W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > January 2006

Draft W3C RIF WG minutes 2006-01-25

From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:54:07 +0100
Message-ID: <43D7910F.30600@ifi.lmu.de>
To: public-rif-wg@w3.org

Corrections and extensions welcome!

- DRAFT of 25 Jan 2006 -

RIF Working Group 
telecon of 17 Jan 2006
Minutes 

Attendees (in alphabetic order)

Allen Ginsberg (Allen_Ginsberg)
Andreas Harth (Andreas_Harth)
Bill Andersen (BillAndersen)
Chris Welty (ChrisW)
David Hirtle (David_Hirtle)
Deborah Nichols (Deborah_Nichols)
Deepali Khushraj (Deepali_Khushraj)
Donald Chapin (DonaldC)
Edward Barkmeyer (Ed_Barkmeyer)
Evan Wallace (Evan_Wallace)
Francois Bry (FrancoisBry)
Frank McCabe (FrankMcCabe)
Gary Hallmark (GaryHallmark)
Giorgos Stamou (GiorgosStamou)
Harold Boley (Harold)
Hassan Ait-Kaci (Hassan_Ait-Kaci)
Igor Mozetic (Igor_Mozetic)
Jeff Pan (JeffPan)
Jeremy Caroll (JeremyCarroll)
John Hall (John_Hall)
Jos De Roo (JosDeRoo)
JosDeBruijn (josb)
Leora Morgenstern (LeoraMorgenstern)
Markus Krötzsch (MarkusK)
Michael Kifer (Michael_Kifer)
Michael Sintek (Michael_Sintek)
Mike Dean (Mike_Dean)
Minsu Jang (MinsuJang)
Paula-Lavinia Patranjan (PaulaP)
Said Tabet (Said_Tabet)
Ugo Corda (Ugo_Corda)
Christian de Sainte Marie (csma)
Holger Lausen (holger)
Jos de Bruijn (JosDeBruijn)
Sandro Hawke (sandro)
Vassilis Tzouvaras (vassilis)
Paul Vincent (PaulVincent)
Guizhen Yang (Guizhen_Yang)
Axel Polleres (Axel_Polleres)
Chris Menzel (ChrisMenzel)
Mala Mehrotra (Mala)

Regrets (cf. http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/2006-01-24_Meeting) 

Dieter Fensel 
Benjamin Grosof

Chair: Cristopher Welty
Scribe: Francois Bry 
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/2006-01-24_Meeting
        http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jan/0085.html
IRC Log:             http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-rif-irc
RSS Agents Minutes:  http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-rif-minutes.html
Meeting Wiki Page:   http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/2006-01-24_Meeting

Summary of Topics

1. ADMIN (20 min)
2. Liaison (10 min)
3. Use Case & Requirements (20 min)
4. OWL & RDF Compatibility (15 min)
5. Classification (15 min)
6. AOB (5 min) 

Summary of New Action Items

ACTION: Chrisitan will clarify with Elisa who she mean [1]
ACTION: Christian to send an email to announce this deadline [2]
ACTION: Ian writes up a new category "Rich Knowledge Representation 
features" in the use cases [3] [DONE]
ACTION: ChrisW come up with a narrative for a RichKR use case [4]
ACTION: Christian will propose another scenario for publication [5]
ACTION: IanH to write sceanrio for rich KR [6]
ACTION: Start this discussion on the mailing list Said [7]
ACTION: Move the importing rules to check data compliance to the 
interchange use case

Detailed Minutes


1. ADMIN 

Next meeting: 31 Jan 2006

Minute last meeting extended with 2 modifications: 
1. clarifies attendees list. 
2. Persons to be added to the attendee list (of the telecon of 17 Jan) 
should send an email to Christian de Sainte Marie. 

No amendment to agenda 

2. Liaison 

Christian de Sainte Marie clarified who is the head of 
re ISO SC32 WG2 to contact. He Will do it up till next week.

liaison reports from OMG SBVR - Allen Ginsberg:  
1. SBVR current liaison work is with proposed "Interchange of
Human-oriented Business Rules" general use case. 2. Final Adopted
Specification of OMG "Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Busines
Rules" will be published in a few weeks.

