See also: IRC log
<rifbot> Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/
<sandro> most excellent, ChrisW. :-)
<sandro> rifbot, help
<rifbot> See http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/ for help (use the IRC bot link)
<sandro> Basic rifbot format: ACTION: <user> to <title> - due <when>
<sandro> or just: ACTION: <user> to <title>
<ChrisW> got it
<sandro> and <when> can be eg "1 week" "2 months" "2006-09-14"
<sandro> let's hope we don't burn out the database hardware again this week. :-)
<ChrisW> i have the help page up
<ChrisW> scribenick: pfps
<ChrisW> Scribe: Peter Patel-Schneider
csma: next meeting is next
... minutes from 5 september are approved
<ChrisW> Sept 5 minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Sep/att-0009/05-rif-minutes.html
csma: agenda addenda: approve minutes for F2F3, update for F2F4
<ChrisW> f2f3 minutes: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F3
csma: approve F2F3 minutes (on
wiki, linked from this meeting agenda)
... no opposition, so approved! (belatedly)
<ChrisW> RESOLVED: approved Sept 5 telecon minutes
csma: F2F4 update
<ChrisW> RESOLVED: approved f2f3 minutes
pfps: registration for F2F4 is
open (currently in a temporary location, will be moved into W3C
... please register soon, even though there is no price change
... registration for ISWC changes in price on 15 September!
<ChrisW> ACTION: ppatelsc2 to update registration wiki page to mention price differential for iswc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/12-rif-minutes.html#action06]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-103 - Update registration wiki page to mention price differential for iswc [on Peter F. Patel-Schneider - due 2006-09-19].
hassan: registration form does not mention country
pfps: I expect that the registration organization will do the right thing
csma: nothing to report
csma: actions 58, 96
... restart task force on phase 1 compatability with RDF and OWL?
chrisWelty: to consider using RDF as data format for RIF and the part of OWL that is positive Horn as part of phase 1
csma: isn't this covered by "coverage" requirement
chrisWelty: because RDF and OWL are W3C standards they might deserve special attention
csma: make this part of the questionaire?
chrisWelty: the question is "what
part of RDF / OWL fits into RIF (phase 1)?"
... we need some people to make a "proposal" here
csma: volunteers? two people to
draft a proposal for what part of OWL should be in RIF phase
... no volunteers - this might mean that nothing of OWL is in pase 1
DaveReynolds: OWL only (is RDF separate)?
csma: two different questions
pfps: how long can this be open?
chrisWelty: this telecon ONLY
<DaveReynolds> where was this on the agenda?
<DavidHirtle> (good question)
csma: volunteers for how RDF fits into phase 1
DaveReynolds: what is the timescale
ChrisWelty: next draft is supposed to go out by 8 October, but otherwise no rush
csma: so the deadline for the next working draft is 26 September
DaveReynolds: thinking ... may
... how much (verbiage) would be needed?
<DavidHirtle> wording on OWL: "RIF must cover OWL knowledge bases as data where compatible with Phase 1 semantics."
ChrisWelty: things are currently quite simple, certainly they need to be updated to be in sync with other parts of UCR
csma: other actions continued
<Francois> Sorry, I must leave. bye.
csma: issue 5 done
<DaveReynolds> Try: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/products/10
<ChrisW> PROPOSED: CLose issue 9
<ChrisW> RESOLVED: close issue 9
csma: no objection, so closed
<ChrisW> PROPOSED: CLose issue 10
<ChrisW> RESOLVED: close issue 10
Allen: email has been sent on Issue 5
<ChrisW> Allen's email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Sep/0014.html
Paula: I don't understand what is needed to improve 2.2
<ChrisW> ACTION: Dreynold2 to clarify with pauly what to do to improve 2.2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/12-rif-minutes.html#action07]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-104 - Clarify with pauly what to do to improve 2.2 [on Dave Reynolds - due 2006-09-19].
Allen: implemented suggestion for 2.3
csma: therefore item 3 is done
<ChrisW> item 3 or 2?
pfps: csma: therefore item 2 (not 3) is done
Allen: item 3 - agree with comments on tagging - but nothing done yet
<ChrisW> ACTION: jhall2 to work with Frank to merge use cases 4 and 5 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/12-rif-minutes.html#action08]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-105 - Work with Frank to merge use cases 4 and 5 [on John Hall - due 2006-09-19].
Allen: item 4 - agree with suggestion but some editing needed (by Frank)
<ChrisW> ACTION: fmccabe to modify use case 5 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/12-rif-minutes.html#action09]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-106 - Modify use case 5 [on Francis McCabe - due 2006-09-19].
