See also: IRC log
<DanC> I saw this in the minutes last week: "Chris: The chairs have polled the group about the Extensible Design: it should now be used as a working syntax." Is that a WG decision?
<ChrisW> my mind is a blank, DanC
<DanC> PFPS since sent a different proposal, and your response suggested it's in order, which suggests that's _not_ a WG decision.
<DanC> I'd like to see more discussion of how the proposals meet the requirements (and none at all about the meaning of 'unitary' ;-)
<ChrisW> yes, we need requirements, that will be our focus today and at the f2f
<ChrisW> We did not make a decision to use the syntax of the extensible design in RIF, just to begin comparing it to other systems
<DanC> so you did make a decision?
<ChrisW> your insistence on the word "decision" has me being cautious, perhaps overly so
<ChrisW> the context of the "poll" was specifically that it was not a vote
<DanC> that makes sense...
<ChrisW> about whether to accept the extensible design
<ChrisW> we just wanted people to start using it as a strawman to see what (if anything is needed)
<DanC> I learned the word "decision" from Jon Bosak; I joined some XML WG telcons after not attending them for months, and tried to discuss some topics, and they said "we've already made that Decision; unless you have new information, it's out of order to discuss it." It's an alternative to what Bosak observed as "last-man-standing consensus" in the IETF.
<ChrisW> a useful idea
<DanC> formally, W3C process only requires that a WG make 1 decision: to go to last call.
<DanC> but in my experience, it's useful to make a WG decision around each requirement and to close each issue.
<ChrisW> re: requirements, that is the plan
<csma> scribenick: Hassan
<AxelPolleres> I could have scribed... sorry, some seconds late
No weekly meeting next week because of F2F3
<DanC> draft minutes 23 May
<DanC> how about noting the correction in today's minutes, right here?
Christian finds last week's minutes ambiguous about "missing features of the XML elements of RifRaf"
CSMA wishes to clarifies the minutes regarding this before accepting them
Amendments to the minutes?
Action reviews for F2F3?
<DanC> er... so is that done? "Check hotel reservation for F2F3"
Update on F2F3 - review the draft agenda for the meeting
<SaidTabet> Christian: will there be a telecon access for those of us who are not traveling to the F2F?
<Zakim> DanC, you wanted to ask that RAF and DesignConstraints sessions be merged
CSMA: ask for feedback on the contents of the F2F3 agenda
DanC: suggests merging RIFRAF
session and Requirements session
... haven't seen group discussion of RIFRAF
Sandro: must distinguish requirements for systems and those specific for interchange
ChrisW: RIFRAF is a set of criteria to distinguish among rule systems to be classified
CSMA: Need to specify which part of RIFRAF is specific to interchange and what is not
<AxelPolleres> might be the wrong line
<AxelPolleres> I type it:
<ChrisW> ok, axel, hold on a moment
Harold: By themselves, the RAF's discriminators only span dimensions in which feature values can range, but don't suggest which values to fix in any of these dimensions. Narrowing down those ranges (possibly to specific values) would amount to requirements.
<AxelPolleres> small issue: i'd kindly ask th chairs to answer my technical question on phone connectivity for f2f3.
<DanC> to clarify, "haven't seen group discussion of RIFRAF", I have seen very nice evaluation of systems vs. RIFRAF, but the RIFRAF itself seems to be treated just as fact, not as a list of candidate requirements.
<AxelPolleres> I typed the issue on the IRC.
DanC: RAF seems to be "facts" - there has not been a discussion about whether, e.g., "function free" is relevant
<JosDeRoo> Axel, you probably took my name while doing Zakim, P37 is me
<DanC> (ok, I hear that that the RIFRAF stuff _is_ a list of candidate requirements, in a way. good to know.)
Gary Hall: Need to see better adequacy of the classification criteria to special cases like PR's
<AxelPolleres> My issue again [F2F3]: I wrote a mail to the chairs concerning phone connectivity at F2F3, which I would kindly ask them to answer. Thanks (no need to discuss this in the phone conf)
CSMA: need to relate Requirements with RIFRAF
<AxelPolleres> I will try again to find out the number. let's discuss further per mail
Sandro: regarding F2F3 connectivity and dialups - need to find a means (bring VOIP box?)