No liaison reports from SPARQL (W3C) - Enrico Franconi, 
XQuery, XPath (W3C) - Massimo Marchiori,
PRR (OMG) - Paul Vincent, 
ODM (OMG) - Elisa Kendall

3. Use Case & Requirements 

Chris Welty suggest extends one wek deadline for action 3.
Christian de SAinte Marie: goal was to make people look at use cases.
Said Tabet: I suggest deadline extension
Frank McCabe: Perhaps reviewing the use cases should be a standing 
action on all
Paula-Lavinia Patranjan: +1 for deadline extension
Chrisitan de Sainte Marie suggests extend deadline and send email all 
for informing of deadline extension.
Igor Mozetic: +1
Leora Morgenstern: +1 for deadline extension
Jeff Pan: +1
Francois Bry: +1
Giorgos Stamou: +1
JeremyCarroll: +1 to sandro
Sandro Hawke: what happens to feedback that's not in by the deadline?
Chris Welty suggests deadline extended by another week every one asked 
to look at general use cases.
Jeremy Carroll: W3C process requires all comments received before the LC 
deadline for comments to be addressed before CR.
Christian de Sainte Marie: feedback not in by this deadline wont go into 
first working draft
Christian de Sainte Marie: feedback needed at latest next week if draft 
expected for next f2f.
Jeremy Carroll: that seems to be the background to late comments can only 
be ignored after that LC deadline
Chris Welty Decision: one more week to go over use cases and ensure we 
cover all use cases we want to mention in the first working draft.
next ACTION: Ian to write scenario for Richt KR.
Allen Ginsberg: something has been done.
Chris Welty: if someone has finished an action, eg on the wiki, please 
send message to chairs.
Chris Welty: new scenario by Christian for publication usecase.
Christian de Sainte Marie: there might be more than one use case here. 
Is being further discussed on the mailing list.
Christian de Sainte Mazrie: As I look for the substance 
("substantifique moelle" after Rabelais http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/rabela.htm)
of this use case, this reminds me of a discussion that maybe use case could 
be looked at from other viewpoints, or dimensions. I'll care for starting a 
discussion on that on the mailing list.
Chris Welty: "Interoperability between rule engines" Not yet done.
Leora Morgenstern: Decision Support detailed scenario action under progress.
Chris Welty: Allen and David about UC?
Chris Welty: More UC issues to discuss?
Allen Ginsberg or David Hirtle: It is time to look at requirements.
Allen Ginsberg or David Hirtle: New UC annonced. 
Paula-Lavinia Patranjan: "my" action (detailed scenario for trust 
establishment) not fully done. Input from Benjamin missing.
Said Tabet offers to anser in lieu of Benjamin.
JeremyCarroll: asks if human oriented rules are out of scope.
Gary Hallmark: +1 for out of scope
Donald Chapin: General Use Case on quality assurance.
Christian de Sainte Mazrie: ACTION: csma to ask ISO whether liaison is 
worthwhile for ISO IEC [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-rif-minutes.html#action02]
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/]
Said Tabet: let us continue discussion by email. Applications needed for 
standard being used.
Christian de Sainte Marie: looking at publication use case, target is 
human and machine, RIF needed for being formal.
Christian de Sainte Marie: formal, ie unambigous and therefore machine 
processable.
Christian de Sainte Marie: human oriented rules seem to me to mean "
informal" or less formal.
Christian de Sainte Marie: ACTION: Allen to move the "importing rules to 
check data compliance" use [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-rif-minutes.html#action03]
Donald Chapin: Use Case is not about human communication, and should not be.
Christian de Sainte Marie: ACTION: Said to start the discussion about a 
general use case for rule systems that support business communication about 
rules & regulations on the mailing list 
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-rif-minutes.html#action04]
Ian Horrocks: If people are using RIF that way, then it is fine. The same 
rule can be interpretated differently.
