RIF Telecon 5 Dec 06 -- 12 Dec 2006

<ChrisW> /invite zakim #rif

<ChrisW> /invite rrsagent #rif

<ChrisW> Meeting: RIF Telecon 12 Dec 06

<sandro> ChrisW, I'm having phone problems today, so I might have to drop off for a few minutes.

<scribe> scribenick: GiorgosStoilos

<ChrisW> || FrancisMcCabe || 1/31 || 7/11 ||

<ChrisW> Scribe: Girogos Stoilos

december 26th telecon is canceled

Telecon on Jaruary 2nd will be help

<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Dec/att-0008/minutes-12-05-06.html

<igor> 41#

5/12 minutes

accepted minutes 5/12

Admin'

F2F

F2F5

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/38457/f2f5-schedule/results

chrisW: no oposition for three days meeting

<Hassan> Where is the next F2F meeting taking place?

chrisW: might be good for work, will try

<sandro> ACTION: Sandro to set up WBS registration form for F2F5 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-rif-minutes.html#action01]

Liason

<sandro> rifbot, test?

<johnhall> sbvr - none

<sandro> rifbot, help

<rifbot> See http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/ for help (use the IRC bot link)

chrisW: nothing to report on liason

Technical Design

<sandro> markproctor, you don't need to read the Telecon docs right now. Later is fine.

<markproctor> ok

action-186: done

<markproctor> so is there anything I need to do now? or am I ok?

action-182: continued

<sandro> You're okay now, Mark. (csma entered the line "zakim, aabb is markp", which took care of it.)

action-188: open

action-192: done

action-193: done

<DaveReynolds> I downloaded it successfully

<igor> +

<igor> 1

<AlexKozlenkov> I can't read that document

chrisW: talk about sort in the syntax
... is sorted syntax clear?

csma: michaels example not clear

<Harold> Christian, sort subsumption definition could be reused from external taxonomies, e.g. out there in RDFS or OWL.

csma: how does it relate to hasan's paper?

<sandro> (I'm baffled at the idea that an abstract syntax could be readable -- only concrete syntaxes can be written down -- but I'd rather not go into it now.)

csma: the ILOG use of sorts

<DaveReynolds> +1 to Sandro

michael: it is almost the same, difference in the sloted syntax

hassan: there was a missunderstanding, michael will provide details about our discussion on the issue

<Harold> Sandro, I think there still is a terminological confusion about abstract syntax and human-oriented syntax.

<sandro> So it would seem, Harold. :-)

<sandro> (caused by WebOnt, I suspect.)

michael: need a syntax for specifying the sort. In XML you can do it by tricks

<Harold> Your remark applies to abstract syntax, Michael meant human-oriented syntax.

michael: we have to work out how to do it

<Hassan> s/RIG/RIF/

chrisW: is webizing of sorts clear now?

sandro: Don't understand it yet. Need to see complete document
... it is heading to the right direction but need to see details

chrisW: slotted syntax

michael: haven't finalized it, there was a problem out of the F2F
... many semantics
... syntax the same but semantics are different
... should identify minimal syntax, but is difficult

<sandro> (To be clear about my issue on Webizing --- I don't see how webizing affects the semantics. It's just allowing identifiers to have weird characters in them.)

michael: come out with nucleus and propose different slotted syntaxes
... we could provide options of syntax for people to use
... one example is syntax in RuleML and another in Hassan's proposal
... another one can be found in F-Logic
... in F-Logic is only applied to atomic formulas

the syntaxes are similar but the meaning different

hassan: Agree with michael

<GerdW> kakim, unmute me

hassan: but common syntax could be possible
... we discussed about one syntax with different semantics (interpretations) we michael over mail
... different interpretations regarding different levels (e.g. concepts vs. relations)

michael: need 3 different dialects, if we use different dialects would not mean we understand each other even if syntax is the same

<Harold> The issue that came up after F2F4 is, how, then, would we handle this?

<Harold> p(a,b) does not unify with p(a).

<Harold> Hence, with our shortcut convention,

<Harold> p{1->a,2->b} could not unify with p{1->a}.

michaerl: this could be part of the CORE document. Would be able to exchange rules

<GerdW> At present we are not concerned with unification

<Harold> But the subsumption semantics would make them unify.

hassan: might agree on normative but not on syntax

<sandro> This whole "we could have multiple dialects in core" sounds wrong.

<sandro> ChrisW, you have people on the queue.

csma: can't we agree on 1 syntax, but which can be interpreted differently

<Harold> We could have 'rest' variables: p(a,b) does unify with p(a | X).

<Harold> p{1->a,2->b} could unify with p{1->a | X}.

michael: if you agree on syntax you have to also specify semantics to exchange
... harold's example might not cover ψ-terms

hassan: subsumption is too much for minimal core
... you can close your signature and have the same semantics as individuals

<GerdW> john{age->40} what is the predicate ?

<sandro> ChrisW? Are you purposely ignoring the queue or not paying attention to IRC?

hassan: Constraints are IMHO the right level of abstraction for rule exchange because they allow *approximation*. Approximation it is important for exchange as one may still wish to exchange rules at some level of *abstraction*. Indeed, abstraction is possible simply by relaxing some constraints describing the data over which the rules are defined.

