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

Re: Draft W3C RIF WG minutes 2006-01-25

From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:21:15 +0100
Message-ID: <43D8DADB.1030708@ilog.fr>
To: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org

François,

Thanx for the draft minutes.

Francois Bry wrote:
> 
> Corrections and extensions welcome!

See below...

> 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.

The point was, actually, that, now that I have clarified with Elisa whom 
she meant I should contact (and that is EdB), I will be able to do the 
action re finding out whether a liaison with that WG would be worthwhile 
(see recording action 2 as continued, below).

> No liaison reports from [...] PRR (OMG) - Paul Vincent

PaulV reported that PRR submitted a revised draft on Jan. 23. Somebody 
(Sandro, probably) said that, thanks to an agreement with OMG, W3C 
member had access to OMG WIP (and, thus, to that revised draft) even if 
they were not OMG member. Somebody said, as a conclusion, that he would 
send out something: could be Paul saying that he would circulate the URL 
for the document or Sandro saying that he would circulate the info on 
how W3C member can access OMG documents, I do not remember.


> 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.

Wasn't there an action associated to that?

> 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/]

That action (from the Jan.03 conf'call) was meant to be recorded as 
[CONTINUED]

> 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]

That action (from the Jan.10 conf'call) was meant to be recorded as [DONE]

> 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]

That action (from the Jan.10 conf'call) was meant to be recorded as [DONE]


> 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]
> [...]
> 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]
> [...]
> 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]
> [...]
> 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]
> [...]
> 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]
> [...]
> 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]

I was only recording these actions (from previous meetings) as 
[CONTINUED]. Sort of a background activity: they should be recorded in 
the list of action items, but they do not need appear in the text.

> Christian de Sainte Marie: SPARQL and in general query languages on the 
> query/body side seem to be genrally accepted.

What I said is that using SPARQL and in general query languages might be 
a good way of ensuring compatibility with RDF and other languages, at 
least on the body/query side; and that I knew people who supported it; 
not that it seemed to be generally accepted.

> Chrisitan de Sainte Marie: Enrico is also in SPARQL WG and copuld/should 
> also report on node issue.

Cannot be me: I had left the telecon since several minutes.

> 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]
> [...]
> 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]

Actions 12 and 14 are the same action.

Actions 9 to 15 should be added to the summary list of actions.

Cheers,

Christian
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2006 14:20:29 GMT

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