Allen Ginsberg: depending obn culture or legal situation, etc.
Donald Chapin: RIF is not about human processing of rules, nor human 
communicating using rules. It is about having organizations interchanging 
rules with semantics. It is about interchanging between organization or 
rule systmes without loosing semantics.
Christian de Sainte Marie: ACTION: Christian to send an email to announce 
the one week deadline for reviewing edited general use cases. [CONTINUED] 
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-rif-minutes.html#action05]
Chris Welty: Interchange between rule systems with same or different 
meta-models?
Christian de Sainte Marie: ACTION: Ian Horrocks to write scenario for 
RichKR including 'features' [CONTINUED] 
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-rif-minutes.html#action06]
Chris Welty: Said's message starting this thread:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jan/0088.html
EdwardBarkmeyer: ??? 
Christian de Sainte Marie: ACTION: Chris Welty will come up with another 
example narrative for a RichKR use case [CONTINUED] 
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-rif-minutes.html#action07]
Sandro Hawke: Donald Chapin, maybe you can clarify what you just said for 
the scribe, when you get the chance.
Chris Welty: We have to make sure that we can exchange rules that have a 
formal semantics. Use Case must make clear that RIF only supports 
applications.
Christian de Sainte Marie: ACTION: Christian will propose another scenario 
for the publication use case [CONTINUED] 
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-rif-minutes.html#action08]
Gary Hallmark: want to exchange rules that can be machine edited but not 
machine executed?
Donald Chapin: Distinction needed: what is supported, what not.
Chris Welty: It should be a use case, not a requirement.
Chris Welty: Adding modality to rules for human communications.
Frank McCabe: deontic operators may well show up in compliance handling.
Donald Chapin: modal operators needed.
Christian de Sainte Marie: If there is such a requirement, it should be on 
interchanging rules specific to communication between humans.
Donald Chapin: Requirement must not be on the RIF.
Christian de Sainte Marie: ACTION: Frank will do the scenarios for 
information integration with Ed Barkmeyer assisting [CONTINUED] 
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-rif-minutes.html#action10]
Allen Ginsberg: ???
Evan Wallace: I thought we were only talking about use cases at this point. 
Requirements analysis comes in next stage.
Christian de Sainte Marie: use cases are about requirements, aren't they
Allen Ginsberg: Natural language might make sense for human communication. 
Maybe it is only about human understanding.
Said Tabet: we are not adding more requirements.
Christian de Sainte Marie: ACTION: Leora will do the Decision Support 
detailed scenario [CONTINUED] 
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-rif-minutes.html#action11]
Giorgos Stamou: maybe this use case strenghts some requirements
Gary Hallmark: maybe the use case is collaborative rule developement?
Ed Barkmeyer: add something in front of FOL. There are rules that can be 
used for rules for rule engines. 
Christian de Sainte Marie: collaborative rule devt is covered by the 
generalized use case nr 3.
Ed Barkmeyer: one issue is model. Another issue is that of "non-machine 
interpretable rules".
Harold Boley: we should focus on UC before coming to requirements. 
Human-orientedness good for advertising. We should work out this new 
use case.
Jeremy Carroll: note that we may *reject* this use case during review
Ed Barkmeyer:  what I meant was "actual model of modals"
Jeremy: this use cazse might not go into working draft.
... there are dividing opinions on this use case.
Chris Welty: no decision yet. We should not reject Use Case before we see 
it. We should understand what requirement this new use case would imply.
John Hall: We should discuss this use case /matter on email.
Chris Welty: agreed.
Christian de Sainte Marie: we do not want reject intersting use case.
Chris Welty: decsion: authors write down this use case so as we understand it.

