See also: IRC log
Minutes from last meeting accepted.
<ChrisW> ACTION: [CONTINUED] csma to ask ISO whether liaison is worthwhile for ISO IEC [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action01]
<ChrisW> Joint Task Force 1, SC 32, Working Group 2: Metadata Standards US
<ChrisW> national body is ANSI L8 might be interesting for liaison. See
csma has not received answer from Ed Barkmeyer, so action CONTINUED.
Said's action wrt a JSR94 email is DONE.
<ChrisW> ACTION: csma to ask ISO whether liaison is worthwhile for ISO IEC Joint Task Force 1, SC 32, Working Group 2: Metadata Standards US national body is ANSI L8 might be interesting for liaison. See [http://metadata-standards.org/] [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action03]
Leora, Stan, JeffP have action human oriented rules UCR section CONTINUED.
<ChrisW> ACTION: Said to send a message to JSR94 that the RIF has started its work [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/31-rif-minutes.html#action02] [DONE]
ChrisW RichKR action CONTINUED.
<ChrisW> ACTION:* Leora, JeffP to review and report on human oriented rules section of UCR, sending e-mail by friday. [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action05]
csma proposed new section on publication uc: DONE.
<ChrisW> ACTION:* Stan to review and report on human oriented rules section of UCR, sending e-mail by friday. [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action06]
<ChrisW> ACTION:* Chris Welty will come up with another example narrative for a RichKR use case [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action07]
Start of email discussion "What belongs to RIF vs. OWL/RDF?" DONE.
<ChrisW> ACTION:* Christian will propose another scenario for the publication use case [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action08]
<FrankMcCabe> ed was not aware that he was supposed to be helping!
<ChrisW> ACTION:* Christian will start an email discussion on "What part of the RIF vs. OWL/RDF Compatibility belongs to RIF and what part belong to OWL/RDF" [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action09]
Frank information integration scenario is CONTINUED since Ed was not available.
<FrankMcCabe> I will contact him again this week.
<ChrisW> ACTION:* Frank will do the scenarios for information integration with Ed Barkmeyer assisting [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action10]
<PaulaP> Paul is on the call, but not on irc
<ChrisW> ACTION:* Paul Vincent will do the detailed scenario for "Interoperability between rule engines" [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action11]
PaulV scenario for Interop between rule engines is currently evaluated by Allen & David -- was sent only 10 mins before call: CONTINUED.
Discussion on State of UCR document:
David: Recent input. Condensed subsections for each generalized uc category. Generalized uc on publication has not changed much, since only 2 concrete uc's were there; now with csma's uc it is more complete. Other subsections are being condensed as well.
Allen: Credit scenario (2.4) changed; have a look at that.
<scribe> ACTION: Donald, Said, John: Scenario where RIF enters the play. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action12]
<ChrisW> ACTION: Donald, Said, John: provide scenario for human-oriented use case showing where RIF is used [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action13]
Harold: When omitting larger portions of material, can they still be linked?
David: Difficult, if final document should be self-contained.
Sandro: Perhaps no technical/organizational/editorial problem to provide links.
csma: Stand-alone has advantages. If you think something valuable was omitted, say it now or soon.
Allen: With the many changesr/restructuring it was hard to keep all links at all times; just wanted to work from one place in the document; links can be brought back on one of the document pages, so people would still find them; could also contain reqs etc., but would be separate from main document.
Sandro: Not sure what you exactly mean. But yes, we can still bring links back from such a special document page later.
csma: People should offer ways to insert what they want to have in. Better than just linking to things. We should have all material now. Can we have a new draft soon?
Allen: Waiting only for Donald, Said, John's uc explanation wrt RIF.
David: Unless we enumerate all individual reqs, we cannot see the global req; so iterative process needed. Allen and I don't see exact distinction between design goals and reqs.
Allen: Ties in with discussion on what RIF is and isn't.
csma: "Should RIF be executable?" discussion, for instance.
Allen: Right. Partly motivated by OWL's UCR document; answers question "What's an ontology?".
<ChrisW> the owl docuemtn says what is an ontology, then the RIF document shoudl say what is a rule
<FrankMcCabe> I think that the design goals for the RIF is something that should be figured out by the whol group
<ChrisW> not what is a RIF
Allen: Peter and Francois want to see RIF be executable, which is fine. But: What about interchange between overlapping languages -- we need a discussion, as a group.
