Admin

<ChrisW> scribenick: MichaelKifer

<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Apr/att-0093/rif-scriberei.html

April 11 minutes have been accepted as true record

<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Apr/att-0054/18-rif-minutes.html

Minutes for April 18 need to be edited futher by Philippe_Bonnard

<ChrisW> ACTION: PhillipeB to clean up minutes from April 18 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/25-rif-minutes.html#action01]

F2F

<sandro> ACTION: [DONE] Sandro to set up registration page for F2F3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/25-rif-minutes.html#action02]

<sandro> ACTION: [DONE] Public membership list needs to be extended to include Alex [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/25-rif-minutes.html#action03]

<AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/38457/f2f3reg/

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/38457/f2f3reg/

scribe:People should register to attend the F2F3 and to get transportation

<csma> ACTION: Paula to check on phone-call-in capability, and if we'll have a speaker phone, and network at f2f3? [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/25-rif-minutes.html#action04]

<csma> ACTION: Sandro set up straw-poll on F2F4 (MITRE - 3 different dates - and Peter/ISWC) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-rif-minutes.html#action04] [DONE]

Liasons

ChrisW: Need a liason to SPARQL. Leave Enrico as the liason

csma: nothing new as far as PRR, but Haley has released a new production language HRML (Haley Rule Markup Language) - see the links below

<csma> http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20060418005368&newsLang=en

<Hassan> http://www.computerwire.com/industries/research/?pid=E64311AB-B294-4F5A-A355-22EA0C08EA0A

<Hassan> http://xml.coverpages.org/ORMML-coopis02.pdf

<Hassan> http://www.haley.com/0422488215392258/newsevents/PressRelease_JSR94_Release_Final_200604.html

csma: no news as far as SBVR, ODM are concerned. Maybe a new co-chair.

Use Cases & Requirements

<csma> ACTION: Francois write up what he's saying on the DesignConstraints page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/25-rif-minutes.html#action06] See message and ensuing thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Apr/0053.html

<csma> ACTION: Francois write up what he's saying on the DesignConstraints page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/25-rif-minutes.html#action07] See message and ensuing thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Apr/0053.html

<csma> ACTION: Francois write up what he's saying on the DesignConstraints page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/25-rif-minutes.html#action08] See message and ensuing thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Apr/0053.html

<csma> ACTION: Leora to set up draft proposal on what we mean by FOL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-rif-minutes.html#action02] [CONTINUED]

<csma> ACTION: Leora to Write up CSF for FOL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-rif-minutes.html#action03] [CONTINUED]

<ChrisW> ACTION: [DONE] Francois write up what he's saying on the DesignConstraints page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/25-rif-minutes.html#action11]

<csma> ACTION: Sandro and Igor to find a name+definition for the [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/25-rif-minutes.html#action12] "pure prolog" requirement that does not mention "pure prolog" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/11-rif-minutes.html#action10] [CONTINUED]

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/2006-04-25_Meeting

<csma> ACTION: Sandro to discuss on email whether the "pure prolog" requirement can be replaced by a "horn logic" requirement or if we need both [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/25-rif-minutes.html#action13]

<ChrisW> ACTION: [DROPPED] Frank will produce an initial diagram with existing constraints [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/25-rif-minutes.html#action14]

<csma> ACTION: Frank will produce an initial diagram with existing constraints [DROPPED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/25-rif-minutes.html#action15]

<csma> ACTION: sandro to clarify meaning of sound and what is the requirement on RIF [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/25-rif-minutes.html#action16]

<csma> ACTION: Sandro to clarify whether sound reasoning constraint with unknown dialects is a requirement or a critical success factor [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/25-rif-minutes.html#action17]

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/RIF_must_define_for_all_RIF_elements_a_default_behaviour_for_compliant_applications_that_do_not_know_how_to_process_it

Chris: requirement that RIF must be able to pass on pieces of XML that it dosnt understand.

<StanDevitt> How does this differ from having a default behavior for compliant applications that do understand how to do it?

csma: RIF should be able to <em>describe</em> what to do with pieces that it does not understand

<LeoraMorgenstern> no,

<LeoraMorgenstern> that was just leftover

pfps: [to csma] should every rule set come with a spec of the default action?

