<MarkusK> ScribeNick: msintek
next topic: requirements cont'd
slide: what does it mean to "cover" (slide here)
explains "RIF covers L" and "RIF covers L1 and L2"
example: RIF covers RDF
Sandro: def is not more precise than his own
... what does equivalence mean is the problem
csma: no agreement that the new definition is really ok
<sandro> for example -- changing variable names does not change what's entailed, but does change how it affects users.
Sandro's definition attempt is on the wiki
<AxelPolleres> can you add the link to sandro's definition?
process to discuss on this will be decided later
<sandro> ACTION: Chairs to come up with a process for settling on definition text for "cover"
next topic: support XML requirement
(on-screen: slide 31
jos: not all xml schema datatypes in phase 1
<sandro> AxelPolleres, my defn is http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Design_Constraints/Terminology
charter specifies which are in phase 1
rest is phase 2
accepting XML elements is phase 2
next topic: rif will cover languages identified in RIFRAF: already
support lp semantics with NAF and strong negation: moved to RIFRAF, phase 2
<sandro> pfps_home, the (mailing list / wiki) floor is open for improvements. CSMA proposed one, but I didn't think it was an improvement. It moved the "faithfully convey" fuzzyness into an "equivalence" fuzzyness. We may need to go straight to test cases on this.
module construct for scoped negation and NAF queries: is RIFRAF, or not?
might be phase 1
permit restricted form of equality
goes in RIFRAF
tagging intended semantics
replaced by "markup of semantics"
(slide 37 and 38)
higher order and frame-based syntax, moved to RIFRAF
possible phase 2
consistency with mahor market tech
replaced by ... (lot's of phase 2 stuff)
dave clarifies sql queries part
are external calls
so moved there
harold: back to higher order and frame-based syntax
... is in charter in p 1
<sandro> frame-based syntax is in charter for phase 1 -- in the sense of slot/role names
only aspect of slots is in p1
moved to RIFRAF
next: metadata for "currency" of rules
posponed for future version
next: capability to pass comments
next: meta-data indication executab. of rules
next: RIF scope - exchange of RDFS/OWL fact models
dave: thinks this is "dont invent new syntax for RDF"
chris: is question, not requirement
... agrees with question, doesn't know answer
dave: where is issue list
sandro: doesn't understand this as issue
"does this impact rif"?
<ChrisW> www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub describes best practices for publishing an RDFS or OWL vocabulary or ontology on the Web. Does this impact RIF?
moved to an issue
next: modal operators
goes to RIFRAF
next: discussed requirements go to requirements section; internal review
csma: paula: can document be updated next week?
support for paula searched
paula: tries during conference, does not promise anything
csma can help on monday; david after 20th only
david will work on it with paula during rifraf discussion
<scribe> ACTION: Paula and David update requirements section
dave: raises question of splitting rif into many dialects
csma: covered by multiple semantics requirement
<sandro> Dave: We should have a requirement that there be a modest number of dialects
<sandro> Dave: It's been talked about for months, but somehow fell off the list
csma: many trivial requirements missing
like rule sets
csma: such requirements still have to be formalized
<sandro> Sandro: this is not a trivial requirement -- without it, the obvious solution to have a zillion dialects (and thus no interoperation)
csma: does anyone request more of these requirements?
<sandro> csma: last call for requirements....
<sandro> csma: none.
<sandro> (except this)
dave: proposes "rif to encourage interop"
<sandro> RIF Aims to Encrouage Interoperability. RIF will provide a mechanism, such as a modest number of dialects, ...
<sandro> The design of RIF will encourage interoperability, such as through a limitted number of dialects.
uta to be scribe now
<scribe> scribeNick: Uta
core plus extensions
Can have common parts that are not called dialects.
encourage overlap between dialects. Requirement or goal?
Dave: is requirement
csma: is requirement
<sandro> RESOLVED to add this new requirement
no objections, new requirement: encourage inter-operabilty
<sandro> (RIF will encourage interoperability such as through a limitted number of stantrd dialects and/or a common core)
next topic: RIFRAF
<sandro> [ Ugh -- I didn't see the "and/or a common core" added when I agreed to it. ]
<sandro> [ the disjunction weasel-word is the problem. ]