See also: IRC log
Resolved: Minutes of 18 July 2006 Telecon were approved with the proviso that Regrets information be added.
Don Chapin will post the minutes from the 25 July 2006 Telecon to the WG mailing list (done during the meeting).
The Chair requested that members who cannot attend the 15 August meeting post Regrets now.
Members are reminded of the policy to post Regrets for a meeting a minimum of four days ahead if unable to attend.
No additions were made to the meeting agenda. Consideration of Michael's semantics proposal is postponed so that participants have time to review it. Please see the text in the Extensible_Design document, sections A.6 and A.7.
Most Liaisons were not in attendance and there were no updates.
Action 58 (on Sandro) to solve a formatting problem is continued.
Action 69 (on Alex) to contact vendors to request feedback on UCR Working Draft 2 is continued. Alex has been in contact with JBoss personnel and is awaiting their replies. They expressed interest and might participate.
Action 68 (on Alex) to add a mapping from PR conditions to the proposed RIF condition language is partially fulfilled. Continued.
Action 72 (on Don Chapin) to clarify UCR Working Draft issues is continued.
<Harold> Action 64 was completed (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jul/0037.html) but not marked as closed.
The Chair closed Action 64.
Action 79 (on Frank McCabe) to propose type capabilities as a discriminator is continued.
No updates on several actions that are assigned to Axel (not attending).
Chair asked attendees for any response to proposed changes to the RIFRAF Questionnaire section 3.1 discussed in Markus' email. No one made any comments at this time.
Some coverage requirements for the RIF that were identified during F2F3 and incorporated in an earlier version of the RIFRAF are not included in the current version of the RIFRAF. Paula's email details the coverage (or omission) of those Requirements in the current RIFRAF. The Chair asked for responses on this topic, including comments on Paula's email and/or discussion of other suggestions on restoring those Requirements.
There were no comments or discussion at this time.
Discriminators related to events and actions in reactive rules. Paula's email proposed new discriminators for the RIFRAF to cover Event-Condition-Action (ECA) rules, as stipulated in the F2F3 coverage requirements. Initially there was no discussion. The topic was revisited after the RIFRAF Questionnaire poll.
<sandro> Gary and Hassan proposed that Paula's ECA discriminators be added.
<AlexKozlenkov> Sounds reasonable
<GaryHallmark> Paula's proposed discriminators are better aligned with PR than the deduction-oriented questions are, even though there's a lot about events in her discriminators that doesn't occur in production rules.
The Chair noted general agreement among attendees to add Paula's questions, but we may not have a quorum to decide the question. We will conclude the question by email.
Discriminators related to rules meta-model
The Chair solicited comments on cmsa's email from yesterday about discriminators.
Hassan agreed with Gary (in last meeting) that the notion of what is a discriminator is confusing, since applicable discriminators depend on what kind of rule is being considered. cmsa's email proposed some clarifications that may help. He agreed with cmsa's recommendation that we not use the terms 'body' and 'head' because those terms are not used consistently across rules community sub-groups. Hassan was not sure he understood all csma's points. Hassan agreed on the need for a "clean" vocabulary about rules and is willing to work with cmsa to come up with a proposal.
<sandro> ACTION: Hassan to write response to cmsa's proposal on rule vocabulary terms, asking him for clarifications where necessary [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/01-rif-minutes.html#action01]
<Harold> Posting a link to relevant prior discussion on terminology: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Rulesystem_Arrangement_Framework. See the section "Mapping between deductive rule and reactive rule terminology." This was basically done by Gary (I mostly assisted), and should now again be relevant for Christian and Hassan.
<scribe> Chair: So far there have been 3 responses, describing FLORA (F-Logic+HiLog+Transaction Logic); a subset of standard Prolog; and the Prova rule language.
The Chair polled attendees about their participation in the Questionnaire, including planned/future participation.
<johnhall> Donald and I didn't have time to turn the questionnaire with colleagues on our team
<sandro> Sandro: n3, prolog -- hopefully soon
<sandro> Harold: oo-jdew
<DavidHirtle> OO jDREW generally
<Alex> Alex has already submitted for the Prova rule language.
<Deborah:> Will propose to MITRE Rules MSR team doing it for SWRL with proposed extensions.
<Mike_Dean:> Peter is also working on SWRL.
The Chair observed it would be fine to have two views of SWRL, esp. from two different perspectives (theoretical and pragmatic).
<sandro> Frank: planing to do GO -- typed
<igor> I have no plans for covering another language [already did Prolog].
<JeffP> Plan to cover CIF but first need to talk to some people on holiday.
<sandro> John: want to do SBVR -- with help from Terry Halpin.
Attendees asked whether there a new deadline, since the cutoff was yesterday?
<sandro> Don: have changes from last week been made?
<sandro> Don: Looking for deadline.
<StellaMitchell> Will respond for an ECA language she is currently working with that is an internal IBM language, not a product.
The Chair suggested that Stella look at Paula's suggested discriminators to see if they make sense for her ECA language.
<sandro> Hassan: I provided descriptions early on for LIFE and ILOG's products -- need to put it on the Questionnaire.
The Chair requested Hassan to transfer the content of his earlier work on LIFE and ILOG to the RIFRAF Questionnaire page.
<sandro> Gary: I'll do it for Jess or Oracles's language -- but I want to wait for Paula's work to be incorporated in the Questionnaire.
Proposed: Add Paula's discriminators to the Questionnaire. See under Topic 7 for discussion.
<Harold> Recommends that the RIFRAF Questionnaire be filled out for each of the languages and/or systems included in the table on the "Rule Systems" page (http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/List_of_Rule_Systems).
<SaidTabet> Events are a whole area currently explored and known in the industry as 'Event Streaming' or 'Complex Events Processing', there was a workshop on the topic earlier this year and the topics of ECA rules came up...Will post the URL later
The Chair offered to create a link from the Questionnaire to the List of Rule Systems to track that each is done.
<sandro> Mike_Dean: I'd be happy to review the entries for SWRL.
<sandro> Sandro: Would you be willing to do N3?
<sandro> Mike: I'll review yours!
<sandro> PhilippeB: Not committed at the moment. Might do jrules, but he wants to discuss with csma and Hakim before committing.
<sandro> JosDeRoo: euler/n3 - in the coming weeks.
<MichaelKifer> Is not planning to do an additional language [already submitted for FLORA].
<Leora:> Plans to do another internal IBM language, a subset of FOL (called "ESN" internally but not really named), by a week from Friday.
<MalaMehrotra> Will touch base with Leora and then make a commitment.
<John Hall (for Said Tabet)> Said plans to do the Questionnaire for RuleML.
The Chair concluded the survey of current and planned responses to the RIFRAF Questionnaire.
<scribe> Chair: Harold's action due date was updated.
<scribe> Chair: Hassan's action for mapping condition language was continued, to be due next week.
<scribe> Chair: Michael posted his action result this morning. Closed.
<scribe> Chair: Paula is not here to discuss her actions.
<scribe> Chair: Sandro's action items were also continued.
Meeting adjourned at 12:11 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (U.S.).
[NEW] ACTION: Hassan to write response to Christian's proposal, asking for clarifications where necessary [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/01-rif-minutes.html#action01]
List of open Actions for RIF WG