14:33:56 RRSAgent has joined #rif 14:33:56 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/05/05-rif-irc 14:34:21 zakim, this will be rif 14:34:21 ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 26 minutes 14:34:25 Chair: Chris Welty 14:35:14 Meeting: RIF Telecon Cinco di mayo 2009 14:35:43 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009May/0026.html 14:35:56 ChrisW has changed the topic to: Cinco di mayo RIF telecon agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009May/0026.html 14:36:15 rrsagent, make minutes 14:36:15 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/05/05-rif-minutes.html ChrisW 14:36:25 agenda+ Admin 14:36:30 agenda+ Liason 14:36:37 agenda+ Action Review 14:36:51 agenda+ Review LastCallPlan 14:37:03 agenda+ Lists 14:37:10 agenda+ AOB 14:37:20 rrsagent, make logs public 14:37:39 Regrets: DaveReynolds 14:37:51 rrsagent, make minutes 14:37:51 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/05/05-rif-minutes.html ChrisW 14:55:45 Harold has joined #rif 14:59:38 csma has joined #rif 15:00:40 StellaMitchell has joined #rif 15:00:57 AdrianP has joined #rif 15:01:06 SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started 15:01:07 LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif 15:01:15 +Christian 15:01:31 zakim, christian is me 15:01:31 +csma; got it 15:01:42 zakim, mute me 15:01:42 sorry, csma, muting is not permitted when only one person is present 15:01:53 +Stella_Mitchell 15:01:54 -csma 15:01:56 +csma 15:02:02 +[IBM] 15:02:08 DaveReynolds has joined #rif 15:02:13 zakim, ibm is temporarily me 15:02:13 +ChrisW; got it 15:02:20 zakim, mute me 15:02:20 csma should now be muted 15:02:29 +Hassan_Ait-Kaci 15:02:38 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:02:38 On the phone I see csma (muted), Stella_Mitchell, ChrisW, Hassan_Ait-Kaci 15:02:40 +??P45 15:03:28 +Leora_Morgenstern 15:04:00 + +1.503.533.aaaa 15:04:13 josb has joined #rif 15:04:14 + +43.158.801.1aabb 15:04:33 Gary_Hallmark has joined #rif 15:05:00 +Sandro 15:05:02 Scribe: LeoraMorgenstern 15:05:15 +[NRCC] 15:05:22 zakim, next item 15:05:22 agendum 1. "Admin" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:05:53 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Apr/att-0165/28-rif-minutes.html 15:06:00 PROPOSED: Accept APril 28 minutes 15:06:05 +1 15:06:07 RESOLVED: Accept APril 28 minutes 15:06:13 q+ 15:06:44 Jos: Would like to speak briefly on built-ins in DTB that rely on XPATH definitions. 15:06:51 ack jos 15:06:51 Jos: numerics, and possibly others 15:06:54 +??P17 15:06:58 zakim, next item 15:06:58 agendum 2. "Liason" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:07:23 cke has joined #RIF 15:07:26 Chris: Everything is fine with the OWL working group 15:07:41 zakim, ??p17 is cke 15:07:41 +cke; got it 15:07:47 zakim, next item 15:07:47 agendum 2 was just opened, ChrisW 15:07:55 zakim, close item 2 15:07:55 agendum 2, Liason, closed 15:07:56 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 15:07:57 3. Action Review [from ChrisW] 15:07:57 zakim, next item 15:07:57 agendum 3. "Action Review" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:08:34 Action 802 on Harold: Done 15:08:34 Sorry, couldn't find user - 802 15:08:36 action-802: closed 15:08:36 ACTION-802 Update the xml syntax for generalized quanitifiers by may 7 notes added 15:08:36 If you meant to close ACTION-802, please use 'close ACTION-802' 15:08:43 +??P29 15:08:47 close action-802 15:08:47 ACTION-802 Update the xml syntax for generalized quanitifiers by may 7 closed 15:08:53 Zakim, ??P29 is me 15:08:53 +AdrianP; got it 15:09:32 done 15:09:34 close ACTION-801 15:09:34 ACTION-801 Update PRD presentatoin syntax closed 15:09:42 close ACTION-800 15:09:42 ACTION-800 Add PRD conformance clause closed 15:10:01 close ACTION-799 