4. OWL & RDF Compatibility 

Chris Welty: Email thread about semantics of RDF bnodes and relation to SPARQL.
Christian de Sainte Marie: SPARQL and in general query languages on the 
query/body side seem to be genrally accepted. What about Query on the 
consequence side?
Sandro Hawke: I wonder if SPARQL doesn't give us a good Condition part of a 
rule.
Christian de Sainte Marie: SPARQL query as body would be a good compatibility 
with RDF. Why not the same approach on the conclusion side? If we use query 
languages as a mean to ensure compatibilty on the query side, why not also 
on the conclusion side?
Jos De Bruijn: This would an rule extension of a query language. Like eg Datalog.
Francois Bry: RIF should not be defined as extension of one or several query 
langhuages. This would be too complicated, take more time than available, and
be rather risky (concerning eg semantics). Queries expressed in one or 
several query languages could be allowed in rule bodies thru procedural 
attachement. Queries do not belong in conclusion side, they are no data def, 
but queries. 
Jos De Bruijn: +1 do not extend query language
Christian de Sainte Marie: +1 do not extend QL, my point was to start the 
discussion on the conclusion side, knowing that queries can be used on the 
condition side
Gary Hallmark: Oracle found that a subset of SQL is useful in ECA rules
Harold Boley: in rule bodies queries from different languages thru procedural 
arttachement desirable.
Jos De Bruijn: SWRL allows queries in rules????
Harold Boley: this can be donme using templates, eg SPARQL templates.
Jos De Bruijn: No.
Edward Barkmeyer: my concern is that interpreting RDF like SPARQL does.
Jos De Bruijn: SPARQL does not adhere to RDF semantics
Edward Barkmeyer: conclusions in rule headsmight not be compatible with RDF 
model.
Axel Polleres: hmmm, if we allow SPARQL (or any other query language) in the 
body and the query is recursively dependent on the rule consequent... we are 
gonna run into some issues
Edward Barkmeyer: merging RDF facts with rule engine facts will yield 
interesting quertions on what the interpretation migft be.
Jos De Bruijn: being member of SPARQL WG: SPARQL query is noly filter. 
Therefore can be used in rule bodies. We do not see any issue at all if 
looking at SPARQL as filter rule.
Chris Welty: How to handle, meaning of query language in consequences unclear.
Chris Welty: Michael Kifer should now speak. 
<Michael Kifer disconnected.> 
Chris Welty: Further comments on that point?

Chris Welty: Bnode semantics?
Jos De Bruijn: we cannot resolve it yet
Chris Welty: Email exhange look like it has come to a resolution. Anyone to 
write down on that?
HaroldBoley: Besides the antecedent and an ordinary consequent, there may 
also be an equality consequent, where the equation right-hand side could be 
the template of SPARQL.
Michael Kifer: We cannot make any clear decision wrt semantics. We can write 
down in rthe wik what the issues/problems are.
Jos De Brujin: Otherwise we would copmmit the RIF.
Jeremy Carroll: Can we have e-mail to notify us after wiki update
Michale will write in wiki issues related to bnode semantics.
Jos De Brujin will update wiki page on bnode semantics.
Jos De Brujin: Comment on SPARQL: seems to also disregard bnodes.
Chris Welty: Volunteer to write about bnode/SPARQL?
Jos De Roo: will report on what is going on in SPARQL concerning bnodes.
Chrisitan de Sainte Marie: Enrico is also in SPARQL WG and copuld/should also 
report on node issue.
Jos De Bruijn: ACTION: JosB 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 
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-rif-minutes.html#action12]

5. Classification 

Chris Welty: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Rulesystem_Arrangement_Framework

6. AOB  

JosDeRoo:  ACTION: JosDeRoo to update RIF wrt SPARQL rdfSemantics issue and 
its pending resolution 
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-rif-minutes.html#action13]

Sandro Hawke: 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 list 
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-rif-minutes.html#action14]

Donald Chapin: action Christian was going to do about OWL/RDF compatibility 
discussions. What to do with rules based on two meta-models?
Said Tabet: +1
Edward Barkmeyer: +1
Donald Chapin: If meta-models are different, you cannot exchange the rules. 
We need use case stating what to do with different meta-models.
Donald Chapin: ACTION: Donald will submit an email about the use case for 
interchanging rules specified in different metamodels 
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/24-rif-minutes.html#action15]
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2006 14:54:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:26 GMT