See also: IRC log
<csma> Scribe: Mala Mehrotra
<csma> Scribenick: MalaMehrotra
<Francois> I hear you clearly.
<Deborah_Nichols> sound good to me - deborah
<LeoraMorgenstern> Regarding the minutes:
<LeoraMorgenstern> some attendees are missing
csma: Next meeting is next week usual time and place. Propose postponing accepting last week's minutes
<LeoraMorgenstern> Okay, will post on mailing list
<sandro> (Mohamed Zergaoui, INNOVIMAX)
csma: Amendments to agenda? None
<cgi-irc> Scribe: cgi-irc = PVincent
csma: Sandro will record the actions and close them.
csma: Agenda - F2F4
peter: Putting registration information on the web
<sandro> MalaMehrotra, a like like "topic: something" will make "something" a new heading in the minutes.
csma: Post regrets if not able to attend
<AxelPolleres> Please send fax number also by mail.
csma: F2F5 - Michael asked about
it last time. Who should host it
... January probable date for F2F5. Suggesting Tech Plenary in Jan at MIT. collocate with that. Sandro's action item.
<sandro> ACTION: Sandro investigate whether we can get a large enough room for a F2F5 at the mini-tech-plenary at MIT in January. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action01]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-121 - Investigate whether we can get a large enough room for a F2F5 at the mini-tech-plenary at MIT in January. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2006-10-03].
<MoZ> Sorry, I will be a little late (another telcon finishing)
<sandro> ChrisW: Maybe we'll have F2F6 at http://www2007.org/, so F2F5 should be in Europe.
Chris Welty: - WWW Conference in Banff in May next year.
Mike Kifer:F2F6 in Banff.
csma: F2F5 end of January.
Mike: Too short between F2F5 and F2F6. Normally 5 months?
<AxelPolleres> I'd personally prefer mid feb
csma: Closer to 3 months between F2F. 3-4 months is prescribed by WWW
<sandro> Sandro: Charter says "Face-to-face meetings will be held every two to four months."
csma: More like end of January- Feb.
Sandro: Can someone look into organizing details for F2F6 in Banff
Csma: Find who can organize F2F6 in Banff
<sandro> ACTION Christian to investigate F2F6 being colocated with WWW2007 in Banff
<sandro> ACTION: Christian to investigate F2F6 being colocated with WWW2007 in Banff [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action02]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-122 - Investigate F2F6 being colocated with WWW2007 in Banff [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2006-10-03].
Mike Kifer:RuleML conference after ISWC - If attendees stay 2 more days they can also attend OWL-Ed workshop which is collocated with RuleML both in time and place.
Mike: Sept 30 deadline for RuleML conference. Business Rules conference is in Washington in the week of ISWC.
csma: Action Item 100. Axel will be the editor.
<johnhall> nothing on SBVR
csma: PVincent - will you join PRR as well?
<cgi-irc> Sorry I'm muted!
<cgi-irc> PaulV: TIBCO will rejoin PRR when rejoin OMG
csma: Next is UCR
<sandro> PaulV, can you try "/nick Paul" ?
<sandro> that worked, Paul.
<Paul> Thx :)
<sandro> action-38 continued
<sandro> action-41 continued
csma: Action on Chris contd. for relationship of OWL and RDF. Action 38 is continued.
<sandro> action-72 continued -- csma will try to talk Don Chapin in person this week
Sandro: If the person completing the action item can send email to say their action items are done - that will be desirable
Deborah:I have sent email regarding my action item - I will discuss when my turn comes.
<sandro> action-99 done
<sandro> action-105 -- John says he'll finish it today
<sandro> action-115 redundant with Frank's -- a mistake.
Frank: Interoperability and extensibility bothe should be supported. Extensibility was somehow dropped before. XML syntax supports extensibility within its model.
<sandro> Frank: XML has an extensibility strategy -- not universally used (eg SOAP "must understand") -- based on ignoring structures you don't understand.
Frank: XML does support extensibility. There is a link between supporting XML for extensibility and CSF.
Csma: Perhaps people did not
... Propose resolution at the next meeting.
