See also: IRC log
<ChrisW> sorry about that, telecom problems
<ChrisW> joining
<ChrisW> Scribe: AxelPolleres
<scribe> scribe: Axel Polleres
<sandro> scribenick: AxelPolleres
<ChrisW> July 21 minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Jul/att-0045/21-rif-minutes.html
<ChrisW> PROPOSED: accept minutes of July 21 telecon
<ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept minutes of July 21 telecon
<ChrisW> July 28 minuntes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Jul/att-0047/28-July-2009-rif-minutes.html
<ChrisW> PROPOSED: accept minutes of July 28 telecon
<ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept minutes of July 28 telecon
ChrisW: agenda amendmends?
ChrisW:
ChrisW: Liaison with SPARQL?
Axel: FPWD features and
rationale, we'd be still happy for feedback
... technical FPWDs first versions not to be expected before
end of Sep.
Sandro: OWL doesn't need
rdf:PlainLiteral functions.
... at the moment.
... OWL hung up on some XSD issue at the moment, but may not
want to wait for us.
... not sure how much time we have.
ChrisW: What prevents OWL to
implement those functions?
... Axel: those functions back up the facets, IMO
Sandro: we made two functions at
risk.
... length() and compare()
Axel: yes these are strictly speaking redundant wrt. the resp. string functions.
ChrisW: seems ridiculous to hold
up just for these straightforward functions. they don't seem to
be a challenge.
... back-and-forth to strings etc obviously needed, and
rdf:Plainliteral is the right place.
sandro: strong opinions about "at risk" functions?
axel: no strong opinion
ChrisW: leave them in.
<sandro> PROPOSED: RIF considers rdf-plain-literal to be ready for PR. The features-at-risk should be left in, and we do not believe implementation reports are necessary, given the simplicity of the spec.
+1
<sandro> +1
<ChrisW> +1
<mdean> +1
<johnhall> +1
<AdrianP> +1
<DaveReynolds> 0 (overloaded functions would be cleaner but not worth the work)
<sandro> (I agree, Dave)
<sandro> RESOLVED: RIF considers rdf-plain-literal to be ready for PR. The features-at-risk should be left in, and we do not believe implementation reports are necessary, given the simplicity of the spec.
ChrisW: anything else todo for rdf:plainLiteral/OWL?
<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Implementations
ACTION-899: done?
<trackbot> ACTION-899 Look for a template for implementation reports notes added
<ChrisW> action-899: complete
<trackbot> ACTION-899 Look for a template for implementation reports notes added
<ChrisW> action-899: done
<trackbot> ACTION-899 Look for a template for implementation reports notes added
<ChrisW> action-899: closed
<trackbot> ACTION-899 Look for a template for implementation reports notes added
<trackbot> If you meant to close ACTION-899, please use 'close ACTION-899'
<ChrisW> close action-899
<trackbot> ACTION-899 Look for a template for implementation reports closed
ACTION-882 done
<ChrisW> close action-882
<trackbot> ACTION-882 Contact University of Innsbruck. closed
<sandro> Here's my e-mail asking for OWL implementation reports: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2009JulSep/0055.html
actions 880, 879 continued
close ACTION-873
<trackbot> ACTION-873 Contact Leo Obrst. closed
close ACTION-878
<trackbot> ACTION-878 Contact Elisa Kendall. closed
close ACTION-877
<trackbot> ACTION-877 Contact William Andersen. closed
ChrisW: What about ACTION-896?
sandro: unsure, make it continued.
ChrisW: sandro you had also ACTION-892?
sandro: think I concluded it was obsolete. think they commented enoug in the past, suggest we close it
close ACTION-892
<trackbot> ACTION-892 Get an OWL-WG comment on RIF closed
close ACTION-854
<trackbot> ACTION-854 Check all docs for use of "rdf:text" closed
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Jun/0103.html
ACTION-850 continued.
ACTION-785 is pending review.
ACTION-733 is continued.