<AxelPolleres> We will find a solution.
<AxelPolleres> Paula and me.
CSMA: any more comments on F2F3 agenda?
None - move on to F2F4
<PaulaP> Contact for F2F3: Axel Polleres and Paula-Lavinia Patranjan
PFPS (not attending today) sent email web-registration information using credit cards
CSMA: any more comments on F2F4 meeting?
ChrisW: let's move on
CSMA: next item on the agenda: liaisons?
Action on Jos de Roo?
Jos de Roo: finished his action regarding DAWG
Need a liaision for SPARQL WG (since Jos de Roo is quitting his participation)
DanC: Do we need such a close relationship?
CSMA: close the action - we'll decide what we need when the time comes
Liaison with Common Logic?
Nothing to report...
Liaison with PRR - Paul Vincent?
PaulVincent: ok to give an update on PRR to this WG
Liaison with SBVR?
John: Telcon tomorrow - will report what transpires
Next topic: UCR
Actions re: UCR? two for CSMA (one continued, one done)
Action of Frank and Paula: merging requirement graph (done)
CSMA: Anyone to elaborate a new UC for RDF Data (Axel & Dave)?
<AxelPolleres> I didn't volunteer for the XML use case?!?
<AxelPolleres> I put this use case online.
<DaveReynolds> Is this the rewrite of the integration use case?
<FrankMcCabe> I see 40 mins scheduled for a discussion on requirements
CSMA: yes Dave - it is a rewrite of the integration UC
CSMA: move on to the Req. discussion
DaveReynolds: What is the deadline for doing this?
CSMA: no deadline - just wanted
to know if the UC can be discussed at the F2F3
... because of low attendance at F2F3, please review all relevant documents and send comments before F2F3 especially if not attending
Leora: How come FOL has been eliminated from the Reqs?
ChrisW: Nothing has been eliminated
Leora: has questions about several issues regarding what FOL and what "soundness" means for this WG
<johnhall> "Substantial proportion of FOL" ia also a question from SBVR team
Sandro: Christian please clarify about this issue about FOL
Paula: FOL req not in diagram, but is in the Wiki
Leora: is concerned about FOL being
not deemed as important as it should for RIF
... will explore the issue by email
<PaulaP> it was in an older version of the document
Frank: I don't see "substantial portion of FOL" - but see support for FOL - in the diagram
<ChrisW> we are taling about:
Frank: i wish to discuss the diagram for CSFs in order to explain it to the rest of the WG
<PaulaP> the text under the DCs diagram is under development/refinement at moment
<DavidHirtle> (I think everyone doesn't realize this -- the diagram is really the up to date thing)
Frank: need to find better formulations
Frank: wish to raise a few issues that need to be discussed: eg, Markups
<PaulaP> it is shortly explained in the text
Frank: procedural attachments?
<DaveReynolds> The text on "meta-language" doesn't match what Frank just said
<PaulaP> but we are going to refine it in the next days
<DaveReynolds> XML -> extensibilty is different from "XML support" -> extensibility
Frank: this diagram must be assessed for completeness, and commented with additional text
<DanC> "support XML" seems to be in a requirement box, but I don't understand how to test it. hm.
Frank: the diagram should be read as an index into the text
<LeoraMorgenstern> I'm glad that FOL has not been ruled out
Frank: to Leora: we have no intentions to rule out FOL as a Req.
<LeoraMorgenstern> Nevertheless, I think it's important to explicitly include FOL
<LeoraMorgenstern> as a requirement
PaulaP: There are open issues that need to be settled
CSMA: Not in my version!
<johnhall> click on the link in the agenda
CSMA: Oh now I see it! :-)
<DanC> (so is http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Design_Constraints still used?)
<PaulaP> yes it is
CSMA: the list of Reqs to be discussed at the F2F3 is what will be posted before this Friday night
<ChrisW> Please see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006May/0254.html
Sandro: shall we prioritize them by championing them?
ChrisW: The wiki pages accommodate "championing" the Reqs
<sandro> (The term "champion" is lousy. "support" is better.)
<LeoraMorgenstern> With respect to the list of open requirements, it seems to me that requiring FOL should not be in the same bucket as requiring likelihood and probabilities.
