chrisw: f2f2 minutes are now out; please go over them
chrisw: f2f3 will be in Montenegro June 8-9
axel: wiki page updated with hotel details etc.
chrisw: for f2f4 two possibilities so far
... could be before or after ISWC in Athens, GA
johnhall: will ask about 3rd and 4th of November
pfps: Athens Center in Athens, Georgia is a possibility
chrisw: in Atlanta (3-4 Nov or 4-5) $25 per day plus breaks
<ChrisW> +$15/person/day for lunhc
chrisw: we're still open to proposals if anyone's willing to sponsor (doesn't have to be at same time as ISWC)
<Elisa> That drive is doable -- mostly freeway, fyi.
chrisw: expect in the range of 40 people
csma: what is the feeling of everyone regarding having the f2f collocated with ISWC? ... many straight days of meetings
<josb> It is good to co-locate in order to reduce travel
mkifer: understand csma's argument, but worth it
<AxelPolleres> +1 to mk
<pfps> +1, colocation saves money and time, at the expense of some weariness
<josb> +1 to MK
<EvanWallace> +1 on avoiding another marathon ISWC
johnhall: there's an OMG meeting in Washington in December
csma: December is too late
<FrankMcCabe> +1 from me too
chrisw: we're still open but it seems people favor colocation with ISWC
<Elisa> nothing new from us.
donald: OMG publication -- parts might be interesting for us
<csma> ACTION: Dieter to review the Requirements [DROPPED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/21-rif-minutes.html#action02]
<csma> ACTION: Christian to create new Wiki page for requirements [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/21-rif-minutes.html#action01]
<ChrisW> ACTION: [DONE] chair to include the discussion on the 50 use cases (links to wiki in public drafts) in the agenda for the next telecon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/21-rif-minutes.html#action03]
<ChrisW> ACTION: [DONE] 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/2006/03/21-rif-minutes.html#action04]
<ChrisW> ACTION: [DONE] editors to remove paragraph to which chrisw objects [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/21-rif-minutes.html#action05]
csma: last week had discussion about whether to keep track of original use cases in the public draft
... decided we wouldn't for the first draft
... what do we do with initial use cases -- is it necessary to link back to them e.g. when discussing reqs?
josb: not good idea to link to wiki pages
<csma> +1 to not linking to wiki from public drafts
josb: at least not in final documents
harold: in order to get wide adoption of RIF once ready, good to have wide selection of use cases
... good to keep around
... e.g. link from RIF homepage
csma: like the idea of encouraging people to submit use cases
harold: people could reuse existing template
sandro: if people want to give us another use case, they should look over existing ones
csma: we need comments on use cases in document, not the original ones
<AxelPolleres> +1 to csma, makes sense.
<josb> +1 to csma: we need comments on UCR draft, not original use cases
csma: keep harold's idea in mind at least for later
<sandro> +1 (for this draft, at least)
allen: agree with csma re: comments only on UCR draft
... may be useful later to have appendix where relevant original wiki use cases are mentioned
<AxelPolleres> we should internally discuss, monitor, whether the original use cases are *covered*, the original authors being responsible for this.
<josb> sound to me like opening a big can of worms
csma: don't need to have this discussion each time we publish
<josb> We can do that as an exception, but by default we should not link to wiki
sandro: later, could tell people to feel free to add info on implementation to public wiki page
csma: followup to publication -
we want to disseminate the WD as much as possible
... make sure that as many people read the document as possible
... please disseminate within your organizations, lists, etc.
<PaulV> PRR liaison: no problem disseminating, although RIF stage 1 / horn rules may not be of too much interest
<Donald_Chapin> SBVR Liaison will do
<scribe> ACTION: Paul, Donald and Lisa to publicize WD within the standards you represent [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/21-rif-minutes.html#action06]
<PaulV> Action confirmed for PRR Liaison to publish the UCR draft
chrisw: (action contingent on actual release, of course)
<csma> ACTION: csma to publicise to Java Rules [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/21-rif-minutes.html#action07]
<josb> what about sparql?