<ChrisW> (just looking at the analogy)
<saidtabet> how about the analogy with HTML and HTTP? Language versus Protocol
<pfps> Hmm, I wouldn't say that my "requirement" is that the RIF be executable - however, forbidding it from being executable is not something that I can sign on to.
csma: Discussion not easy on the telecon. Mailing list discussion is unfolding well. Will need to come to a conclusion at one point. Are there any other issues that need to come in? E.g.: Data access, linked to issue of query languages.
<scribe> ACTION: csma will incite this broader discussion on mailing list. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action14]
David: Should we have an action for everyone look over what we have?
csma: Prefer that next week someone summarizes consensus on design goals.
Allen: People who say RIF should be executable, what do they think this means for interchange/interop? E.g.: Maybe executability even supports interchange/interop.?
csma: People with further high-level design goals should propose them on mailing list.
David: Would be nice to have backlinks from reqs to uc's.
<PaulaP> requirements from the original use cases or from the categories?
csma: The original, concrete ones. Who could copy all req sections from all uc's into one document for next week?
<PaulaP> I can do that
<scribe> ACTION: Paula will do this, removing duplicates if time permits. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action15]
Donald: Will bring in new reqs via posting/email.
<ChrisW> ACTION: Paula to copy all requirements from original use cases into a single place, removing duplicates and pointing back to originals [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action16]
David: Paula, please put it at the 'source' section to begin with.
<ChrisW> ACTION:* Harold will explain what Lloyd Topor extensions etc mean [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action17]
ChrisW: Fine, DONE.
ChrisW: Re Discussion RIFRAF and uc's: Which parts are relevant for phase 1? Example: bNodes -- one idea for them is going beyond Horn logic: so are they not phase 1? Generally, answer to "What goes into phase 1 / phase 2?" may not be a crisp one.
<josb> should we have a mailing list discussion on this topic: which features belong to phase 1?
ChrisW: So we need to decide, as a group, that, in the 1st year, we will or will not deal with some issues.
csma: What is the impact of phase 1 / 2 on rule interchange reqs? A prioritized list?
csma: Should we add a "phase 1 / 2" column to the List of Systems?
Sandro: Re Procedure: Always ask if all understand what people's action is supposed to be.
<DaveReynolds> +1 to Sandro
<PaulaP> +1 to Sandro' comment
csma: For people who have entered a system, they should enter what the phase 1 / 2 impact is. Interop impact?
Sandro: Hard to imagine they wouldn't all have non-Horn features
csma: Example: For JRules system translated a few rules into logic notation to make them comparable with other systems.
Chris: Will start this action.
<ChrisW> ACTION: Chris to start email discussion about what issues are "fuzzy" wrt phase 1 & 2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action18]
<ChrisW> ACTION: JosDeBruijn create a wiki page explaining the issue with bNode semantics and summarize the possible solutions which have come up during the discussions on the mailing listat Lloyd Topor extensions etc mean [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action19]
<sandro> JosB's page: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/bNode_Semantics
csma: E.g., when you discuss bNodes in the head, you should say why it's important for interchange.
<josb> apologies, my connection is failing me
ChrisW: Josb action is DONE.
Sandro: Don't see anything time-critical here -- cannot go too far ahead of design discussion.
<MarkusK> ACTION 17 = JosDeBruijn create a wiki page explaining the issue with bNode semantics and summarize the possible solutions which have come up during the discussions on the mailing list [DONE]
csma: Question of interchange of human-oriented syntax related to OWL & RDF: Could you write terms and facts in OWL & RDF?
Donald (and Said): Yes, will discuss OWL & RDF applicability to our human-oriented uc.
Sandro: bNode action can be
removed from future agendas, but people can of course still
bring in any new aspects about this.
At some point bNodes will come up again as a design decision when we'll have to make a choice.
<saidtabet> thanks Sandro!
Sandro: F2F2 is coming up. 24 people are registered so far; expect another 15 or so.
csma: Will publish F2F2 agenda and relevant documents soon.
Mainly UCR document.
Harold: Uniform notation for dates: yyyy-mm-dd?
<sandro> year-month-day as on http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Telecons
<sandro> (re adjourning)