... Issue 4:also posted by Frank
Frank: compliance model and interoperability link for CSF diagram
Frank: Don't know why it was dropped in last F2F?
sandro: doesn't know why
<DavidHirtle> I think it was just due to lack of time for discussion/consensus
<DavidHirtle> (before the last draft)
sandro: Most people did not understand the concept - that is why it was dropped -- as far as I can remember
Frank: Require having a simple compliance model so that we can, by varying the model adapt to various specifications such as, interoperability
<sandro> Frank: Compliance Model is higher/meta level than Default Behavior
Frank: compliance model is at the meta level - RIF spec is a document. To be compliant look at the various features. Compliant model gives you what you need to be compliant for interoperability
Chris: If no one is speaking up on an issue just accept it and move on.
<DavidHirtle> +1 to ChrisW
<DavidHirtle> we can resolve these issues now
csma: Issue 3:Propose to accept Frank's solution
<DavidHirtle> Frank's solution: the XML syntax requirement supports both the interoperability and the extensibility CSFs
Dave Reynolds:Not sure about the proposal.
<sandro> DaveReynolds: I think RDF/XML supports extensibility where XML does not -- XML tools do not generally automatically support extensibility.
csma: we are chartered to see if XML supports extesibility , not look at some other language
<sandro> Frank: XML's approach to extensibility is probably not strong enough for RIF -- RDF/XML's might or might not be.
Frank: XML or RDF model strong enough for RIF
Dave: Generic XML tools do not allow extensibility
<sandro> Frank: XML tools *do* allow arbitrary content to go through -- DaveReynolds is wrong.
<sandro> csma: please move this to e-mail.
<DavidHirtle> Proposed: the Compliance Model requirement supports the Interoperability CSF
<csma> However, the reason that a compliance model supports interoperability
<csma> is that a formal understanding of what it means to comply to the RIF
<csma> is *essential* to the succesful use of RIF, and hence to
<csma> interoperability. The alternative to a formal compliance model is an
<csma> informal one: i.e., that defined by what popular tools support.
<sandro> +1 this text
<sandro> RESOLVED that the compliance model supports interoperability, for this reason.
<sandro> RESOLVED: that the compliance model requirement supports interoperability CSF, for this reason.
<sandro> skip issue 5 -- actions pending
csma: Skip issue 5 and move to issue 6
<DavidHirtle> it was closed in a previous telecon, right?
<DavidHirtle> oh, nevermind -- that was the previous one
csma: Explain issue 6.2
<Deborah_Nichols> csma: Action 114 on Chris W addressed issue 6.2
Chris W: Implementability and using std. components. Difference is that semantics of RIF should be such that it shouldn't allow people to solve currently unsolved problems
Chris W:Design should make people use what is out there - use the available components
<sandro> csma: Implementability means: implementation requires no new science
Chris W: one rqmt for implementability pushes for - no new developemnt solutions to be looked at
<sandro> csma: while "standard components" means implemention can re-use existing software modules, eg XML for parsers.
Chris W:The other restriction on component encourages use of what is already out there.
<sandro> this is about ISSUE-6
Csma: Dave R. Are you convinced by Chris's rqmt?
<sandro> DaveReynolds: I am convinced by this; the question is who is going to fix the text
Dave R.No Objection for Chris's suggestion.
Chris W: I will clarify this
<sandro> ACTION: Chris to propose new text clarifying ISSUE-6 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action03]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-123 - Propose new text clarifying ISSUE-6 [on Chris Menzel - due 2006-10-03].
<sandro> ACTION: ChrisW to propose new text clarifying ISSUE-6 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action04]
<rifbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - ChrisW
csma: Issue 7 - Deborah sent email on that
<sandro> ACTION: Chris Welty to propose new text clarifying ISSUE-6 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action05]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-124 - Welty to propose new text clarifying ISSUE-6 [on Chris Menzel - due 2006-10-03].
<sandro> ACTION: Welty to propose new text clarifying ISSUE-6 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action06]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-125 - Propose new text clarifying ISSUE-6 [on Christopher Welty - due 2006-10-03].
Deborah: Has summarized the issue
in an email
... Criticism on the use cases - some things not resolved. So I revisited it.
csma: -- Is there a general agreement on length of use cases? Propose to move it for giving more description
csma:-- use cases should be illustrating the features for RIF. Focus on use cases to be morefocussed . #3 under 7 - should we do any more work to focus the use case rqmt?
<DavidHirtle> -1 to moving the use cases
David: Derive rqmts from the use cases?
Csma: He meant not just a pointer from use case to rqmt but some explanation is needed
<FrankMcCabe> gotto go ... see y'all next week
Dave: this requirement sounds backward. Looks like each use case will need to be turned around
<sandro> Ciao, FrankMcCabe.