<sandro> ACTION: ChrisW tell commonlogic about UCR pub [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/21-rif-minutes.html#action09]
<csma> ACTION: John Hall to publicise to BR community [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/21-rif-minutes.html#action10]
<csma> ACTION: JosB to publicise to SPARQL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/21-rif-minutes.html#action11]
<csma> ACTION: Sandro to set up a wiki page to record dissemination actions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/21-rif-minutes.html#action12]
csma: what to do with comments after publication?
chrisw: respond to comments as a group
csma: don't reply before discussion
chrisw: one of chairs should reply that it's been received
sandro: could have
... everyone will receive comments from the list
... we'll talk about it offline
<pfps> not important, in WebOnt only document editors were on the distribution list by default
chrisw: proposal - chairs only get the comments
... and editors
allen: at f2f had brainstorming session and made list of requirements -- is it on the wiki?
sandro: yes, a while ago
<ChrisW> ACTION: [PENDING] Chris to start email discussion about what issues are "fuzzy" wrt phase 1 & 2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/21-rif-minutes.html#action13]
csma: Paula's requirements list was bottom up; brainstorming was building on this
leora: do we have the URL for the comments not going to the mailing list?
<sandro> "Comments from the public to the Working Group are welcome at firstname.lastname@example.org (public archive"
<ChrisW> Public commetns url: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-comments
sandro: while going over brainstorming results, struck me that we're using "RIF" in different ways
chrisw: can you add them to the glossary?
sandro: looking for comments; if this doesn't work for you, propose something else
harold: by default, we should stick to the charter
csma: when adding a design constraint to the list, wouldn't mention whether phase 1 or phase 2
csma: is not an issue of phase 1
... it is an issue of urgency and depends on the use of rif core and extensions
... we can derive the definitions from the design constraints
<sandro> +1 csma -- don't state phasing in your Design Constraints -- state urgency
csma: and still keep the charter issues
frank: there is a methodology for
... establish high-level goals and identify factors that are necessary for these goals
... very useful and helps clarify what is important
frank: there should be 3 or 4
... identify from them technology requirements
dave: a huge number of
requirements at moment
... need proposals on email
chris: the discussion on the
process could take too long
... but we can try to make proposals on email
<josb> if you don't structure your discussion on requirements, it will go on forever
csma: the objective of phase 1 is
on achitecture principles and focus on extensions
... the idea of limiting the expressive power of rif to horn rules is just for postponing difficult issues to phase 2
... we should focus on the extension mechanisms and the basics for rif core
... afterwards we can start dealing with difficult issues
... this is also mentioned in the conclusion of the workshop we had
... we should leave the semantical and theoretical questions for phase 2
<GaryHallmark> +1 for extensibility. Or to put it another way, to make sure we don't paint ourselves into a corner and preclude e.g. reactive rules
chris: any further discussions?
<Uli> -1 for "semantical questions"
chris: this is an important point not clear from the charter
<StanDevitt> Another way to put it is to be sure that phase 1 design does not limit the later extensibility.
csma: difficult features instead
of semantical questions
... there are many ways to deal with the extensibility mechanisms
... not really clear how and where we should start
chris: it is important for our
... need to devote more time next week on this issue
... think to propose kinds of such mechanisms
<josb> What is an "extensibility mechanism"?
chris: based on these proposals the group can start discussions
<csma> ACTION: chair to put design for extensibility and discussion of proposals on agenda for next telecon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/21-rif-minutes.html#action15]
chris: we define a core language to be extended
chris: need to define how we extend this core
harold: e.g. in lisp you have
functions for defining new functions
... this is not the case for rif
<josb> Shouldn't we say "methods for extension"?
harold: we can use different syntactic methods, semantically is much more difficult
<josb> +1 to Harold: we need to take both syntactic and semantic aspects into account
<josb> We need to distinguish between syntactic and semantic extensions
<csma> +1 to josb
sandro: things to be added are to be added by the designers, not by the programmers (in a programming-language analogy)
csma: we can find a better term
... if we define this mechanism