- DRAFT - RIF Working Group Telecon 17 Jan 2006 Attendees - Alphabetic Order Hassan Ait-Kaci Edward Barkmeyer Harold Boley Philippe Bonnard François Bry Donald Chapin Ugo Corda Jos de Bruijn Christian de Sainte Marie Mike Dean Stan Devitt Allen Ginsberg John Hall Gary Hallmark Andreas Harth David Hirtle Ian Horrocks Minsu Jang Markus Krötzsch Massimo Marchiori Francis McCabe Chris Menzel Mala Mehrotra Leora Morgenstern Igor Mozetic Deborah Nichols Jeff Z. Pan Bijan Parsia Peter F. Patel-Schneider Paula-Lavinia Patranjan Axel Polleres Dave Reynolds Uli Sattler Said Tabet Paul Vincent Christopher Welty Guizhen Yang UNIDENTIFIED +353208789aacc, ??P17 Regrets See mailing list Chair Christian de Sainte Marie Scribe Donald Chapin Contents Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jan/0068.html IRC Log: http://www.w3.org/2006/01/17-rif-irc RSS Agents Minutes: http://www.w3.org/2006/01/17-rif-minutes.html Meeting Wiki Page: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/2006-01-17_Meeting Summary of Topics 1. ADMIN (10 min) 2. Liaison (10 min) 3. Use Case & Requirements (40 min) 4. OWL & RDF Compatibility (15 min) 5. Classification (10 min) 6. AOB (5 min) Summary of New Action Items ACTION: Allen to add a link to the current use case working draft from the main Use Case page at the top ACTION: Allen to move the "importing rules to check data compliance" use case to the general interchange use case 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. ACTION: Christian to send an email to announce the one week deadline for reviewing edited general use cases. ACTION: Ian Horrocks to write scenario for RichKR including ‘features’ ACTION: Chris Welty will come up with another example narrative for a RichKR use case ACTION: Christian will propose another scenario for the publication use case ACTION: Paula will provide a detailed scenario for .... (missed the name of the use case)" and will contact Benjamin about it ACTION: Paul Vincent will do the detailed scenario for "Interoperability between rule engines" ACTION: Frank will do the scenarios for information integration with Ed Barkmeyer assisting ACTION: Leora will do the Decision Support detailed scenario 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" Detailed Minutes 1. ADMIN (10 min) Next Meeting: 24 January Agenda amendments: a. Minutes from last week - if your name is not on the list of attendees identify the phone number and send email to the scribe b. January 3rd revised minutes included Evans changes c. Action for Regulatory Compliance was John Hall as well as Said d. Liaison amendments from last week: 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] MOTION: Keep minutes unapproved pending Christian's action. Will be deemed approve3d as soon as Elisa clarifies +1 +1 +1 Axel Polleres: minutes are sent of the RIF mailing list not put on the Wiki 2. Liaison Decisions SPARQL (W3C) - Enrico Franconi [CONFIRMED ACCEPTANCE] XQuery, XPath (W3C) - Massimo Marchiori [AGREED TO ACCEPT] 3. Use Case & Requirements (40 min) Wiki Page: [http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Use_Cases] Wiki draft: [http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/RIF_Use_Cases_and_Requirements] ACTION: Use case editors publish first draft by Jan 17 [DONE] ACTION: Ian writes up a new category "Rich Knowledge Representation features" in the use cases [DONE] ACTION: csma to ask Said and John Hall to take over use case category "Regulation/Constraint Compliance Monitoring" {DONE} ACTION: Chris Welty to find somebody for taking over use case category "Decision Support" [DONE] ACTION: Francis McCabe to take over use case category "Information Integration" [DONE] [http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Information_Integration] ACTION: Allen to take over use case category "Third Party Rule-Interchange-Enabling Service Providers" [DONE] [http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Third_Party_Rule-Interchange_Services] ACTION: Allen and David to check use cases for template-compliance and list incomplete use cases on the mailing list. [DONE] [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jan/0036.html] ACTION: csma to take over use case category "Interoperability Across Rule Engines and Tools" [DONE] [http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Write_once,_run_everywhere] ACTION: Paula to take over use case category "Policy-based transaction authorization and access control" [DONE] [http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Policy-Based_Transaction_Authorization_and_Access_Control] ACTION: Dave Reynolds to take over use case category "Publication" [DONE] [http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Publication] Use Case Status Discussion ACTION: Allen to add a link to the current use case working draft from the main Use Case page at the top Allen: Decision Support doesn't have anything in it yet. Leora: Will be doing Decision Support, just started yesterday. Allen: Privacy policy should be a separate general use case (top level category) Allen: Regulatory Compliance now has something in it. Needs something more. "Regulation Constraint & Compliance" has 2 use cases. One falls straight forwardly into the rule interchange use case. The other one about interpreting regulations with a large number of different stakeholders where RIF can help to make the interpretation clear. Thinks there is room for another category for rule systems that support human decisions about regulations. Said: The topic of regulations and corporate policies is an important top level category Allen: By far the most complex. We should move