Deborah: UC were motivational to begin with and they could point to more than one rqmt. So task is that without restructuring do the linking to rqmt.
csma: We haven't done anything on this front yet.
Leora: UC were originally at a high level of description. If there was some more detailed level of description then the rqmts would be much clearer. For eg requirement for embedded meta-data is hard to link to the UC. We need to add more meat to the UC for some requirements by being more concrete in the UC
<sandro> As published: http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-ucr/#Requirements
sandro: Each UC should be manifested as a test case
CSMA: There seems to be 3 different sources of Requirements (1) from the use cases, (2) Rule Languages to be covered, & (3) from the charter of the WG.
Leora: Make the UC more solid in order to illustrate the link to requirements more solidly
<sandro> +1 to putting real rules, in real rule languages in at least some of the use cases.
<sandro> (maybe off in a different, Test Cases document.)
Allen: Some of the R are non-functional - cannot pinpoint to it like security, implemenatbility, semantic coverage, etc.
<LeoraMorgenstern> Mala, I am not arguing, per se, for shortening the requirements: Rather, I am arguing for making at least some use cases more concrete, while recognizing the need not to add length to the already over-long use cases.
sandro -- soon is an issue too. Come up with links for meta data should be doable in a short time frame.
<sandro> ACTION: Allen to write intro text for UCR, explaining how there are different sources of requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action07]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-126 - Write intro text for UCR, explaining how there are different sources of requirements [on Allen Ginsberg - due 2006-10-03].
csma: Allen to distinguish
different types of requirements for the UC. Analyze the requirements - then we will
see for which requirements we can be more specific. Propose to people to
write a draft for their UC?
... Any other proposal on how to proceed for this? For now, take UCs one by one.
<LeoraMorgenstern> ok, that's reasonable
Chris W: Leora take a shot at the medical UC and write it up in detail connecting with the requirements. Then have other people take this as a guide if they like the exercise.
<LeoraMorgenstern> (I somehow managed to disconnect myself from the call, but am still on the IRC)
<LeoraMorgenstern> I'm here but off the phone
<LeoraMorgenstern> Anyway, yes, I'll do what Chris asked
<LeoraMorgenstern> Let me get back onthe call
<csma> Will you work on the medical UC?
<sandro> Sandro: is this about adding more details -- like real rules -- or about linking to requirements ?
Leora: Will do. Adding more concrete stuff to the rules.
Sandro: Do second part of linking to requirements without writing out the rules?
<sandro> Chris: I think we should leave out specific rules at this point, but if you can address the second half -- maybe at a little detail, but focus showing how it connnects to requirements.
ChrisW: Leave UC to be without any real rules. Make the UC more specific. Add text to add requirements not covered. Avoid adding specific Rules.
<sandro> LeoraMorgenstern: I'll probably write the rules, and then cut them out.
<sandro> +1 concreteness
Leora: It is easier for me to do with specific rules/ I will edit it out for the WG even though I will work with the rules for my own sake. However,I will hold it for the test cases document.
<sandro> Sandro: hold on to the concrete rules for the test cases document.
<sandro> LeoraMorgenstern: it's easier for me to add specific rules, but I understand that you don't want the concrete rules in the UCR.
csma: By analyzing the requirements you can see if the UC needs to be made more specific.
<sandro> ACTION? Leora to propose revision to the medical use case, adding links to requrements, with some supporting arguments
Chris W: Misunderstood the example being proposed by CSMA
<sandro> ACTION: Leora to propose revision to the medical use case, adding links to requrements, with some supporting arguments [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action08]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-127 - Propose revision to the medical use case, adding links to requrements, with some supporting arguments [on Leora Morgenstern - due 2006-10-03].
<sandro> csma/ChrisW: adding links to all requirements, with some supporting arguments --- should be done for all requirements/usecases.
csma: We may not want this exercise to be done for all UCs. Let us do for one first. If supporting arguments not convincing then we can revise some of the UCs.
<sandro> csma/ChrisW: step 2 -- if that's not convincing, then we need to revise requirements.
csma: Who wants to do for #2? Francois?
<Francois> I could ask Paula to do it when she is back.
csma: I think it should it be done by someone who did not write the UC?
<Francois> I repeat: I could ask Paula to do it when she is back.
csma: Dave-R? R for UC2?
<sandro> DaveReynolds: No, I'm not convinced by it, so I can't really do it.