15:10:01 ACTION-799 Extend SWC with lists, with 1-to-1 and extensions as alternatives closed 15:10:15 close ACTION-798 15:10:15 ACTION-798 Write conformance section for SWC closed 15:10:29 close ACTION-797 15:10:29 ACTION-797 Update xml syntax of lists closed 15:10:46 close ACTION-793 15:10:46 ACTION-793 Write a core version of factorial closed 15:11:05 continue ACTION-792 15:11:36 both continued 15:12:22 Harold still working on action 780 15:12:35 763 is done 15:12:38 765 continued 15:12:48 zakim, unmute me 15:12:48 csma should no longer be muted 15:12:52 close ACTION-763 15:12:52 ACTION-763 Add lists to PRD. closed 15:12:58 zakim, mute me 15:12:58 csma should now be muted 15:13:16 762 continued 15:13:29 close ACTION-761 15:13:29 ACTION-761 Add the restriction on list in Core closed 15:13:43 close ACTION-758 15:13:43 ACTION-758 Update CORE to implement issue-99 and issue 100 closed 15:13:51 gary, I did 744, too 15:13:57 close ACTION-755 15:13:57 ACTION-755 Update xml schema syntax for import closed 15:14:26 close ACTION-749 15:14:26 ACTION-749 Draft E-S safety and make informative instead of at-risk, update conformance requirment closed 15:14:33 s/Harold still working on action 780/Harold still working on monolithic version before Gary's action 780/ 15:14:42 close ACTION-745 15:14:42 ACTION-745 Draft some text for BLD about consumers doing translations-to-Core when they can. closed 15:14:48 Harold: that is last sentence of intro 15:14:55 744 is done 15:14:57 (of BLD) 15:15:03 close ACTION-744 15:15:03 ACTION-744 Add text to PRD about how folks should get rid of do/assert when they can. closed 15:15:21 740 continued 15:15:27 close ACTION-738 15:15:27 ACTION-738 Add all boolean builtins closed 15:15:45 733 continued 15:15:54 708 continued 15:16:53 708 is moved to Stella (adding category to test cases: import rejection) 15:16:57 done 15:17:04 close ACTION-588 15:17:04 ACTION-588 Remove examples in 4.4 that we have no dialect for, and add comment to make that clear closed 15:17:46 564 continued 15:18:03 zakim, next item 15:18:03 agendum 4. "Review LastCallPlan" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:18:33 Chris: First step in Last Call Plan was to finish up all documents today. 15:18:46 Chris: Then internal reviewers could review it, and we could vote next week. 15:19:17 Harold: Dave recently did final edit; I only need to update XSD; reviewers can basically review it anyway. 15:19:31 Adrian: But Jos is revising safeness condition, and there is still some editing going on. 15:19:37 Jos: It's done, now. 15:19:56 Jos: rewrote normal safeness condition; strong safeness is now informative. 15:20:14 q+ 15:20:30 ack dave 15:20:54 Dave: email discussion on grand lists (check) would affect the syntax of Core. 15:20:57 q+ 15:21:08 ack jos 15:21:20 MichaelKifer has joined #rif 15:21:28 we should keep ground lists in Core 15:21:44 s/ground lists/grand lists/ 15:22:00 q+ 15:22:10 + +1.631.833.aacc 15:22:20 zakim, aacc is me 15:22:20 +MichaelKifer; got it 15:22:45 sandro: does not like the term ground lists; has several possible alternative terms 15:23:06 sandro: super-safe constructor list --- nobody sees reason for it. 15:23:19 I don't know the term "supersafe" - never heared of it 15:23:23 chris: can people review Core exclusive of list section? 15:23:42 I think "ground" is well defined in many logic programming text books 15:23:43 q? 15:24:31 changkai: ok, will review Core with the understanding that section on lists, and Harolds' changes to xml schema, may change 15:24:32 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 chris: BLD document is not affected by the lists issue 15:24:49 q- 15:24:52 Harold: yes, BLD is ready for review 15:24:54 yes 15:25:10 chris: How does SWC stand? 