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

[RIF][Admin] Draft minutes Telecon 14 March 2006

From: Jos de Bruijn <jos.debruijn@deri.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 08:48:58 +0100
To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1142840938.8839.11.camel@localhost.localdomain>
RIF WG Telecon
14 Mar 2006

Attendees
Present
        Sandro Hawke, Hassan, Deborah_Nichols, Harold, FrankMcCabe, Jos
        de Bruijn, Christian de Sainte Marie, +1.408.564.aaaa, Mala,
        Donald_Chapin, Allen_Ginsberg, Axel_Polleres, Dave_Reynolds,
        Peter Patel-Schneider, DavidHirtle, Igor_Mozetic, Mike_Dean,
        GiorgosStoilos, Paula-Lavinia Patranjan, Darko Anicic, Markus
        Krötzsch, Jeff Pan, Leora Morgenstein, Gary_Hallmark,
        Ed_Barkmeyer, Jos_De_Roo, Paul Vincent, Michael_Kifer, Ian
        Horrocks, Chris Welty
Regrets
        François Bry, Michael Sintek
Chair
        Christian de Sainte Marie
Scribe
        Jos de Bruijn
Agenda
        http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/2006-03-14_Meeting
        http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Mar/0180.html
IRC Log
        http://www.w3.org/2006/03/14-rif-irc
RSS Agents Minutes
        http://www.w3.org/2006/03/14-rif-minutes.html
Contents
      * Summary of Action Items
      * Topics 
             1. Minutes of last meeting
             2. Agenda amendments
             3. F2F meeting
             4. UC&R document
      * Complete record of the vote

________________________________________________________________________
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: chair to include the discussion on this issue (links to
wiki in public drafts) in the agenda for the next telecon [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2006/03/14-rif-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: editors of the UCR document to write a stub which marks
that requirements will follow in a later version [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2006/03/14-rif-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: editors to remove paragraph to which chrisw objects
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/14-rif-minutes.html#action04]
 
[DONE] ACTION: Axel to send email on redundancy between use cases 1.1,
1.4 and 1.5 and what should be [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2006/03/14-rif-minutes.html#action03]
 

 

Christian: main topic is first release of UCR document
... will be a short meeting; ChrisW is not there


Minutes of last meeting
Christian: objections?

<PaulaP> +1

Christian: no objections

<AxelPolleres> +1

RESOLUTION: Minutes of March 7th meeting are accepted

Christian: minutes of F2F meeting are not there yet
... they will be out shortly


Agenda amendments
<AxelPolleres> +1

<PaulaP> +1

csma: liason to be done after discussion of UCR document [no objections]


F2F meeting
csma: F2F3: result of straw poll: majority for 8-9 June

csma: propose to have F2F3 in Budva on June 8-9

<sandro> +1

+1

<PaulaP> +1

<igor> +1

<MarkusK> +1

<Donald_Chapin> =1

<Darko> +1

RESOLUTION: F2F3 will be in Budva, June 8-9

csma: F2F4: action on pfps to find sponsor
... he did not find anyone (see email)
... suggestion from pfps for people going to iswc could sponsor meeting
... action on Ed to propose solution related to business rules forum (is
at same time as iswc in Washington)

Ed: there is meeting space available on 10-11, following brf (business
rules forum)
... 10th is holiday in US (minor annoyance to US-based people)
... seconds observation that co-location with iswc would probably be
better in terms of getting rif to move forward

csma: when does iswc end?

pfps: ruleml is 9-10; owl workshop is 10-11

csma: 10-11 is conflict with these events; thus these dates are not an
option
... if connected with brf, it should be scheduled before

<MarkusK> For the protocol: we are talking about November.