ChrisW: sandro why is ACTION-864 pending review?
sandro: I talked to doug and chime, I think we can close that
close ACTION-864
<trackbot> ACTION-864 Contact Doug Lenat (Cleveland Clinic) closed
ChrisW: Table on WG homepage.
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_DM1
ChrisW: just questions, no
concerns raised.
... david hopes to do an implementation also.
... Comments?
sandro: do we need to track the response?
chrisW: wans't really raising concerns.
sandro: looks better if we get a response "yes, looks fine"
chrisW: I can add "please let us know if that's satisfactory.
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_DM2
chrisW: do we need to respond on "AT RISK" comment?
sandro: we shall respond "if there are implementations then we'll keep it"
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_CS1
chrisW: no comments on this one.
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_SH1
chrisw: small corrections in Core which I just made... comments?
sandro: just explaining words added... looks fine.
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_AR3
chrisw: mainly use cases for equality and claims he is working on an implementation.
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_PF1
chrisW: one of michael's
students, suggestion for Reaction rule dialect.
... I responded to all dialect requests that we look for
dialects as "FLD implementations".
... also asked for how to define terms as equal in Core.
sandro: looks like a good question for an FAQ.
chrisW: slightly updated response to make it clearer. if anyone wants to add an example, go ahead.
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_BG1
chrisW: mostly says "keep
going"... mild critique on PRD being not fully "semantic"
... we may just understand it as "good first step".
sandro: we shall include a "are
you satisfied?" question in the response.
... let me check the wording OWL uses.
... asking whether he is satisfied with the response is maybe
good enough.
<sandro> OWL's text:
<sandro> Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.
johnhall: he has a point, that we give no way to implement PRD in a non-operational way.
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_WL
<AdrianP> we had started with a model-theoretic semantics for PRD but then gave priority to the operational one
chrisW: response already sent.
<johnhall> That wasn't quite my point - rather that without procedural semantics, most of the industry could not implement PRD
<ChrisW> ACTION: Chris to contact WL for response [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/25-rif-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-901 - Contact WL for response [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-09-01].
sandro: suggest one more ping with the suggested "please respond" text on the wiki.
(sandro can you paste where you put it on the wiki)
dave: response to WL links to wrong mail
chrisW: actually, hasn't been sent yet
ACTION-901 is void...
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_TG1
chrisW: this is a message of
support.
... preferred more general extensibility mechanism for
procedures and built-ins.
... "please acknowlege" sentence to be added.
sandro: not sure I agree, but I
have no better response.
... we have a perfect way to attach procedures.
<AdrianP> he probably means user-defined procedures
sandro: we could say: URIs are perfectly extensible and provide that.
<sandro> I don't think so, Adrian. But who knows.
harold: in FLD/FLD we define that "Externals" could relate to other resources, such as procedures.
<Harold> "This syntax enables very flexible representations for externally defined information sources: not only predicates and functions, but also frames, classification, and equality terms can be used. In this way, external sources can be modeled in an object-oriented way."
<Harold> (http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/FLD#Terms)
<Harold> "Thus, External("http://foo.bar.com"^^rif:iri["foo"^^xs:string->"123"^^xs:integer]) and External("pred:isTime"^^rif:iri("22:33:44"^^xs:time) are examples of invocations of external terms -- one querying an external source and another invoking a built-in."
<Gary> so basically, "we believe that RIF's use of IRIs for external procedures and functions is a general and extensible method for attaching procedures that is agnostic w.r.t
<Harold> )http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DTB#Appendix:_Schemas_for_Externally_Defined_Terms)
<Gary> programming langauge. The builtins are a core set that should foster interoperability"
<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_TG1
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_AA1
ChrisW: nothing special needed there
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_JdR1
ChrisW: implementation support.
seems to have a lot of work done.
... shall I say more?
sandro: we shall reference the implementation report template.
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_PasH1
ChrisW: mainly support plus
dialect suggestions.
... none of the cited papers mentions RIF.
... mentions book where RIF was included.
... we shall maybe put it on the publications page? he was a
member of RIF.
http://semantic-web-book.org/page/C6-Rules
dave: section 6 is about RIF
mike: RIF about 18 pages.
