 [ChrisW]
action: sandro make list membership builtins use rif:=
16:05:14 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-805 - Make list membership builtins use rif:= [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-05-12].
16:05:22 [josb]
do we remove deep-equal?
16:05:45 [ChrisW]
action: sandro remove deep-eq
16:05:45 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-806 - Remove deep-eq [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-05-12].
16:07:07 [sandro]
D-sub-list as the image of I-list
16:07:35 [Harold]
I_list(Dind) is disjoint from the value spaces of all data types in DTS.
16:07:57 [Harold]
16:08:30 [Harold]
((Search for 'injective' in the BLD page.))
16:10:43 [LeoraMorgenstern]
michael: will be defining and adding D-list
16:10:53 [ChrisW]
action: jos to update safeness for lists
16:10:53 [trackbot]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - jos
16:10:53 [trackbot]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jdebruij2, jderoo)
16:10:58 [LeoraMorgenstern]
jos will update safeness for lists
16:10:59 [sandro]
action: kifer to add D-sub-list to BLD, with an anchor so List builtins can refer to it.
16:11:00 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-807 - Add D-sub-list to BLD, with an anchor so List builtins can refer to it. [on Michael Kifer - due 2009-05-12].
16:11:02 [csma]
xml syntax for lists
16:11:19 [LeoraMorgenstern]
jos: still have rdf-rif combination lists
16:11:55 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro I have been convinced to with extension instead of 1-1
16:12:16 [LeoraMorgenstern]
s/to go with/to with/
16:13:27 [csma]
q+ to ask about the xml syntax of lists
16:13:59 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: extension seems to be easier than 1-1.
16:14:11 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: that is, easier to implement
16:14:12 [sandro]
dave: extension of lesser of two evils.
16:14:25 [LeoraMorgenstern]
s/is lesser/of lesser/
16:14:39 [sandro]
dave: in either case I'm going to differ from the standard to some degree. easier to add something to standard, vs fall short of standard.
16:15:47 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: can always tweak conformance, so people don't have to comply with this.
16:17:17 [LeoraMorgenstern]
josb: would not be able to have RDF FIRST and LAST in rule bodies. Would wind up being hte same as querying.
16:17:29 [sandro]
sandro: yeah, don't allow rdf vocabulary in RIF.... that should work.
16:18:14 [sandro]
sandro: if you're querying an RDF graph that has RIF lists in it, you have to convert them to RDF lists.
16:18:26 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: it's okay to require supporting this. If you query an RDF graph with RIF list, shoud be able to get RDF list.
16:19:05 [josb]
PROPOSED: RDF-RIF lists semantics will be 1-to-1, but in conformance we only require supporting combinations in which rdf:first, rdf:rest, and rdf:nil are not used in the rules
16:19:31 [DaveReynolds]
16:19:58 [ChrisW]
ack dave
16:20:13 [sandro]
jos: So you only have to think about rdf list vocabulary in going to RIF and from RIF to RDF, but NOT during RIF rule operation.
16:21:31 [josb]
sorry, my proposal actually doesn't work, because you can still access the RDF list construction using variables
16:24:50 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: so can we fall back to using conformance to say ...
16:26:11 [sandro]
jos: extension, with 1-1 being at-risk.
16:26:21 [LeoraMorgenstern]
jos: no good way to handle this using conformance: can always manipulate the RDF lists to query ..
16:26:35 [LeoraMorgenstern]
chris: which brings us back to where we were last week.
16:26:52 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: so, we're at extension semantics with 1-1 being at risk.
16:27:11 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: idea is: 1-1 would be nice, but we don't yet know how to implement it. Maybe one day, we will.
16:28:18 [sandro]
PROPOSED: RDF-RIF list semantics will be at least "extension", with 1-to-1 being 'at risk'.
16:28:28 [sandro]
16:28:29 [josb]
16:28:31 [ChrisW]
16:28:36 [josb]
16:28:40 [DaveReynolds]
16:28:42 [MichaelKifer]
16:28:49 [AdrianP]
16:28:58 [ChrisW]
action: jos to make "1:1" for rdf:lists be at-risk
16:28:58 [trackbot]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - jos
16:28:58 [trackbot]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jdebruij2, jderoo)
16:29:01 [sandro]
RESOLVED: RDF-RIF list semantics will be at least "extension", with 1-to-1 being 'at risk'.
16:29:09 [ChrisW]
16:29:10 [csma]
xml syntax for lists in Core is <List> TERM* </List>; should be <List><some_role_tag rif:ordered="yes"> TERM* </some_role_tag ></List>
16:29:24 [josb]
16:29:24 [ChrisW]
propose: extend meeting by 10 mins
16:29:30 [csma]
16:29:32 [sandro]
chris: extending meeting by 10 mins.
16:29:34 [ChrisW]
resolved: extend meeting by 10 mins
16:29:35 [csma]
ack csma
16:29:37 [Zakim]
csma, you wanted to ask about the xml syntax of lists
16:30:29 [sandro]
16:30:50 [ChrisW]
ack sandro
16:30:57 [Harold]
16:31:07 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: case that you state, Christian, but also case of open lists.