15:25:26 josb_ has joined #rif 15:25:39 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 jos: I did go through the OWL-2 specs 15:26:19 chris: what about DTB? Only thing left is the numeric paths, to be discussed today. 15:26:29 zakim, unmute me 15:26:29 csma should no longer be muted 15:26:30 chris: PRD. How does that stand? 15:27:07 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 csma: for DTB, there is also discussion about built-ins 15:27:46 zakim, mute me 15:27:46 csma should now be muted 15:27:48 csma: that still needs to be done 15:27:55 Chris: FLD 15:28:27 yeah, XSD went to CR. 15:28:38 Harold: I think it's ready for review; must check about new XSD spec, but this should not affect review. 15:28:43 (which bodes well for us depending on them) 15:29:08 yes 15:29:22 zakim, list agenda 15:29:22 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda: 15:29:23 4. Review LastCallPlan [from ChrisW] 15:29:23 5. Lists [from ChrisW] 15:29:24 6. AOB [from ChrisW] 15:29:35 zakim, next item 15:29:35 agendum 5. "Lists" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:29:39 q+ 15:29:50 Chris: Several things regarding lists: 15:29:58 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009May/0056.html 15:30:03 PREMISE: forall ?i ( 15:30:04 if ex:p(?i) then ex:q(List(ex:foo ?i)) 15:30:04 ) 15:30:04 ex:p(1) 15:30:04 CONCLUSION: ex:q(List(eg:foo 1)) 15:30:06 Sandro: I sent a test case illustrating the issues: 15:30:23 (cut and pasted above) 15:30:58 Sandro: should rule above be in Core? 15:31:03 q+ 15:31:18 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 ack sandro 15:31:39 Sandro: It's a syntax error because lists don't take variables. But this behavior is goofy. 15:32:02 ack sandro 15:32:04 Sandro: perhaps there should be a built-in for lists. 15:32:05 ack jos 15:32:16 josb: two different understandings of resolution at F2F. 15:32:45 List(ex:foo ?i) 15:32:50 jos: Sandro's understanding: safe lists in Core; others' understanding was that inside lit terms there can be no variables 15:33:02 s/list terms/lit terms/ 15:33:21 q? 15:33:24 yes, I added a restriction for ground lists, which are variable free 15:33:33 -Stella_Mitchell 15:34:10 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 +Stella_Mitchell 15:34:23 Sandro: no, this winds up not being allowed. 15:34:46 q+ 15:35:41 Chris: what happens if we go to the Core spec that Sandro wants? 15:36:29 Harold: we need both built-in and function symbol for construcdting lists 15:37:09 q? 15:37:10 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 actually non-ground lists are in Core: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core#Terms_of_RIF-Core 15:38:01 q? 15:38:04 ack jos 15:38:05 Jos - yes I was just looking at that 15:38:08 myemployees( List(John Mary Fred) ) 15:38:48 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 sandro: let's take the list constructor out of Core. Makes everything a lot simpler. 15:39:21 sandro: you would do it all externally 15:39:54 jos: how can you work with liss if they are not in the language? 15:40:03 s/lists/liss/ 15:40:25 jos: sounds very awkward 15:41:23 chris: can you explain again the objection? 15:41:33 jos: need to support constructed terms, need to support unification. 15:42:02 jos: this way you just consider lists as atomic and just pass them to externals which do the processing for you. 15:42:25 As it stands now, we can bind variables to ground lists in Core. 15:42:38 chris: lists got into Core, inherited downward from PRD. Would this affect PRD? 15:42:41 yes 15:43:06 gary: I don't see the difference between Core and PRD wrt the arguments Sandro is making. 15:43:15 PRD is not restricted to "ground" lists, as far as I know 15:43:18 chris: so, Gary, you would want a built-in, too? 15:43:37 Gary: The semantics of the builtin are fine, but the syntactic sugar of the List keyword is nice, yeah. 15:44:39 gary: I'd be okay with getting rid of the LIST keyword and having everything in exernals. 