See also: IRC log
Allen_Ginsberg, ChrisW, csma, DaveReynolds, Donald_Chapin, FrankMcCabe, GaryHallmark, GiorgosStoilos, Harold, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, JeffP, johnhall, Jos_de_Bruijn, Jos_De_Roo, LeoraMorgenstern, MalaMehrotra, MarkusK, MichaelKifer, Mike_Dean, PaulaP, sandro, StellaMitchell
Chris Welty (ChrisW)
f2f3 minutes now on wiki
too soon to approve
Will approve next week
last week telecon minutes posted
Does not have regrets or attendance
David will send email to Alex to please update attendance - regrets
No updates to agenda
<Donald_Chapin> nothing new
<Allen> UC1 is clearly about exchanging both facts and rules. Maybe Sven's question was about an earlier version or something. (addressing Sven's review of UCR)
I haven't finished putting in the action updates from last week.
ACTION: allen to post the previous work on links between reqs and [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/05-rif-minutes.html#action01]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-98 - Post the previous work on links between reqs and [on Allen Ginsberg - due 2006-09-12].
<sandro> ACTION-98 CLOSED
<sandro> Looking at: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/products to see overview of topics
<LeoraMorgenstern> what document is Chris reading from?
<sandro> Chris is probably looking at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/open
<LeoraMorgenstern> Okay, thanks.
<ChrisW> "Which CSFs (other than Alignment) does the XML syntax requirement support? "
look at 9-circle diagram near top of that page
<csma> The idea is to show that XML is important for more than just W3C.
ie it supports widescale adoption in other ways, too.
ChrisW: + low cost of implementation
<ChrisW> + Extensibility
what about Interoperability?
<csma> That's interop between rules
<FrankMcCabe> link between XML and extensibility is pretty weal
<sandro> I don't know if it's weak yet -- I don't know how we're doing extensibility
<DaveReynolds> -1 on XML having strong support for the extesibility CSF
<csma> I think XML is a CSF
itself -- it makes
<GaryHallmark> xml syntax supports low cost implementation because you can reuse standard language tools
<sandro> FrankMcCabe: That is -- "low cost of adoption"
<sandro> csma: Implementation is one part of adoption
<sandro> sandro: low cost of software development (adoption by vendors); low cost of deployment (adoption by end-users).
<FrankMcCabe> you could interpret "implementation" more generally
<ChrisW> ACTION: Frank to draft solution to Issue # [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/05-rif-minutes.html#action02]
<rifbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Frank
<ChrisW> ACTION: Francis to draft solution to Issue 3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/05-rif-minutes.html#action03]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-99 - Draft solution to Issue 3 [on Francis McCabe - due 2006-09-12].
<ChrisW> How about Frank looks at all the issues around linking Reqs o Goals and CSFS, issue 3, 4, 13
<sandro> ammend action 99 to cover issues 4 and 13 as well
<ChrisW> ACTION: Allen to deal with ISSUE-5 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/05-rif-minutes.html#action04]
<sandro> rifbot not happy about the database being offline either.
<ChrisW> NOTE that rifbot stopped before ACTION 4
<Allen> I'm scribing again
<PaulaP> Axel sent regrets
Action review for RIFRAF
Hassan and Christian will talk
Alex and Axel not here
End of action review
Taxonomy/ontology tools for building RIFRAF artifacts?
<Hassan> Great idea - but we need to agree on terms
Should we use OWL?
< ChrisW > should we use OWL
<FrankMcCabe> excellent idea.
but does OWL have expressiveness?
<sandro> seems like it could be good enough
<Hassan> agrees, but does everyone else agree?
<ChrisW>even if something in RIFRAF is beyond OWL, doesn't mean it doesn't go in RIFRAF
<Zakim> csma, you wanted to ask about the link between UC and reqs
<DaveReynolds> what does owl encoding buy us?
<FrankMcCabe> OWL would enhance precision
<DaveReynolds>: if it is only for people why do it?