Allen: item 5 - done with reference added as well
Frank: I might not agree with comment - doesn't look repetitious - will edit as I think appropriate
DaveReynolds: this is minor - best effort is OK by me
csma: need Deborah for Issue
... consider Issue 6
... item 1 - comments?
chrisWelty: there was discussion
... compliance - which features to implement; default behaviour - what to do with unimplemented features
DaveReynolds: this sounds OK
cmsa: item 2 - comments?
DaveReynolds: current wording doesn't make much of a distinction
csma: standard components may be
targetted to something like XML parsing
DaveReynolds: does proposed solution for item 3 need word smithing
<ChrisW> RIF must support an appropriate set of scalar datatypes and associated
<ChrisW> operations as defined in XML Schema part 2 and associated specifications
<DavidHirtle> I think Sandro had input on this issue
csma: will put up proposal for adoption at next telecon
<ChrisW> ACTION: Dreynold2 to post email on rewording of xml datatype requirement [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/12-rif-minutes.html#action10]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-107 - Post email on rewording of xml datatype requirement [on Dave Reynolds - due 2006-09-19].
csma: issue 22 - definition of
... there have been several definitions of cover
... action to gather definitions and propose a synthesis
Allen: where are the other definitions?
<ChrisW> ACTION: aginsber to gather definitions of covers and propose a synthesis [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/12-rif-minutes.html#action11]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-108 - Gather definitions of covers and propose a synthesis [on Allen Ginsberg - due 2006-09-19].
csma: minutes of F2F3, email from pfps, one from Sandro - ask WG as well for others
DavidHirtle: definition from Allen as well?
<Allen> Have to go, see you next week.
csma: action on hassan
hassan: RIFRAF currently concerns
several kinds of rules
... concerns about vocabulary in RIFRAF (head, body, variables, etc.)
... need to worry about things like directionality
... a proposal was made last week, but has not been written up
... thus action is continued
... I need information about PRR (from csma)
csma: will send
... action 89 continued - no Alex
... action 94 continued
... proposal on what to do with questionaire (by email)
hassan: how about having session in F2F4 on questionnaire (and its results)?
<PaulaP> I will try to find time to answer it for XChange
csma: questionnaire should now be fairly complete - but missing actions and types
hassan: agreed - still need features of actions
csma: there are proposals for types what to do?
frank: yes - there is already a merged list of questions - but maybe need to be better organized
csma: can we get the questions?
hassan: propose adding these questions
csma: needs to be added by Axel
frank: I can clean up list of questions
frank: questionnaire is currently modified by cut-and-paste of text
ChrisWelty: better to put this all up on a Wiki page
<ChrisW> ACTION: fmccabe to move types hierarchy to wiki page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/12-rif-minutes.html#action12]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-109 - Move types hierarchy to wiki page [on Francis McCabe - due 2006-09-19].
csma: merged semantics for WD1
Harold: there is a merged version and a further change from Michael Kifer
<ChrisW> pfps: philosophical difference between proposal of mine and "merger"
<ChrisW> ...prefer a single semantics
<ChrisW> ...differences handled by controlled partial adherence to spec
MichaelKifer: currently there is a single semantics
<ChrisW> ACTION: ppatelsc2 to read "merged" semantics proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/12-rif-minutes.html#action13]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-110 - Read \"merged\" semantics proposal [on Peter F. Patel-Schneider - due 2006-09-19].
pfps: this looks potentially viable - will check
Harold: there are some wrinkles needed for constants
csma: how about adding heads?
<ChrisW> ACTION: mkifer to draft extension to existing proposal to include heads [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/12-rif-minutes.html#action14]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-111 - Draft extension to existing proposal to include heads [on Michael Kifer - due 2006-09-19].
MichaelKifer: will be easy
csma: XML syntax?
<ChrisW> action hboley to work on the synax, human readable and xml
<ChrisW> ACTION: hboley to work on the synax, human readable and xml [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/12-rif-minutes.html#action15]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-112 - Work on the synax, human readable and xml [on Harold Boley - due 2006-09-19].
csma: what about data sources?
cmsa: how are variables bound?
<Harold> Usually, in Horn rules, the scope of variables is one clause at a time only.
hassan: propose refinement of variable and scope
csma: wait for Hassan's answer, therefore
<Harold> The notion of scope we had been discussing applied to the scope of clauses within rulebases.