Dave: I am not right person for this UC as I am not convinced about it.
Francois: Paula could be considered for this.
csma: some one who did not write it is desirable.
<Francois> zakm, mute me.
csma: -- action for Paula. Linkl UC2 to R.
ChrisW: cannot give action to Paula if she is not here.
<Francois> paula is not on vacation, she is giving a talk.
csma: Give Francois the action to talk to Paula.
<Francois> I take the action.
csma: Paul volunteered for next one.
<Francois> very fine.
<sandro> ACTION: Francois to talk to Paula about linking UC2 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action09]
<rifbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Francois
<sandro> ACTION: Francois to talk to Paula about linking UC2 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action10]
<rifbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Francois
<csma> paul, do you take the action for UC 3?
<Francois> rifbot: I am here!
<sandro> ACTION: Bry to talk to Paula about linking UC2 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action11]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-128 - Talk to Paula about linking UC2 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [on Franï¿½ois Bry - due 2006-10-03].
<Paul> Paul is here: can take UC 3 but not my domain :)
<sandro> ACTION: Paul to talk to Paula about linking UC3 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action12]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-129 - Talk to Paula about linking UC3 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [on Paul Vincent - due 2006-10-03].
<AxelPolleres> I take use case 10, but I also have to leave.
<sandro> ACTION: Axel to link UC10 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action13]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-130 - Link UC10 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [on Axel Polleres - due 2006-10-03].
<AxelPolleres> well, i thought that i am the author of 10???? ;-)
Leora: Why am I taking one on medical support if idea is not the author for the UC?
csma: No. The idea is also to show the way for linking.
<AxelPolleres> let the authors give a try, and then revise by others... makes most sense imo. anyway need to go, i will see in the minutes
Allen: Am I a good candidate for mine?
csma: Allen volunteered for UC3
csma: Paul to do UC4? Agreed
<sandro> ACTION: Paul to link UC4 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action14]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-131 - Link UC4 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [on Paul Vincent - due 2006-10-03].
John hall: UC5
<sandro> ACTION: John to link UC5 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action15]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-132 - Link UC5 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [on John Hall - due 2006-10-03].
csma: Leora tool 6.
sandro: who got 1?
Deborah: Chris John did 1?
<csma> I am still online?
<johnhall> Sorry, I have to go - OMG is calling
<Deborah_Nichols> cmsa, you are still online
sandro: not sure who proposed the OWL one originally? Any OWL fans for that?
<sandro> Harold - BPEL
<sandro> Harold - BPEL
<sandro> Gary - OWL
<sandro> GiorgosStoilos, #8 Vocab Mapping
sandro: #8 - Giorgos
<sandro> ACTION: Gary to link UC7 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action16]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-133 - Link UC7 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [on Gary Hallmark - due 2006-10-03].
<sandro> ACTION: Stoilos to link UC8 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action17]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-134 - Link UC8 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [on Giorgos Stoilos - due 2006-10-03].
<sandro> ACTION: Harold to link UC9 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html#action18]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-135 - Link UC9 to requirements, adding supporting arguments. [on Harold Boley - due 2006-10-03].
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.127 of Date: 2005/08/16 15:12:03 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/misisng/missing/ Succeeded: s/dropped/dropped -- as far as I can remember/ Found Scribe: Mala Mehrotra Found ScribeNick: MalaMehrotra Found Scribe: cgi-irc = PVincent Scribes: Mala Mehrotra, cgi-irc = PVincent WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: AlexKozlenkov Allen Allen_Ginsberg AxelPolleres Axel_Polleres CW Chris ChrisW Csma Dave DaveReynolds Dave_Reynolds David DavidHirtle Deborah Deborah_Nichols Francois Frank FrankMcCabe GaryHallmark Gary_Hallmark GiorgosStoilos Harold IBM IPcaller Leora LeoraMorgenstern Leora_Morgenstern Mala_Mehrotra MarkusK MichaelKifer Mike Mike_Dean MoZ NRCC P10 P11 P12 P14 P19 P34 Paul PaulV Paul_Vincent Proposed Scribenick StellaMitchell aaaa cgi-irc igor johnhall joined peter pfps polo rif rifbot sandro was You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Got date from IRC log name: 26 Sep 2006 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2006/09/26-rif-minutes.html People with action items: allen axel bry chris christian chrisw francois gary harold john leora paul sandro stoilos welty WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]