See also: IRC log
<ChrisW> scribenick: igor
<ChrisW> Scribe: Igor Mozetic
<scribe> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Feb/0005.html
<AlexKozlenkov> 44 is UK
<JeffP> +44 is UK
<AlexKozlenkov> Thanks for the UK bridge
calls from nonUS: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Feb/0007.html
<ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept Jan 30 minutes
RESOLUTION: approve minutes from Jan. 30 telecom
<ChrisW> sandro, i did an "/invite rifbot #rif" is that right?
<JeffP> earlier in Europe I guess
RESOLUTION: March 13 and 20 telecom will be at 4pm CET time
<ChrisW> action-214 done
<ChrisW> 13 people have responded that they are attending the f2f
csma: do we need a liaison with XBRL?
csma: PRR is different from XBRL
<agiurca> XBRL represents financial vocabularies
<Harold> Christian, Said Tabet is interested in XBRL; could you ask him?
<ChrisW> RESOLVED: Close Issue-5
<PaulaP> I've also modified use case 2 based on Dave's comments
<ChrisW> and thank you DaveR for the comments
<ChrisW> ACTION: Allen to add conclusion/summary to UCR [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/06-rif-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel
<ChrisW> RESOLVED: Close Issue-7
csma: we need 2-3 reviewers for UCR WD3 before F2F
<ChrisW> zakikm, who is here?
<agiurca> I can do it
agiurca: reviewer no.1
MoZ: reviewer no.2
<LeoraMorgenstern> yes, I'll be there
LeoraMorgenstern: reviewer no.3
ChrisW: reviewers should send comments to the whole list before F2F
csma: what to say about OWL and RDF compatibility?
ChrisW: we have to say something, even if it is a placeholder
<Harold> OWL placeholder: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/A.5_Extension%3A_Ontology_Conditions
MichaelKifer: proposes just sections/placeholder in WD1
<ChrisW> RESOLVED: 1st CORE WD will have sections titled "OWL Compatibility" and "RDF COmpatibility"
Sandro: doesn't object
<ChrisW> harold, can you take an action to do that
csma: what to say about ASN06 and abstract syntax?
<Harold> Chris, Yes.
<Harold> Chris, it's sections *titled* ...
MichaelKifer: if we use BNF we have to say something about abstract syntax
<Harold> Michael, we called the BNF syntax Human Readable syntax.
<Harold> This is different from Sandro's Abstract syntax.
<Harold> Sandro's Abstract syntax really is an OO Abstract model.
Hassan: why another formalism
... we need flexible tools to move from surface syntax to abstract syntax
csma: BNF syntaxt is specific to Horn logic and rules
<Harold> Christian, for Phase 1 we want to use Horn.
csma: ASN06 will specify the abstract syntaxt, and XML the concrete one
<Harold> So, an extensible BNF syntax for Horn is what we want as the Human Readable syntax.
<GaryHallmark> I as an implementer want an XML schema for RIF. Where does that come from?
<sandro> GaryHallmark, that's generated by software from the asn06 file.
<agiurca> schema can be generated from asn06
csma: distinguish between using
ASN06 and BNF in WD1
... we need at least one in WD1
... what is normative syntax is another question
<Harold> OWL also has a Human Readable syntax.
MichaelKifer: proposes to use BNF in WD1
<Harold> We wanted to be compatible with OWL, so we developed a very similar one, which has been in the Core since its beginning.
<Harold> We need it for specifying the semantics.
ChrisW: we add a clear statement that BNF is not normative
DaveReynolds: I see some value to including asn06 in the WD. (1) It is part of our extension mechanism, (2) it gives us a chance to get feedback on the asn06 idea, (3) it communicates that we are taking a meta-modelling approach.
MichaelKifer: in a few days there will be a stable version of WD1
<AlexKozlenkov> Does anyone have a good reference for asn06 apart from the RIF WIKI?
MichaelKifer: ASN06 can be added during or after F2F
<AxelPolleres> will just stay on IRC for a while to check what's going on...
Harold: fully striped XML is equivalent to ASN06
Sandro: turning BNF into ASN06 is not hard
<sandro> Sandro: To hide the fact that we don't have a metamodel we really like for the Core, by leaving out the asn06, isn't an approach I like.
csma: we need a description of ASN06 in WD1
<AlexKozlenkov> As I asked above, does Sandro have a good reference?
<sandro> ChrisW: what about using a UML diagram, instead of asn06 ?
ChrisW: proposes to add a UML diagram into WD1 as a metamodel for RIF
<sandro> +1 get formalizing asn06 out of the critical path for WD1
csma: provide UML diagram, use
BNF, no ASN06, and
... make it clear that it is not normative
Sandro: keep "no ASN06" out of the resolution
<Harold> DaveR, BNF is needed for the semantics spec.