<ChrisW> +1 to getting rid of older pages
Sandro: need to clean up all obsolete pages
ChrisW: I sent a list of pages that need to be reconciled
CSMA: Frank's and Paula's page
should be the reference
... ACTION on Frank and Paula to do the cleanup
<sandro> ACTION: Frank to Consolidate all the data from the four pages linked from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006May/0254.html on to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/30-rif-minutes.html#action01]
Frank: A design constraint is on the solution, a requirement is on the problem
<DanC> (huh? isn't requirement pretty much a synonym for design constraint? i.e. something you can test a design against. Can we please try discussing a requirement/constraint in practice?)
DavidHirtle: Are Goals and Reqs to be put in distinct sections in the UCR document?
CSMA: the structure of the UCR document will be discussed at the F2F3
<sandro> Sandro: Frank and Paula should go ahead and edit the wiki, starting at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR to make their work nicely readable
FrankMcCabe: UCR document : use cases, then goals and reqs, then design constraints
<DanC> (yeah, whatever csma said, somebody pls write it down. or perhaps Chris already did in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006May/0254.html ? )
<ChrisW> ACTION: paula and frank to update GCR document wrt previous work [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/30-rif-minutes.html#action02]
<ChrisW> (to be completed by next tuesday)
Leora: having RIF handle probabilities is in a different "bucket" than FOL
Leora: ... FOL is much more basic
Leora: ... at least to RIF
CSMA: open issues is just a heap right now
CSMA: ... of "todo" items
Frank: will probably have the work done today or tomorrow
Frank: ...so people will have time to respond
Frank: ... so Friday is the deadline
<sandro> Proposed: Editors Draft of UCR/Requirements to be frozen on Friday
<ChrisW> ... for the GCR document
CSMA: must include the most recent posting (done before Friday)
FrankMcCabe: the document cannot be frozen on Friday
Sandro: why not Monday?
<DanC> (it sounds to me like 2 round-trips is infeasible. I'd suggest just one. The editor's do their best in the next day or so and then freeze it, without setting any expectation that they'll address comments.)
<josb> Monday would be helpful
CSMA: Tuesday noon?
<PaulaP> +1 to ChrisW
<GaryHallmark> 1 for friday freeze
<DanC> I think freezing Friday is workable.
ChrisW: we DO NOT need and extra round - please send comments right away, and we'll review Friday's version at the F2F3
<josb> Friday would be better
<DavidHirtle> (keyboard problem, Gary?)
<GaryHallmark> me thinks my plus sign is gone!
<DanC> (sounds to me like the plan Chris laid out in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006May/0254.html is OK)
CSMA: move to RIFRAF topic
Harold: Action on explaining the RAF criteria (DONE)
Sandro: what are our priorities for this call's agenda?
<ChrisW> Harold action done: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006May/0235.html
Sandro: we should discuss some of the requirement even if this meeting is extended
Sandro: anyone having prepared anything to step forth?
<DanC> in the agenda are "Discussion of Reactive Rules requirement" and "Discussion of OWL KBs requirement"
Sandro: now is the good time to bring up what you care about
ChrisW: extend this call by 30mins for one requirement discussion?
<LeoraMorgenstern> Right ... I thought in the agenda the 2 requirements up for discussion did *not* include FOL.
<LeoraMorgenstern> But sure, I am happy to discuss FOL.
<LeoraMorgenstern> But no one else is ...
<AlexKozlenkov> cannot discuss now even though it is important
<Francois> this does not look like many agreeing...
<hak> Sandro: hope everyone will be ready for a productive discussion
<Francois> bye. Sorry, i cannot stay longer...
CSMA: Actions on RIF/RAF criteria before F2F3?
CSMA: either (1) a new version of the RIF/RAF or (2) more classification of systems done
Harold: some amendments are possible, but not easy to modify the schema without breaking some instances
<DanC> we started formalizing the evaluations in DAWG, fyi... we didn't ever exploit the data, so it rotted... I'll find a pointer...
CSMA: actions on technical design
<AxelPolleres> continued, will try to send some mail by Friday.
CSMA: any last item?
CSMA: proposes to adjourn
<DanC> ChrisW, sorry for taking group time on stuff that was already covered.