<Harold> We could 'encapsulate' slotted terms into unary atoms: p({1->a,2->b}) could unify with p({1->a | X}).

<Harold> So, we would not need slotted atoms, directly.

hassan: If I exchange with someone if we don't agree on idividuals we won't be able to exchange
... if we want a hard core we might not want subsumption

<Harold> Not building in subsumption could be expressed syntactically:

<Harold> Not allowing rest variables.

<ChrisW> ack

gerd: the quetion is what is the use of a slot. It is a property value

michael: so you mean like F-Logic and RDF

<AxelPolleres> in some languages properties/attributes are global, in some not... does this play here?

michael: my understaning is that ψ-terms do types

hassan: they do both

michael: the use of slots in RuleML is not the same

hassan: agree with Gerd

Gerd: that is what we should capture in CORE

<Harold> Axel, normally slot names are local, with webizing they could be made global.

Gerd: slots have the meaning og properties

csma: hassan you call slots as features in your paper

<sandro> (writing down the core thing I just grokked) MichaelKifer: In the relational model, the identity is established by the tuple of property values -- -unlike in F-Logic, etc.

<GerdW> set valued slots in flogic john[son->>{brian, adrian}]

chrisW: I prefer a single CORE without dialects

<Harold> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/charter#xml-syntax

<GerdW> the syntax (Con -> Term) does not work as a slot!

<Hassan> Fine with ChrisW to have a "weak" core as long as it is extensible and does not lock us in some incompatibe design

<Harold> In order to allow interoperability with RDF and object-oriented systems, the syntax must support named arguments (also called "role" or "slot" names), allowing n-ary facts, rules, and queries to be provided through property/value interfaces.

harold: agree with chrisW

michael: it is not clear to produce CORE compatible with all 3 directions

harold: only need the minimum not all 3

michael: does this mean intersection? might not be possible

harold: we will work on it. Send something on Monday

chrisW: summing up will have a new version by Monday

csma: how order sorted terms related to constraints?

hassan: want to see how to map them to constraints

<Harold> Christian, order-sorted logics use a sort lattice, which could come from RDFS subClassOf taxonomies or corresponding OWL-DL ontologies.

<Harold> So, RIF can reuse light-weight ontologies that are out there in RDFS and OWL.

csma: it does not say anything about interchanging between different datamodels

hassan: it shifts the level of interchange

chrisW: we should talks about designs goals

RIF-RAF

chrisW: we have some actions from the f2f are they finished

leora: some progress but don't think are completed

<Allen> I haven't done it

csma: these are low priority actions

chrisW: what would be a reasonable deadline?
... end of December for actions of axel and paula?

<PaulaP> I'm not sure

axel: OK

<PaulaP> I'll try

<PaulaP> me zakim, unmute me

<PaulaP> ok

<Hassan> Yes - thanks ! :-)

chrisw: axel and leora might free hassan from rifraf

<AxelPolleres> remarkfrom my side: for drafting a "document" i would really like to have all the input. I hope to have time to work for it next week. I can see how far I get and whether I can take over sec 2.

<AxelPolleres> but this is no promise I want to make now.

chrisw: does anyone want to take ontologizing rifraf section two

<scribe> ACTION: chrisW to reasign rifraf actions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-rif-minutes.html#action02]

<rifbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - chrisW

UCR

<csma> ACTION: chrisW to reassign rif-raf actions on Hassan and Frank [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-rif-minutes.html#action03]

<rifbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - chrisW

action-144: continued

all should contribute to the glossary

<LeoraMorgenstern> Only after the new year

<LeoraMorgenstern> Once I've done with the ontology stuff, I could volunteer -- but not now

action-181: done

<csma> ACTION: chairs to find and editor for glossary [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-rif-minutes.html#action04]

<rifbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - chairs

chrisW: discuss about covers

<scribe> ACTION: allen send an email to paulV [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-rif-minutes.html#action05]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-196 - Send an email to paulV [on Allen Ginsberg - due 2006-12-19].

allen: need to add motivation for connection to requirement
... there is the issue on who to add it. Original authors or those that connected reqs to UCs?

<scribe> ACTION: allen to clean up some motivation for UCs to reqs linkage [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-rif-minutes.html#action06]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-197 - Clean up some motivation for UCs to reqs linkage [on Allen Ginsberg - due 2006-12-19].

chrisW: current UCs in good shape

Dave: section speaking about rif and semantic web languages

csma: action explain his potision on issue 12

<scribe> ACTION: csma explain his position on issue 12 via competing text [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-rif-minutes.html#action07]

<rifbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - csma

chrisW: this explanation with go to the UC doc

<ChrisW> ACTION: christian to propose text relating to issue-12 for UCR [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/12/12-rif-minutes.html#action08]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-198 - Propose text relating to issue-12 for UCR [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2006-12-19].

AOB

chrisW: no AOB

<Hassan> #quit

<GerdW> -GerdW

<PaulaP> bye

<ChrisW> Meeting: RIF Telecon 12 Dec 06

- DRAFT -

RIF Telecon 5 Dec 06

12 Dec 2006

Attendees

Contents