15:45:16 To me it seems awkward to have lists, but not be able to get the out, e.g., through querying 15:45:20 hassan: We have a need for collections, for aggregates, in PRD. Lists are one way of doing it. 15:45:24 zakim unmute me 15:45:25 s/the out/them out/ 15:45:41 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 zakim, unmute me 15:45:47 csma should no longer be muted 15:45:57 Lists are useful to provide a list of values: color in (red, blue, green, etc.) 15:45:59 zakim, mute me 15:45:59 csma should now be muted 15:46:08 chris: are we losing something we want, if we get rid of lists? 15:46:15 harold: yes. See above example. 15:46:19 hassan, te idea was to have indexable lists 15:46:53 Chris: remember, we didn't have lists a month ago. PRD wanted them, we added them to BLD. 15:47:40 Harold: use func:mklist 15:48:22 Harold: wants a built-in for lists. 15:48:28 New builtin mklist returns List terms. 15:49:17 candidate names: List and mklist .... drop List from syntax, but keep in Alphabet. 15:49:36 mklist( (2+3 mklist(a b) ) returns List( 5 List(a b)). 15:49:45 such a built-in constructor makes sense, since it can be used to creat RIF lists from "external" data values 15:50:13 no 15:50:22 not a built-in 15:52:26 harold: no open lists, just n-ary lists 15:52:33 mklist only has to think about closed lists, so no problem here. 15:53:27 q+ 15:53:32 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 '(a b c) 15:53:56 (list 'a 'b 'c) 15:54:40 sandro: yes, it is like that. 15:54:51 q+ 15:54:53 deciding whether to use the term or the built-in: isn't that something for the implementation? 15:55:04 ack me 15:55:27 safeness for external built-ins would automatically apply to mklist built-in 15:55:28 action: adrian to update mathematic syntax for Core to reflect restricted lists 15:55:28 Created ACTION-803 - Update mathematic syntax for Core to reflect restricted lists [on Adrian Paschke - due 2009-05-12]. 15:55:34 but it is not a constant 15:55:36 dave: call it something like "list constant" 15:55:42 and we would use only one PS for both? 15:55:54 List(a b c) is analogous to Quote( mklist(a b c) ) except we have no Quote. 15:56:35 q+ 15:56:36 action: sandro to add make-list to DTB 15:56:36 Created ACTION-804 - Add make-list to DTB [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-05-12]. 15:56:43 chris: sandro will add mklist (or actually make-list) 15:56:46 ack jos 15:56:55 sandro: csma, yeah, this naming issue only matters for people write in the presentation syntax. 15:57:13 jos: have to update safeness criteria with respect to this discussion. 15:59:05 ground lists are safe, they don't need bindings since they have no variables 15:59:50 ack csma 16:00:13 zakiim, mute me 16:00:26 csma: I heard failed lists should be out of Core? 16:00:37 I did not hear 16:00:38 Open lists (tailed lists) are not needed for any Core builtin etc. 16:00:41 16:00:41 s/tailed/failed/ 16:00:59 so you want them out of Core? 16:02:15 zakim, mute me 16:02:15 csma should now be muted 16:02:18 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 yes 16:02:55 q? 16:02:58 It has never been decided, nor discussed, that they were not in core 16:03:10 that's why i wanted to ascertain 16:03:18 chris: open lists ae not in Core; they are in PRD; the PRD folks can take them out if they want. 16:03:34 csma - yes they appear to NOT be in Core 16:03:46 q+ 16:03:51 ack jos 16:03:55 Open lists are not in PRD 16:04:08 sandro: 16:04:21 ok, i will remove them from prd, then 16:04:58 in this case, deep-equal becomes redundant 16:05:04 yes, jos 16:05:12 action: sandro make list membership builtins use rif:= 16:05:14 Created ACTION-805 - Make list membership builtins use rif:= [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-05-12]. 