See also: IRC log
Next meeting: July 25, 2006
August 15 meeting may be cancelled - to be decided next week
<ChrisW> RIF July 11 minutes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jul/att-0024/RIFminutes711.html
csma:Changes to the July 11 minutes were requested
FrankMcCabe: Message was not received (Frank has new email address)
<FrankMcCabe> frankmccabe@mac.com
<ChrisW> ACTION: chris to ask sandro to change Frank's email address [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/18-rif-minutes.html#action01]
Acceptance of July 11 minutes postponed until next meeting
No changes requested to agenda for this meeting.
Review of Actions:
Action 54: Solve the SPARQL liaison (csma)
csma:Continued
csma:SPARQL: liaison is still an open issue (ref: action 54)
csma:PRR: OMG draft is available on Wiki
csma:Anything on SBVR?
<Donald_Chapin> No
Contacts for other liaisons not present
Action 58: Fix the styles in UCR 2nd WD (does not work well in IE or Firefox) (Sandro)
<DavidHirtle> it's done... but there are still problems with IE
Action 53: Send another mail with UCR issues and add it to issues list (AxelPolleres)
<AxelPolleres> still continued, will send mail later today.
Details on Design Constraints (Goals, Requirements)
Action 9: Clarify use of terms like 'consumer', producer, translator etc. (csma)
csma: Continued
Action 38: Clarify what to say about the relationship between RIF and OWL in Phase 1 (ChrisW)
ChrisW: Continued
Action 41: Explain why "blackboxes" is not a contradiction to "no surprises" requirements (csma)
csma: Continued
Action 39: Clarify which deductive rules, exactly what goes into phase 1 and what into phase 2 (PaulaP)
<ChrisW> action 39 to be postponed until more data on RIFRAF
<PaulaP> ok
Action 57: Update RIF on SWCG discussion on rules in the layer cake and SWCG on RIF decision on 4th goal (csma)
csma: Continued
Action 40: Clarify what part of production rules can be usefully translated using phase 1 RIF (Paul Vincent)
<ChrisW> action 40 dropped
Action 69: Contact commercial rule vendors to take a look at UCR WD2 (Alex Kozlenkov)
Alex Kozlenkov: Continued
<AlexKozlenkov> To some extent I am looking into analysing JBoss Rules conditions sublanguage
csma: ACTION: Alex to announce release of UCR WD2 to JSR94/Javarules community [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/18-rif-minutes.html#action04]
<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Document_issues
csma: List of issues from FTF 3 or subsequent discussions on UC, to be moved to Wiki
csma: Determine priorities
anon: Ensure that they are all real issues
ChrisW: What is the context?
csma: Context - these issues were discussed immediately before 2nd working draft
csma: The requirement is to get support links right
<AlexKozlenkov> ok
<FrankMcCabe> this is already done?
<DavidHirtle> no, it's not done
ChrisW: If a requirement is not spoken to, it means low priority
Issue 1: Which CSFs (other than Alignment) does the XML syntax requirement support?
ChrisW: Low priority
Issue 2: Should the Compliance Model requirement also support the Interoperability CSF? (It was removed from diagram pending discussion.)
<AlexKozlenkov> could anyone clarify?
FrankMcCabe: Why was this removed?
<AlexKozlenkov> exactly, why?
<AlexKozlenkov> I think it is not an unimportant issue
<FrankMcCabe> Technically, I think that compliance is highly important for interoperability
anon: Compliance model supported interoperability, but link was removed
ChrisW: Low priority, but easy to resolve
<AlexKozlenkov> Let's reinstate it
Issue 3 - from DaveR's email
ChrisW: Are there any critical - or are all low?
<DaveReynolds> Suggest that all of those under #3 are low priority edit/tweak suggestions
csma: Will submit a meta-issue on unification
<ChrisW> ACTION: csma to describe new issue making use cases more consistent [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/18-rif-minutes.html#action06]
Issue 4 - from F2F3 (moved from the bottom of WD-DC)
Donald_Chapin: Items 4.b.2, 4.b.3, 4.b.4, 4b.6 are high priority
Donald_Chapin: 4.b.5 can be deleted
csma: 4.b.2 and 4.b.3 require clarification
ChrisW4.b.2, 4.b.3 and 4.b.6 were not well understood
Donald_Chapin: Who to ask to help focus clarification?