(we have, BTW, a summer school article on RIF with Paula, Harold, Michael, though very outdated in between )
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_GL1
ChrisW: compliments &
advertising
... other comments on that one?
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_CB1
ChrisW: similar as last one.
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_NB2
ChrisW: has specific comments on
XML Schema.
... didn't draft response yet.
... we had postponed schema
... Harold, your action to address the schema and I will do the
response.
<ChrisW> ACTION: harold to look at message from Nick B. and check FLD schema [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/25-rif-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-902 - Look at message from Nick B. and check FLD schema [on Harold Boley - due 2009-09-01].
sandro: question whether schema may evolve after spec.
harold: he only gives a warning
sandro: would be awkward to proceed without fixing this.
ChrisW: we need to fix it.
harold: cannot promise 2 weeks.
ChrisW: Gary, can you look into this?
<StellaMitchell> isn't his comment just saying to remove one line in the schema?
Gary: Can do, not really familiar with FLD schema.
chrisW: respond we need to look into this more carefully.
sandro: I think that making the schema normative is awkward
chrisW: where else would it be?
sandro: this looks critical path.
dave: can we just drop the include?
sandro: seems to be what he suggested.
dave: XML schema section 4.5 has the defs of redefine.
gary: schema processors seem to stumble over redefines
<AdrianP> yes, redefine is a known problem of Altova
gary: do not like including and refedining the same thing
(harold, can you type in your suggestion?)
<Harold> http://ruleml.org/rif/fld/LC/
harold: I can try to merge two
redefines in one.
... need to look back in the XSD, not sure.
ChrisW: let's make it non-normative.
harold: I think it is essential to FLD.
ChrisW: if we can't make the decision today to go to CR, we have to put it off for some time.
harold: the telecon was short announced, let's give it another 2 weeks.
sandro: next week?
<AdrianP> agree XML schema is essential to a dialect
<DaveReynolds> I can't be there next week.
<AdrianP> will be travelling next week - i-Semantics conference
chrisW: can you have it next week harold?
<sandro> DaveReynolds, are you okay with doing the CR decision in your absence?
harold: there are some more comments.
<DaveReynolds> Sandro - does that include the exit criteria?
<ChrisW> PROPOSED: extend meeting by 10 minutes
<DaveReynolds> +1
<sandro> probably, DaveReynolds.
<ChrisW> RESOLVED: extend meeting by 10 minutes
<DaveReynolds> Sandro - I'm OK doing CR decision w/o me. For the exit criteria it might be good to explicitly allow implementations of Core so that Core could go to PR w/o BLD+PRD.
Axel: two things on DTB
<sandro> Good point DaveReynolds, but I don't think we need to decide that going into CR.
<sandro> (we're not actually disallowing implementation or Core, of course.)
<DaveReynolds> Sandro, ok.
Axel: 1) string-join, we need to fix that, two alternatives: a minimalistic one and a meaningful one (use lists) cf. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Aug/0011.html
2) list functions are under-specified, we need to fix that for CR.
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_RG2
ChrisW: similar as previous ansers,referring to that we look forward to dialect implementations.
Harold: another comment on Nick's mail.
(Harold, can you type that in?)
ChrisW: If we can't fix the issue in time, we havbe to make it non-normative.
harold: we might need to talk to the XML schema people in XSD.
sandro: I'd be happy to leave only FLD open and get at least the other docs to CR.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: AxelPolleres Inferring ScribeNick: AxelPolleres Found Scribe: Axel Polleres Found ScribeNick: AxelPolleres Scribes: AxelPolleres, Axel Polleres Default Present: Mike_Dean, johnhall, AxelPolleres, ChrisW, Sandro, Stella_Mitchell, AdrianP, Harold, DaveReynolds, Gary Present: Mike_Dean johnhall AxelPolleres ChrisW Sandro Stella_Mitchell AdrianP Harold DaveReynolds Gary Regrets: MichaelKifer LeoraMorgenstern Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Aug/0022.html Got date from IRC log name: 25 Aug 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/08/25-rif-minutes.html People with action items: chris harold[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]