16:05:22 do we remove deep-equal? 16:05:45 action: sandro remove deep-eq 16:05:45 Created ACTION-806 - Remove deep-eq [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-05-12]. 16:07:07 D-sub-list as the image of I-list 16:07:35 I_list(Dind) is disjoint from the value spaces of all data types in DTS. 16:07:57 (http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#Semantic_Structures) 16:08:30 ((Search for 'injective' in the BLD page.)) 16:10:43 michael: will be defining and adding D-list 16:10:53 action: jos to update safeness for lists 16:10:53 Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - jos 16:10:53 Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jdebruij2, jderoo) 16:10:58 jos will update safeness for lists 16:10:59 action: kifer to add D-sub-list to BLD, with an anchor so List builtins can refer to it. 16:11:00 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 xml syntax for lists 16:11:19 jos: still have rdf-rif combination lists 16:11:55 sandro I have been convinced to with extension instead of 1-1 16:12:16 s/to go with/to with/ 16:13:27 q+ to ask about the xml syntax of lists 16:13:59 sandro: extension seems to be easier than 1-1. 16:14:11 sandro: that is, easier to implement 16:14:12 dave: extension of lesser of two evils. 16:14:25 s/is lesser/of lesser/ 16:14:39 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 josb: can always tweak conformance, so people don't have to comply with this. 16:17:17 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: yeah, don't allow rdf vocabulary in RIF.... that should work. 16:18:14 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 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 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 q+ 16:19:58 ack dave 16:20:13 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 sorry, my proposal actually doesn't work, because you can still access the RDF list construction using variables 16:24:50 sandro: so can we fall back to using conformance to say ... 16:26:11 jos: extension, with 1-1 being at-risk. 16:26:21 jos: no good way to handle this using conformance: can always manipulate the RDF lists to query .. 16:26:35 chris: which brings us back to where we were last week. 16:26:52 sandro: so, we're at extension semantics with 1-1 being at risk. 16:27:11 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 PROPOSED: RDF-RIF list semantics will be at least "extension", with 1-to-1 being 'at risk'. 16:28:28 +1 16:28:29 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#Common_RIF-RDF_Interpretations 16:28:31 +1 16:28:36 +1 16:28:40 +1 16:28:42 +1 16:28:49 +1 16:28:58 action: jos to make "1:1" for rdf:lists be at-risk 16:28:58 Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - jos 16:28:58 Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jdebruij2, jderoo) 16:29:01 RESOLVED: RDF-RIF list semantics will be at least "extension", with 1-to-1 being 'at risk'. 16:29:09 q? 16:29:10 xml syntax for lists in Core is TERM* ; should be TERM* 16:29:24 ok 16:29:24 propose: extend meeting by 10 mins 16:29:30 +1 16:29:32 chris: extending meeting by 10 mins. 16:29:34 resolved: extend meeting by 10 mins 16:29:35 ack csma 16:29:37 csma, you wanted to ask about the xml syntax of lists 16:30:29 q+ 16:30:50 ack sandro 16:30:57 q+ 16:31:07 sandro: case that you state, Christian, but also case of open lists. 16:31:17 I want TERM* 16:31:18 csma: I wrote of closed lists. 16:31:38 zakim, mute csma 16:31:38 csma should now be muted 16:31:42 sandro: okay with not having ordered tag 16:31:48 I prefer directly: TERM* 16:31:54 zakim, unmute csma 16:31:54 csma should no longer be muted 16:31:58 sandro: will have to do special processing for lists, anyway. 16:32:00