See also: IRC log
<ChrisW> hey moz, can you scribe today?
<MoZ> ChrisW, not I even won't be able to attend by phone, I fear
<MoZ> I will only be there on IRC
<MoZ> The problem is even I would do I still will be a first-half-time-scribe
<ChrisW> that's ok
<Harold> Enterprise Architect is another UML tool: http://www.sparxsystems.com/ea.htm
<ChrisW> ack ??
<csma> I will do it
<ChrisW> scribenick: csma
proposed: approve minutes of 13 Feb
RESOLUTION: minutes from 6 Feb approved
Allen: If you did not fill the
questionaire, please do it before next Friday
... extra room booked for BO sessions
<pfps> I'm ready to scribe.
<scribe> scribenick: pfps
Chris: If you think you might come, sign up on the Wiki and provide nationality so that the appropriate paperwork can be done.
<LeoraMorgenstern> Yes, sandro, because I forgot to sign up
Sandro: I'll reopen the questionnaire to support this.
Chris: 16 have signed up, so
... agenda is up for meeting
... If we can't approve drafts, then we want to at least try to get concrete actions for editors that will result in a working draft
... Documents will be frozen one week before F2F
<Harold> Is there news about wiki-tr (reading on the plane)?
Chris: Day 2 devoted to UCR
... Day 3 devoted to architecture and to complete actions from previous days
... WIKI page has more details, comments wanted
... Hotels still have room, but do often fill
Allen: Two demos are available.
Harold: What about remote participation?
Allen: Each room has a speakerphone
Chris: Use regular code, if second bridge is needed then one will be set up
Sandro: Will send out email asking who wants to phone in (and when?)
<csma> ACTION: to Sandro to send email to ask who plans to attend by phone [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/13-rif-minutes.html#action01]
<rifbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - to
<PaulVincent> PRR - no news
Chris: Action review
... Harold actions 216 done, 217 done,
... Jos action #? done
... actions 218, 219, 220 done
... action 223 done
... action 224 (Sandro) not done
Harold: draft incorporates all
changes from Allen's initial review
... still discussing later review from Allen and other reviews (appendix)
... overview section has initial content
... Mike and Jos are discussing comments
Michael: current document has motivation - where should they go? they might end up quite long
Chris: leave motivation, etc., in for initial draft, later move to another document
<agiurca> There is a consensus about the Section "Multisorted Extension?" Why is this an extension? I propose to drop out this section by moving the content to the Syntax and Semantics sections.
Michael: how to address criticism then?
Harold: comments are against
technical sections - mixture of intro and formal stuff
... maybe a reorganization of the section is the best way to go
Chris: how much work to rewrite
Michael/Harold: more than a week, can't just take it out, need to reorganize
Chris: Jos - what is the biggest problem
Jos: mixture of intro/motivation
and technical stuff, which degrades readability
... would be better to have informal intro to language with motivation
<csma> I agree with Jos; we should clearly separate what is the spec and what are additional explanations
Jos: separate section/document for technical stuff
<Harold> Jos, later perhaps we'll need a 'walk-through' like the one for OWL? Just not in one week?
Michael: other problems are small, this is the only one that is big
Jos: also question on end point (which documents?) so scope of this document is unclear
Chris: this doc is description of
RIF core - it will be the guts of the standard
... some stuff will move to another document, which is not ready yet, they need to exist now, so that this document can be read
Michael: the current situation is problematic for non-experts, there needs to be an introductory section or document
<Harold> Michael, but it's also a good didactic principle to do it "informal-formal-informal-formal-...".
<Harold> Rather than informal-informal-...informal-formal-formal-...-formal.
Michael: A completely formal document will need to point to the motivation
CSMA: not clear what is spec and
what is non-spec
... fix by visually indicating spec and non-spec?
Chris: can this be done?
<Allen> I agree with Christian
<agiurca> May be the RIF MOF/UML metamodel is better to be inside of the Positive Conditions section and not in the RIF overview.