<edbark> I will tell Terry Moriarty (BRF) that we will not use the space
on 10-11

csma encourages participants in the WG to sponsor F2F meetings, and
especially the F2F4 in November


UC&R document
csma: we want to have a vote on releasing first public working draft
... working group decision on this publication needs to be recorded
... a complete consensus for the first working draft is not necessary,
but is desirable

csma proposes to discuss the objections which people may have

csma: we will vote on the results of this discussion, including
amendments which might come up during the discussion

<sandro> brief discussions to see if there is consensus on each item; if
not, the UC gets postponed to WD2

pfps: wants to discuss title and abstract

csma: this can be discussed as well

<AxelPolleres> didn't see it either

csma: if we don't have a consensus on the title, we will keep it, like
for the abstract and not for the use cases; we will skip them if there
is no consensus

<LeoraMorgenstern> +1 with pfps

pfps: there are no requirements, although this is mentioned in the title
and abstract

<PaulV> PaulV apologizes for being late...

<AxelPolleres> +1 with solution 1 from pfps

pfps: either we put a stub (TODO) or we change the title and abstract to
reflect the fact that there are no requirements

<edbark> +1 to stub

Sandro: title can be changed in the middle of the process, but it would
probably be better to have a stub

<josb> +1 to stub

<DavidHirtle> +1 to stub

<igor> +1 to stub

<GiorgosStoilos> +1 to stub

csma: +1 to stub

<Allen> +1 to stub

<PaulaP> +1

RESOLUTION: there will be a stub in the UC&R document which marks that
requirements will follow in a later version



<scribe> ACTION: editors of the UCR document to write a stub which marks
that requirements will follow in a later version [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2006/03/14-rif-minutes.html#action01]

<edbark> not just "later draft", "next draft"

csma: let's more to use cases
... should we have an introductory paragraph to the use cases?

Allen: I sent this to the email list

csma: would like this to include a comment about the nearly 50 use cases
which are now summarized into the 8 more abstract use cases

Axel: why are there no references to the original use cases?

<sandro> +1 add reference to use cases on WIki

<PaulaP> +1

csma: would we have this in the final document (the recommendation)?
... what would be the purpose of this?

<igor> +1 for Wiki refs

Axel: thinks it might be interesting for some people

csma: to move discussion to later draft

<sandro> link to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Use_Cases ? or
where on WIki?

Harold: thinks that the final document could contain a link to the wiki
page on UCR

<MarkusK> Linking to wiki pages yields a versioning problem

<MarkusK> Wikis are not stable.

sandro: link to wiki will not stay in public draft

<AxelPolleres> you can link to specific versions in the wiki

csma: links seem too complex and confusing to the reader

<DavidHirtle> it could be as simple as making "fifty use cases" link
back to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Use%20Cases I'd think



<scribe> ACTION: chair to include the discussion on this issue (links to
wiki in public drafts) in the agenda for the next telecon [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2006/03/14-rif-minutes.html#action02]

Allen: what does it mean to reference original use cases, because they
are not discussed or agreed upon in the group

<MarkusK> [wiki version] This requires you to have 50 complicated urls,
right?

csma: Use case 1.1
... no registered objections

<DavidHirtle> @MarkusK, no - just the link above

csma: to discuss Axel, Dave and Paula's comments

<AxelPolleres> I would rewrite

<AxelPolleres> "widget" to "ordered good" or "purchase order item"

<FrankMcCabe> talking about widget is traditional

csma: Axel's comment: 'widget' seems sloppy

Allen: what do you want to have instead?

csma: seems easy to have something more serious

<AxelPolleres> ok

Allen: change 'widget' to 'item'

<LeoraMorgenstern> grammar issues: you'll need to have "some items,"
"the items," e.g,

RESOLUTION: in use case 1.1, 'widget' will be replaced with 'item'

<LeoraMorgenstern> rather than just a string substitution of "item" for
"widget"

<DavidHirtle> minor comment, Allen: "food stuff" --> "foodstuff"

Axel: did not object to publishing it now, but it should be discussed
what the discussion is between 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5

<sandro> DavidHirtle, (I find "foodstuff" clumsy and wonder if
"beverage" wouldn't be better.)