DaveReynolds: why BNF, it might be misleading
MichaelKifer: BNF has a long tradition in mathematics
ChrisW: agrees with Michael
<AlexKozlenkov> I don't think UML is enough, it's just a graphical notation unless MOF is brought into it.
<GerdWagner> Alex, they mean MOF/UML when saying "UML"
<Harold> Example for the use of BNF syntax in semantics: I |= head :- body
<AlexKozlenkov> GW: they were suggesting using diagrams
<Harold> Another one: We define I |= Q head :- body iff I* |= head :- body for every I* that agrees with I everywhere except possibly on some variables mentioned in Q.
MichaelKifer: BNF cannot be
avoided if we want to provide semantics
... if we want readability
csma: don't remove the BNF from WD1
<ChrisW> proposed: 1st WD will include a UML diagram, and a clearly labelled non-normative BNF, for the syntax
<PaulaP> +1 to stay with the BNF syntax for the 1st WD
DaveReynolds: does not object to using BNF
<agiurca> +1 to include an UML diagram
<DaveReynolds> igor: I said I "would not object"
<AlexKozlenkov> Gerd, could you please clarify?
DaveReynolds: said he would _not_ object to BNF
<ChrisW> proposed: 1st WD will include a MOF-UML diagram, and a clearly labelled non-normative BNF, for the syntax
<sandro> BNF should be labelled not just non-normative but "not reviewed by WG"
<Harold> Christian, I can translate the asn06 model to MOF/UML.
Sandro: BNF was not reviewed by the RIF group and is not endorsed
<Harold> (But one of Sandro's asn06 tools could soon do it automatically?)
<AlexKozlenkov> But all the examples using BNF would then become "not reviewed by WG"?
Sandro: and this should be clearly stated in WD1
<sandro> "The Working Group has not considered the design of the language exprssed in this BNF. It is just a pedagogical tool. The serialization itself has not in any way been endorsed by the working group as a language for expressing rules"
<sandro> "for illustration purposes only"
<Harold> Christian, there are no commas!
<Harold> We use OWL's Human Readable syntax.
<Harold> OWL uses a Lisp-like space-separated language.
<Hassan> +1 to proposed resolution above
<ChrisW> proposed: 1st WD will include a MOF-UML diagram, and a BNF (clearly labelled as non-normative and illustrative only) , for the syntax
<sandro> Proposed: WD1 will include a MOF UML diagram and a BNF clearly labeles as non-normative and for illustration purposes only.
<AlexKozlenkov> MOF then becomes normative
Harold: objects to have BNF labeled as non-normative
MichaelKifer: agrees with Harold since we are too far from the final document
<ChrisW> proposed: 1st WD will include a MOF-UML diagram, and a BNF, for the syntax (clearly labelled as illustrative only)
<Harold> proposed: 1st WD will include a MOF-UML diagram, and a BNF, for the syntax (clearly labelled for illustration/explanation purposes only)
csma: both MOF/UML and BNF (or any) may disapear in the future
<AlexKozlenkov> no comma before "and a BNF"
<Harold> proposed: 1st WD will include a MOF-UML diagram and a BNF, for the syntax (clearly labelled for illustration/explanation purposes only).
<AllenGinsberg> should say "clearly labelled as being for..."
<sandro> trackbot, help
<trackbot> See http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/ for help (use the IRC bot link)
<rifbot> Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/
csma: we need 2-3 reviewers of WD1 within one week
<ChrisW> Resolved: 1st WD will include a MOF-UML diagram, and a BNF, for the syntax (clearly labelled as for illustration/explanation purposes only)
<sandro> trackbot, bye
<AllenGinsberg> lef out "being" in the resolution
<AllenGinsberg> I will
<ChrisW> ACTION: Harold to add placeholder sections each for OWL and RDF compatibilty [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/06-rif-minutes.html#action02]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-216 - Add placeholder sections each for OWL and RDF compatibilty [on Harold Boley - due 2007-02-13].
csma: reviewer no.1 is JosDB
mdean: reviewer no.2 by next Tue
<sandro> Reviews of http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core due by next week
<sandro> reviewers: JosDB, MikeDean, AllenGinsberg
<ChrisW> ACTION: Harold to draft caveat emptor section for syntax in core [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/06-rif-minutes.html#action03]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-217 - Draft caveat emptor section for syntax in core [on Harold Boley - due 2007-02-13].