importing rules to check data compliance out and get more use cases of this kind ACTION: Allen to move the "importing rules to check data compliance" use case to the general interchange use case John Hall: Wants to propose a new category based on one of the rule system types - on am email discussion, but it needs a little email discussion first. Chris Welty: Does not think that RIF should be about human communication Said: That is not what he is talking about Christian: Propose we move that discussion of whether we need the category and does it fit the RIF to the mailing list 1+ to move discussion to email list 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. Said: If there is a category that has no use case yet, we should keep the category until we get a use case for it Allen: Some design goals have been added within a number of categories Allen: Use Case Draft has begun to highlight the difference between rule interchange and rule interoperability. The notes on the difference between rules interoperability and rules interchange are illuminating Allen: We need to coordinate interoperability vs. interchange terminology usage Chrisitan: Will discuss that on the mailing list MOTION: One week for working group members to read the (edited) general use case version in the edited Draft from Allen and David on the Wiki and provide the feedback on extensions and/or modification, and if needed proposed additional use cases on a mailing list discussion. Explain what is not covered, what should be done and why. +1 +1 +1 to discuss on mailing list +1 +1 ACTION: Christian to send an email to announce the one week deadline for reviewing edited general use cases Use Case: Required Details Discussion Christian: Need to decide the level of detail and where to put detail Allen: Each general use case should have: a. an overview (Section 2) is about marketing to potential users of RIF b. at least one scenario that describes the actual use of the RIF in more detail. Allen: Scenarios should be written in a discursive (story) form as it is best for publishing, better that sequence form. Frank: Use cases are there, in addition to marketing, to help make hard design choices well and ensure the necessary design features are there. The design goals of the RIF are critical to understanding which use cases to explore. Paula: Why not determining requirements on the RIF for each category of use cases? Hassan: It is normal that there can be several instances of detailed scenarios. Detailed scenarios may apply to more than one class of use cases Use Case Scenario Responsibility Discussion Allen: Doesn't see where the RIF comes into play in current description of RichKR use case. The example of travelers and what traditional system can't do might be a good scenario. i.e. managing incomplete information using RIF with an Ontology language. ACTION: Ian Horrocks to write scenario for RichKR including ‘features’ ACTION: Chris Welty will come up with another example narrative for a RichKR use case Allen: Publication Scenario volunteer: Dave: is the current narrative sufficient? ACTION: Christian will propose another scenario for the publication use case ACTION: Paula will provide a detailed scenario for .... (missed the name of the use case) ... and will contact Benjamin about it. ACTION: Paul Vincent will do the detailed scenario for "Interoperability between rule engines" ACTION: Frank will do the scenarios for information integration with Ed Barkmeyer assisting ACTION: Leora will do the Decision Support detailed scenario 4. OWL & RDF Compatibility (15 min) Wiki pages [http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/OWL_Compatibility] [http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/RDF_Compatibility] Recent email threads: b-node semantics: [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jan/0056.html] [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jan/0010.html] Christian: What part of the RIF vs. OWL/RDF Compatibility belongs to RIF and what part belong to OWL/RDF. Does OW/RDF involve questions of side effects? If so, that is a wider discussion. Production Rule Systems need to have support for dealing with side-effects of action. Harold: Production Rules go beyond body and head. Maybe we need an action part. Is that part of Phase 1 or Phase 2 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" 5. Classification (10 min) ACTION: Benjamin to start a Wiki page with initial list of systems [WITHDRAWN] ACTION: csma to start a Wiki page with initial list of systems [DONE] [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jan/0042.html] ACTION: chris clarify desiderata for list of classifications [???] ACTION: Chris Classifications draft Jan 31 {CONTINUED}. Wiki page [http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Rulesystem_Arrangement_Framework] Donald: I posted a clarification to the minutes of f2f Classification breakout session and added a Wiki page: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Rules_Systems_Supporting_Business_Communication and http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/RifRafKickoffScribeNotes Christian: Importance of Philip's email about the difference between systems that do and those that do not share the metamodel Gary Hallmark: need to intersect/union with deduction rule language I guess Allen: It is a good idea. The proposal in the first instance would be directed to do the same thing that ILOG has been doing for Production Rules no -= move to email propose to move discussion to email -1 no, move to email -1 move to mail please -1 +1 move to email +1 +1 +1 to move to email +1 +1 move to email