<scribe> ACTION: Axel to send email on redundancy between use cases 1.1,
1.4 and 1.5 and what should be done [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2006/03/14-rif-minutes.html#action03]

<Allen> how about "perishable" instead of "food stuff"

<sandro> (yes, perishable is good)

<DavidHirtle> perishable: "Something, especially foodstuff, subject to
decay or spoilage"

<DavidHirtle> but I agree, it's better

csma: other objections to use case 1.1?
... no
... use case 1.2
... comment Dave: need for interchange should be made more clear

<PaulaP> I think this is clear enough in this version

Dave: no objection to publishing at this time
... the case for the rules to be exposed is not clear; it even seems
that the information should be protected in this case

csma agrees with Dave's comment

csma: let's move on for now
... editors to correct the mentioned typo

Frank: about 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 begin similar: I actually think they are
different

<DavidHirtle> (I just fixed the typo Paula pointed out in 1.2)

<PaulaP> ok

<AxelPolleres> The narrative/scenario in 1.1,1.4,1.5 are very similar,
the differences should be made clearer or a merged use case should cover
all aspects. I will send a mail on that.

<GaryHallmark> can the rules be boxed rather than bulleted for
consistency?

Frank: about exchange rules vs. exchanging queries: distinction is made
in section on processes

csma: no objection to keeping 1.2 with the typo correction
... Use case 1.3
... all commenters propose last paragraph to be dropped

<DavidHirtle> Gary, they should be boxed in this latest version (in the
wiki)

<IanH> Can someone tell me my port number? I joined a couple of minutes
ago.

Allen: last paragraph is about SOA; no objection to removing that

<DavidHirtle> Gary, I see you must be talking about 1.2 -- you're right

Frank: would like to keep the paragraph, because we need a connection
with web services

<PaulaP> we could have another use case in the next UCR version

<PaulaP> on web services and soa

<FrankMcCabe> +1

Axel: issue of service-level agreements is important, but it is not
clear how it relates to this use case; perhaps a new use case is
necessary to capture this aspect

csma: no real objections to keep this text, so we'll keep the text for
the first public draft

ChrisW joins

csma: Use case 1.4
... comments: that it is similar to 1.1 and 1.5; this is already put
into an action for Axel
... other comment by Axel: would like more examples

Frank: could have a look at that
... the original use case had an additional example

Allen: there was a second rule, but it did not seem to refer to anything

<DavidHirtle> if the product is available in the warehouse in sufficient
quantity then order quantity can be met

<DavidHirtle> is the rule that was cut out

csma: no objections to keeping the use case as it is
... use case 1.5
... comment about redundancy
... proposal to remove one part; supported by Dave and Paula

<PaulaP> I didn't offer support for removing something from 1.5

Donald: thinks it should be discussed for the second draft, because
there is a difference of opinions

<PaulaP> just said that it would be good to have more on rif in the
second part

<DavidHirtle> (but you did say it was a bit long)

<PaulaP> no hard objections

<DaveReynolds> no hard objection

<PaulaP> no hard objections

<PaulaP> I accept the section

<PaulaP> no problem

chrisw (w/o chair's hat): objects to the use case as it stands; would
like to move it to the "under development section"

<sandro> (I'm trying to figure out if this is the place to use an
Issue.)

csma: can you accept the document as a whole with the use case as it is

chrisw (w/o chair's hat): thinks this is not really a use case for RIF

csma: sandro proposes that this can be added as an issue to the issues
list

sandro: is not sure whether this is an issue for the issues list,
because the issues list seems more for the technical issues, whereas
this is a scope issue

edbark: there is a tight deadline, but there are still many comments
... maybe we should have another round of edits before the first public
draft

<AxelPolleres> +1 to Edbark, I don't see this objection a harder point
than the others, I removed my objections for the undersstanding that
this is about getiing something out NOW

csma: W3C says that drafts should be published as early as possible

edbark: nobody will disagree with publishing a really early rough draft
... it is not necessary to go over all the use cases now

<AxelPolleres> +1 again

<csma> ack

<PaulaP> +1 for Ed

Frank: 2 threads in this use case: (1) whether the rules are interpreted
by the people and (2) rules about interorganizational business policies