16:31:17 [csma]
I want <List><some_role_tag rif:ordered="yes"> TERM* </some_role_tag ></List>
16:31:18 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: I wrote of closed lists.
16:31:38 [ChrisW]
zakim, mute csma
16:31:38 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
16:31:42 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: okay with not having ordered tag
16:31:48 [cke]
I prefer directly: <List> TERM* </List>
16:31:54 [ChrisW]
zakim, unmute csma
16:31:54 [Zakim]
csma should no longer be muted
16:31:58 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: will have to do special processing for lists, anyway.
16:32:00 [ChrisW]
zakim, mute csma
16:32:00 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
16:32:05 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: for open lists, that's different.
16:32:05 [csma]
Open lists have <List> TERM* <rest> ... </rest></List>
16:32:10 [ChrisW]
zakim, unmute csma
16:32:10 [Zakim]
csma should no longer be muted
16:32:16 [AdrianP]
yes, with open lists we would have roles like first and rest,
16:32:25 [cke]
order can be an attribute of <List>
16:32:51 [csma]
zakim, mute me
16:32:51 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
16:32:51 [ChrisW]
zakim, mute csma
16:32:52 [Zakim]
csma was already muted, ChrisW
16:33:13 [ChrisW]
16:33:16 [ChrisW]
ack harold
16:33:22 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma: why are lists different?
16:33:27 [LeoraMorgenstern]
sandro: because they have multiple values
16:33:32 [csma]
they are not the only ones
16:34:00 [csma]
another example is the argument list in expr
16:34:15 [csma]
or atoms
16:34:46 [josb]
lists are terms
16:34:51 [csma]
16:34:58 [csma]
but i do not really care
16:35:09 [csma]
like: puke!
16:35:10 [josb]
To me they smell like constructed terms :)
16:35:10 [AdrianP]
yes, agree with Sandro - lists are like datatypes
16:35:19 [ChrisW]
oh, "yuck"
16:35:23 [sandro]
16:35:24 [csma]
16:36:10 [LeoraMorgenstern]
harold: open lists reflect vertical bar of prolog syntax: good for pattern matching.
16:36:36 [csma]
csma and many french people use it
16:36:50 [ChrisW]
add me to that closed list
16:37:23 [csma]
16:38:04 [LeoraMorgenstern]
csma can live with the aesthetically displeasing aspects of this construcdt.
16:38:13 [LeoraMorgenstern]
16:38:23 [Harold]
16:38:38 [josb]
I understood we were not going to merge it with SWC
16:38:44 [sandro]
sandro: FPWD, for WG note....
16:38:47 [csma]
zakim, unmute me
16:38:47 [Zakim]
csma should no longer be muted
16:39:01 [ChrisW]
PROPOSED: make OWLRL document a WG note
16:39:07 [Zakim]
16:39:27 [csma]
zakim, mute me
16:39:27 [Zakim]
csma should now be muted
16:39:58 [csma]
ok, so no rif:ordered="yes" in <List>?
16:40:12 [cke]
we need the rif:ordered attribute, but it's optional and default to false
16:40:24 [ChrisW]
RESOLVED: make OWLRL document a WG note
16:40:40 [csma]
16:40:49 [Zakim]
16:40:50 [LeoraMorgenstern]
meeting adjourned.
16:40:51 [Zakim]
16:40:52 [Zakim]
- +1.503.533.aaaa
16:40:53 [Zakim]
16:40:53 [Zakim]
16:40:55 [Zakim]
16:40:56 [Zakim]
16:40:57 [ChrisW]
zakim, list attendees
16:40:57 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been csma, Stella_Mitchell, ChrisW, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, DaveReynolds, Leora_Morgenstern, +1.503.533.aaaa, +43.158.801.1aabb, josb, Sandro, [NRCC],
16:41:00 [Zakim]
... cke, AdrianP, +1.631.833.aacc, MichaelKifer
16:41:05 [ChrisW]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:41:05 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ChrisW
16:41:09 [cke]
csma, do we have PRD call?
16:41:23 [MichaelKifer]
MichaelKifer has left #rif
16:41:30 [Zakim]
16:41:33 [csma]
cke: yes
16:41:38 [csma]
but short
16:41:45 [Zakim]
16:41:46 [csma]
zakim, unmute me
16:41:47 [Zakim]
csma should no longer be muted
16:42:11 [cke]
ok for me
16:42:15 [ChrisW]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:42:15 [Zakim]
On the phone I see csma, ChrisW, Sandro
16:44:43 [Zakim]
16:44:44 [Zakim]
16:44:44 [Zakim]
16:44:46 [Zakim]
SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
16:44:48 [Zakim]
Attendees were csma, Stella_Mitchell, ChrisW, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, DaveReynolds, Leora_Morgenstern, +1.503.533.aaaa, +43.158.801.1aabb, josb, Sandro, [NRCC], cke, AdrianP,
16:44:51 [Zakim]
... +1.631.833.aacc, MichaelKifer
16:59:48 [csma]
csma has left #rif
18:08:38 [GaryHallmark]
GaryHallmark has joined #rif