<ChrisW> looks ok to me

csma: the producer should be able to state what should RIF do with unsupported features (eg, ignore them)

Hasan: These actions must be tied into the semantics
... should look closer at the RIF condition language proposal in conjunction with csma's requirement

csma: believes that handling unknown features can be done independent of any semantics

<Uli> we are just having a fire alarm warning, so might have to run off and leave the building

Hasan: csma's requirement is supported by the RIF condition language proposal

<PaulaP> +1 to Chris' comment on the independence requirements - architecture

csma: the consumer should be able to decide if parts of the ruleset are not understood; but csma agrees that this may be too simplistic

<csma> ACTION: csma to modify compliance reqs to make it more like a req [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/25-rif-minutes.html#action18]

<scribe> ACTION: csma will modify the requirement to clarify it [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/25-rif-minutes.html#action19]

<StanDevitt> What I am hearing is that the producer may "prefer" that priorty be used if present, but that it is not necessary.

<GaryHallmark> Gary: can all the burden be on the translator and keep the RIF clean?

csma: an example of a use of my requirement is rules with certainty factors; these maybe omitted if these factors do not affect the semantics [editor's note: this is rarely the case]

<GaryHallmark> Gary: for example, instead of tagging priority as optional, just don't use priority in rulesets for maximum interoperability

<StanDevitt> What I am hearing is that the author can specify a priority list of interpretations.

<Hassan> Chris: you are describing a taxonmy of semantics

MichaelKifer: Priorities among rules do affect the semantics in most cases -- this is like the case statement

<StanDevitt> e.g. Use priority if it is available, but otherwise use non-prioirty.

<ChrisW> the "RIF RAF" was supposed to be doing that

<Hassan> The taxonomy is the basis that may be extended - this what Uli is saying as well

<ChrisW> yes, i think so

<Hassan> +1 to what Uli is saying!!!

<ChrisW> so a lattice instead of a hierarchy

<StanDevitt> The analogy is like a list of fonts to choose from in CSS - the author having preferences, but being happy with any choice.

<Hassan> any partial order may be extended to a boolean lattice using disjunctions

Uli: the extensibility mechanism should be handled at the level of taxonomies of dialects (similar point as Hasan's)

<csma> ACTION:csma to clarify use of terms like 'consumer', producer, translator etc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/25-rif-minutes.html#action20]

Technical Design, Extensibility

Discussion of the extensibility mechanism based on the "RIF Condition Language":

<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Apr/0068.html

<Uli> Michael: I agree that we can have such a "seed" mechanism, but then this could be even extended, according to the needs

<josb> +1 to Harold: we need to cater for different ways of integration with ontologies

Harold: gave an overview of the approach based on conditions

<Hassan> What is the paper's reference mentioned by Michael? Pointers?

MichaelKifer:This paper will appear in KR2006.

<ChrisW> The KR papers will be available on the web in a few days

csma: how do we access Java objects, not just ontologies?

<MoZ> Harold, 'Forall' is used but not defined, have I miss something ?

<sandro> +1 ! thanks to Harold & Michael and whoever else worked on this

<Hassan> Thanks Michael - I will ask him.

<MoZ> for extensibility we can define <operation name="Exists"..> instead of <Exists>

StanDevitt: adding features to a language interferes with extensibility because this requires that we change XML Schema

<DavidHirtle> MoZ, the basis is Horn -- universal quantification (Forall) is referred to as a later extension

Harold, csma, others: the schema extensibility issue can be solved by inheritance or substitution groups

<Hassan> +1 with Peter - I think

<josb> +1 with Peter: some (extended) languages might have unnamed individuals, especially when considering extension to FOL

pfps: concern that the semantics of "RIF Cond Lang" is based on binding variables to named objects -- this is not a general model-theoretic semantics

<Hassan> Substitutions are just constraints over Herbrands Trees

AOB

Discussion of the F2F4 straw poll

sandro: why should the poll count individual rather than individuals? Because we want organizations to be represented, not just individuals

scribe:decided to leave the poll count on the per organization basis