+1 for Ed

Frank: if it's about human execution, agree with chrisw

Donald: is about specification of rules which are interpreted by both
people and machines

Allen: we don't want to use RIF for negotiation about what rules look
like

csma: chrisw's point is whether a rule is interpreted by a human or a
machine(?)
... Frank and chrisw possibly object to use case included in first draft

chrisw: objects to use case as it is

csma: thus use case is moved to section "under development"

Donald: what if we remove paragraph to which chrisw objects from first
draft and discuss it later?

chrisw: yes

Frank: objects to first paragraph; should be dropped

<sandro> Discussion is on dropping "EU-Rent UK finds some problems in
applying the rules. One is that sometimes it has to give free upgrades
to customers. It wants to have one of the rules for insurance tax
changed."

<sandro> or maybe not.

<PaulaP> I don't think the first para should be dropped

Donald: many people think first paragraph should not be dropped

<Allen> we should publish it so we can get comments from outside the rif

Frank: additional comment: should be faced at some point

<PaulaP> but we can accept 1.5 at moment

Allen: if we don't publish it, we don't know what the rest of the world
thinks

csma: no hard objections to publishing the use case with the paragraph
to which chrisw objects removed

RESOLUTION: include 1.5 in WD1 with the lines ChrisW objected to removed



<scribe> ACTION: editors to remove paragraph to which chrisw objects
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/14-rif-minutes.html#action04]

csma: use case 1.6

<PaulaP> no

csma: any objection to removing last part, after "Bob recently suffered
a concussion" of the use case

<LeoraMorgenstern> I think it should be discussed

Allen: do we need a disclaimer?

csma: different issue from removing part of the use case to align the
length of the use case with the other use cases

Leora: doesn't see the disclaimer

<PaulaP> I don't have it either

Leora: disclaimer should be reworded (sent in email); we should say it
*may* be inaccurate, not that it is inaccurate

<Deborah_Nichols> Disclaimer is in this version:
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Ruleset_Integration__for_Medical_Decision_Support

<Allen> Note: in the interest of readability and brevity, the
information and rules presented in the following scenario may not
precisely capture the current state of medical knowledge and best
practices in this field, but may be somewhat simplified.

<DavidHirtle> Paula, regarding your "these rules" comment, would it be
fine with you to just remove "these"?

Leora: it would be a pity to remove the part

<DavidHirtle> (I think it's still clear)

<DavidHirtle> i.e. "Decision support systems aid in the process of human
decision making, especially decision making that relies on expertise.
Reasoning with rules is an important part of this expert decision
making."

Leora: prescription example could be made shorter and we could leave the
part

<PaulaP> yes for David's question

<DavidHirtle> I'll make the change now

<PaulaP> ok

<DaveReynolds> Yes acceptable as is

RESOLUTION: include use case 1.6 in the WD with the disclaimer added

csma: use case 1.7
... comment Axel: should be extended, especially regarding motivation
... not easy to solve quickly; comment Paula: acronyms MRI and MAE
should be defined

<PaulaP> MRI stands for magnetic resonance imaging

<PaulaP> I don't know about MAE

<PaulaP> no objections

RESOLUTION: use case 1.7 to be included with the definitions of MRI and
MAE added

csma: use case 1.8
... is more of a placeholder

<AxelPolleres> no

csma: Axel said it should be developed and could help with the
development

RESOLUTION: use case 1.8 to be included in WD as is

csma: proposal to publish first public draft of WD
... will call the vote

See the complete Record of the vote.

AGFA: yes

<AxelPolleres> would +1 by each org on icq not be sufficient?