ChrisWStart with email that describes them
csma: ACTION: csma and Donald_Chapin to clarify UCR WD Issues 4.b.2, 4.b.3 and 4.b.6 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/18-rif-minutes.html#action05]
<ChrisW> issues are 4.b.2, 4.b.3, 4.b.4, and 4.b.6 to be high priority
<AxelPolleres> +1 to csma that external calls are high priority
<ChrisW> 4.b.5 can be dropped
<ChrisW> 4.b.4 is high priority
No other requests for prioritization
ChrisWOther proposals to drop items are welcomed
Action 43: Describe the issue on built-ins as RIFRAF discriminator (Michael Kifer)
anon: Will be part of action on semantics of condition language
<ChrisW> action 43 replaced by action 65 (technical design)
Action 61: Prepare and organiize WBS questionnaire and keep track of entries (AxelPolleres)
AxelPolleres: In progress
AxelPolleres: Will post questionnaire. Release it initially for people to look at, then ask them to do it for real. Any answers submitted in the initial evaluation will be lost
Action 66: Analyse RIFRAF discriminator wrt requirements moved under "coverage" (PaulaP)
<ChrisW> Action 66 closed
<ChrisW> paula: it would be good to "split" some requirements into detailed requirements that add discriminators to RIFRAF
<AlexKozlenkov> I totally agree
PaulaP: I can propose some new discriminators
ChrisW: People must read PaulaP email in preparation for next week
~~~ some discussion missed because of poor sound ~~~
ChrisW: Discriminators should be about how machines process rules
<AlexKozlenkov> It is a feature of Prova to have, for example, communication actions available in conditions
<AlexKozlenkov> Paula, I will be in touch
<PaulaP> ok, thanks
csma: Close this action and start a new one to propose new set of discriminators, relevant to classes of rules
Hassan_Ait-Kaci,I have a problem classifying rules on syntax
Hassan_Ait-Kaci,They can be interpreted differently. For example: JRules - sequential, normal, analysys
csma: Lower level discriminators are needed
<csma> ACTION: paula to propose new set of discriminators relevant to classes of rules [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/18-rif-minutes.html#action03]
<AlexKozlenkov> we need annotations
~~~ some discussion missed because of poor sound ~~~
ChrisWAction is on paula
<AlexKozlenkov> that is not good, it should be addressed by annotation
Review of Actions:
Action 68: look at mapping between condition part of a sample PR language (from a free engine) and proposed draft RIF condition language (AlexKozlenkov)
<AlexKozlenkov> not until next week
AlexKozlenkov: Email sent
AlexKozlenkov: Condition part maps to frame logic
Action 67: Describe by email the loophole seen in the proposed semantics of the (proposed) RIF condition language (pfps)
csma: Completed
Action 65: Update semantics for positive conditions (in proposed RIF condition language) taking into account email discussion with PFPS on constraints on RIF mappings (MichaelKifer)
csma: Was email sufficient for MichaelKifer?
~~~ some discussion missed because of poor sound ~~~
Action 64: Start email discussion about extending semantics (of proposed RIF condition language) to cover Horn logic (Harold)
<ChrisW> Harold, is your action to start an email discussion complete?
<Harold> Not yet sent.
Action 63: look at mapping between condition part of Xcerpt/XChange and proposed draft RIF condition language (PaulaP)
<PaulaP> Action 63 continued
<PaulaP> hope to have it this week
Action 62: look at mapping between condition part of GO! and proposed draft RIF condition language (FrankMcCabe)
FrankMcCabe: Continued
Action 22: Propose mapping between IRL and Harold et al condition language (Hassan_Ait-Kaci)
Hassan_Ait-Kaci: Continued
Action 20: Propose mapping between WRL & DLV and Harold et al condition language (AxelPolleres)
AxelPolleres: Continued
csma: Action by end of week?
<AlexKozlenkov> (action 68) difficult
<PaulaP> (action 63) I'll try to have something this week
Hassan_Ait-Kaci: (action 22), no, but hope for next week