< ChrisW > will need to include text annotation. Problem is we are beyond capabilities of questionaire tech is doing this.
<DaveReynolds>: this is less work than fixing questionaire?
<sandro> looks like it is
<csma> encoding in owl buys us help in extracting the meaning of the terms
<DaveReynolds> need to analysis questionaire data
<Hassan> don't think it will be that much work and will be a time saver....Questionaire is losing forest for trees.
<Hassan> would like to discuss specifications with sandro
< ChrisW > might want to ask Axel as well... continue to pursue this idea
<sandro> general sense: let's go ahead
< ChrisW >
Peter's action done
Any discussion on Peter's versus pre-existing wiki?
<csma> if we remove negation aren't they the same?
Chris and Harold agree with that
<csma> could be used for first draft of technical design
<MichaelKifer> semantics doesn't make sense for naf
<csma> didn't understand Michael’s email
<MichaelKifer> agreed, but this was clarified in 2nd email.
naf changes what is an intended models
naf makes a global difference
<Harold> We could start with http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/A.1_Basis%3A_Positive_Conditions and extend those to Horn rules in Phase 1.
<csma> for phase 1 it makes no difference...
<MichaelKifer> phase 2 naf would require more but compatible with earlier
<csma> do phase 1 w/o negation
<JeffP> what about individual vs data values for variables in P's proposal
< ChrisW > michael's proposal was different from P's in that way
<MichaelKifer> also need to divide predicates along those lines too then
< ChrisW > does M's semantics include that (possibly)
<MichaelKifer> yes, but it was a general framework not a semantics per s
< ChrisW > is breaking the universe up this way required for phase 1
<Harold> for many purposes not necessary, but not a major problem if we need to do it later
<DaveReynolds> +1 to starting with union, RDF would want to bind variables to both kinds
could add these separate domains into later refinements
<Harold> it should not contain this core is union; extensions could be refinements
<Hassan> My phone is dead ... I'call
<JeffP> these issues can be related in some way, might want to think more carefully
<Hassan> I'm back - sorry! design choices could impact the way we extend to negation
<MichaelKifer> not related. data types uses sorts. negation proceeds same with or without sorts
<Hassan> agree with Michael
< ChrisW > question is do we need it in the core?
<Hassan> this semantics is agnostic to the universe of discourse
<Harold> We could have a uniform 'universe' of constants initially, then split into "i" and "d" constants, then split "d" according to XML Part 2 (Datatypes). Maybe we don't want new kinds of variables for all of these refinements of constants, instead permit certain kinds of 'generic' variables (for some of these distinctions).
< ChrisW > only one has been proposed so far and that one makes the distinction. Can we simply that?
<Hassan> it is silly to have that.
< ChrisW > not silly. should it be in core or in extension.
<JeffP> another way is to distinguish predicates. eg, if you have builtin than its variables have type info
<FrankMcCabe> puzzled by peter's intention.
<MichaelKifer> typing variables is problematic. Don't make the distinction in the core.
<csma> support that. first version should be simple. reaction to core will tell us what to do
<Harold> I agree with Chris and Michael and Christian: Easier not make distinction in first core.
< ChrisW > next step - put peter's work in wiki page and connect it to technical design but delete negation and revise interpretation to get rid of distinction
<MichaelKifer> start new wiki page with original?
< ChrisW > no.
<Harold> I can help
<Harold> can Michael’ss proposal be the starting point (made compatible with peter's)
<ChrisW> ACTION: harold to start new wiki page on the core language to include Peter's proposal modulo changes we discussed [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/05-rif-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: Allen to deal with ISSUE-5
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/05-rif-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: allen to post the previous work on links between reqs and [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/05-rif-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Francis to draft solution to Issue 3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/05-rif-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Frank to draft solution to Issue # [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/05-rif-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: harold to start new wiki page on the core language to include Peter's proposal modulo changes we discussed [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/05-rif-minutes.html#action05]
[End of minutes]