DERI galway: yes

DERI Innsbruck: yes

SRI:

<JosDeRoo> zakim. mute me

<csma> ETRI

ETRI: absent

<sandro> let say "absent" for ETRI

<MarkusK> FZI: yes

FairIsaac: yes

Bolzano: abstain

fujitsu: yes

<MarkusK> DFKI: absent

<IanH> BTW, re 1.7, MAE is Material Anatomical Entity

<DaveReynolds> HP: yes

IBM: yes

iLog: yes

IVML: yes

<igor> JSI: yes

University of Maryland: absent

MITRE: yes

<Allen> MITRE: yes

<edbark> NIST: yes

<Harold> NRC: yes

Nokia: absent

OMG: yes

OntologyWorks: absent

<GaryHallmark> Oracle: yes

<csma> pragati

<sandro> 23 Pragati Synergetic Research Inc.

Pragati: yes

<PaulaP> yes for REWERSE

REWERSE: yes

Sandpiper software: absent

SRI: yes

SUN: absent

University of Aberdeen: yes

University of Manchester: abstain

Ben Grosof: absent

Michael Kifer: yes

Chris Menzel: absent

W3C: yes

RESOLUTION: WG to release WD1

csma: applause for ourselves
... we need to ask for approval from the director to publish the first
WD

sandro: comments to the draft will come in on public-rif-comments@w3.org
... everyone in the WG should be in that list
... suggests to give 4 weeks for public comments

csma: review period 2-4 weeks

<sandro> RESOLVED: 4 week comment period


Complete record of the vote
This section contains a complete record of the vote which took place in
the telecon. Th vote was on the first public release of the UC&R
document. The record contains for each organisation the person who voted
and the actual vote (YES/NO/ABSTAIN). Organizations that were not
represented in the meeting are marked with ABSENT.

        #
   Organization
  Representative
       Vote
1
Agfa-Gevaert N. V.
Jos De Roo
YES
2
DERI Galway at the
National
University of
Ireland, Galway,
Ireland
Dieter Fensel (via
Proxy to Jos de
Bruijn)
YES
3
DERI Innsbruck at
the
Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck, Austria
Jos de Bruijn
YES
4
Electronics and
Telecommunications
Research Institute
(ETRI)
ABSENT
5
Fair Isaac
Corporation
Paul Vincent
YES
6
Forschungszentrum
Informatik (FZI)
Markus Krötzsch
YES
7
Free University of
Bozen-Bolzano
Peter F.
Patel-Schneider
ABSTAIN
8
Fujitsu Limited
Francis McCabe
YES
9
German Research
Center for
Artificial
Intelligence
(DFKI) Gmbh
ABSENT
10
HP
Dave Reynolds
YES
11
IBM Corporation
Leora Morgenstern
YES
12
ILOG, S.A.
Hassan Ait-Kaci
YES
13
Image, Video and
Multimedia Systems
Lab (IVML-NTUA)
Giorgos Stamou
YES
14
Jozef Stefan
Institute
Igor Mozetic
YES
15
MITRE Corporation
Allen Ginsberg
YES
16
Maryland
Information and
Network Dynamics
Lab at the
University of
Maryland
ABSENT
17
National Institute
of Standards and
Technology (NIST)
Edward Barkmeyer
YES
18
National Research
Council Canada
Harold Boley
YES
19
Nokia
ABSENT
20
Object Management
Group, Inc. (OMG)
Donald Chapin
YES
21
Ontology Works
ABSENT
22
Oracle Corporation
Gary Hallmark
YES
23
Pragati Synergetic
Research Inc.
Mala Mehrotra
YES
24
REWERSE
Paula-Lavinia
Patranjan
YES
25
SRI International
Mike Dean
YES
26
Sandpiper
Software, Inc.
ABSENT
27
Sun Microsystems,
Inc.
ABSENT
28
University of
Aberdeen,
Computing Science
Jeff Z. Pan
YES
29
University of
Manchester
Ian Horrocks
ABSTAIN
30
Invited expert
Benjamin Grosof
ABSENT
31
Invited expert
Michael Kifer
YES
32
Invited expert
Chris Menzel
ABSENT
33
W3C/MIT
Sandro Hawke
YES
 
[End of minutes]



Received on Monday, 20 March 2006 07:49:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:27 GMT