AllenGinsberg: reviewer no.3
<ChrisW> ACTION: jos de bruijn to review CORE WD by next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/06-rif-minutes.html#action04]
<rifbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - jos
<rifbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jdebruij, jderoo)
<ChrisW> ACTION: jos_de_bruijn to review CORE WD by next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/06-rif-minutes.html#action05]
<rifbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - jos_de_bruijn
csma: stripe-skipping in WD1
<ChrisW> rifbot, help
<rifbot> See http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/ for help (use the IRC bot link)
Harold: current WD is stripe-skipped with two exceptions: head and body roles in Horn rules as well as declare and formula roles in quantified formulas.
<ChrisW> ACTION: jdebruij to review CORE WD by next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/06-rif-minutes.html#action06]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-218 - Review CORE WD by next week [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2007-02-13].
<ChrisW> ACTION: Allen to review CORE WD by next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/06-rif-minutes.html#action07]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-219 - Review CORE WD by next week [on Allen Ginsberg - due 2007-02-13].
<ChrisW> ACTION: Mike to review CORE WD by next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/06-rif-minutes.html#action08]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-220 - Review CORE WD by next week [on Mike Dean - due 2007-02-13].
Harold: there will be XML examples in WD1 (for illustration)
<ChrisW> ACTION: Leora to review UCR WD by Feb 26 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/06-rif-minutes.html#action09]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-221 - Review UCR WD by Feb 26 [on Leora Morgenstern - due 2007-02-13].
<ChrisW> ACTION: Adrian to review UCR WD due Feb 23 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/06-rif-minutes.html#action10]
<rifbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Adrian
csma: the WD1 will contain XML examples (stripe-skipped) and labeled for illustration only
<ChrisW> sandro, adrian is not in the action tracker
proposed: the WD1 will contain XML examples (stripe-skipped) and labeled for illustration only
<ChrisW> ACTION: Mohamed to review UCR WD due Feb 23 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/06-rif-minutes.html#action11]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-222 - Review UCR WD due Feb 23 [on Mohamed ZERGAOUI - due 2007-02-13].
resolved: the WD1 will contain XML examples (stripe-skipped) and labeled for illustration only
<ChrisW> ACTION: harold to clearly label XML stripe-skipped examples as for illustration purposes only [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/06-rif-minutes.html#action12]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-223 - Clearly label XML stripe-skipped examples as for illustration purposes only [on Harold Boley - due 2007-02-13].
<agiurca> ChrisW: Adrian is agiurca
<ChrisW> ACTION: agiurca to review UCR WD due Feb 23 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/06-rif-minutes.html#action13]
<rifbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - agiurca
<LeoraMorgenstern> nothing to report
<ChrisW> adrian is not in the tracker
csma: no updates
Harold: F2F with afternoon for demos
<sandro> (two different databases)
Harold: when does the next F2F finish?
<GaryHallmark> what the demo?
ChrisW: next F2F will finish at 3pm
csma: agenda for F2F should be defined by Feb 10
<sandro> ChrisW, sorry, I'm not going to be able to get Adrian in Tracker right now.
<ChrisW> can i give you an action?
<sandro> Sure, give me an action to give Adrian the action.
<ChrisW> ACTION: sandro to add adrian to the tracker and give him the UCR review action due: Feb 23 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/06-rif-minutes.html#action14]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-224 - Add adrian to the tracker and give him the UCR review action due: Feb 23 [on Sandro Hawke - due 2007-02-13].
csma: one (maybe two) demos at next F2F
<Harold> What about demos by Sandro and Hassan?
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/BRL/XBRL/ Succeeded: s/Hron/Horn/ Succeeded: s/turing/turning/ FAILED: s/turing/turning/ Succeeded: s/what/why/ Succeeded: s/UMP/UML/ Succeeded: s/amy/may/ Found ScribeNick: igor Found Scribe: Igor Mozetic Default Present: igor, csma, DavidHirtle, ChrisW, PaulaP, Hassan, agiurca, Sandro, Leora_Morgenstern, Allen_Ginsberg, Harold, StellaMitchell, Dave_Reynolds, AlexKozlenkov, Jeff_Pan, MoZ, Gary_Hallmark, Gerd_Wagner, Mike_Dean, Michael_Kifer Present: igor csma DavidHirtle ChrisW PaulaP Hassan agiurca Sandro Leora_Morgenstern Allen_Ginsberg Harold StellaMitchell Dave_Reynolds AlexKozlenkov Jeff_Pan MoZ Gary_Hallmark Gerd_Wagner Mike_Dean Michael_Kifer Regrets: FrançoisBry JosDeBruijn AxelPolleres PaulVincent MichaelSintek Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Feb/0005.html Got date from IRC log name: 6 Feb 2007 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/02/06-rif-minutes.html People with action items: adrian agiurca allen bruijn de harold jdebruij jos jos_de_bruijn leora mike mohamed sandro[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]