Harold: probably, but how to do in WIKI style
Michael: how to do quickly?
<Harold> Christian, special fonts (or boxes) for "informal" and for "formal" would be doable.
CSMA: how about highlighting / italics (just for frozen version) and something better later?
Harold: how about colours?
Sandro: WIKI vs TR - have editors pick something for WIKI, I can map into TR
<Harold> E.g. in the help system: ||<#FF8080> red ||<#80FF80> green ||<#8080FF> blue ||
<agiurca> there is a <strong> tag which is not closed
Michael: Need some fixes for WIKI-TR - can't use entities
<Harold> Which colour do we use for "formal"? red?
Sandro: will try to fix (somehow)
Chris: temporary solution is to distinguish via colour
<Harold> Or, following Christian, mark "informal" by green?
CSMA: what goes into the overview? Why is the metamodel not in the spec?
<agiurca> From the metamodel cannot be obtained the actual BNF. What is the mapping which was used?
Harold: problem with mixing motivation with metamodel
CSMA: XML part should be separated, later
Harold: may not need strict separation, just mark
<agiurca> XML syntax can be generated fro the MOF abstract syntax
Harold: perhaps physically separate, and have links
CSMA: for this WD just mark, discuss end state later
Chris: move where?
<csma> I removed the remark about moving XML into a different section
Harold: need two diagrams
<csma> I keep the remark about moving the meta-model along with the corresponding BNF
Chris: do minimal change
<agiurca> The mapping from the MOF abstract syntax to BNF must be described.
Who is recording actions?
<csma> Action to Harold to move the MOF diagram to the relevant syntax subsection
Harold: problems with concurrent editing in WIKI
<csma> ACTION: Harold to move the MOF diagrams to the relevant syntax subsections [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/13-rif-minutes.html#action02]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-225 - Move the MOF diagrams to the relevant syntax subsections [on Harold Boley - due 2007-02-20].
Sandro: email WIKI bugs to sysreq
<sandro> to report the wiki being down or seriously malfunctioning.
Chris: how to fix problem with
... Sandro - run WIKI-TR and see if there are real problems
Harold: Can WIKI-TR handle appendices?
<csma> Can we move that discussion off line?
Sandro: can handle by using single numbering
Adrian: need to explain mapping from BNF to abstract syntax
Harold: something needs to be done
Adrian: why do we need new
... what about sorts? are they core or not?
Michael: in core
<Harold> "Multisorted extension" is a 'Core-internal' extension.
Adrian: then don't call this
... what is status of "type"
Harold: missing - needs to be added
Chris: put this into an email
<csma> Harold, do you want a action to add some text to explain the mapping between BNF and MOF diagram?
<Harold> Adrian, attributes in BNF syntax are not wide-spread, but we could invent something.
<Harold> Christian, yes.
Chris: other comments
Chris: next item - UCR
Allen: no recent changes - reviews have been assigned
<csma> ACTION: harold to add some text in the syntax subsections to explain the mapping between BNF and MOF diagrams [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/13-rif-minutes.html#action03]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-226 - Add some text in the syntax subsections to explain the mapping between BNF and MOF diagrams [on Harold Boley - due 2007-02-20].
Chris: what needs to be done for final version - there are outstanding issues
Chris: e.g. RIF must cover
... F2F should cover all outstanding issues with UCR
... each open UCR issue should have a plan
Alllen: OK, I'll look at them
Chris: some of them are old - and
should have already been closed
... we want a success - need to think about extensions as well
... this WILL come up at the F2F - be prepared
... action conclusion and summary - 215 - open
Allen: deferred to final version, work on phase 2 first
<csma> I do
Chris: opinions either way?
<csma> we should have a conclusion in the next WD
CSMA: we should have conclusion and summary now
Chris: OK, Allen can you do that
Allen: I'll try
<PaulaP> m7 zakim, unmute me
Paula: how should Phase 2 requirements be gathered?
Chris: good question - Allen?
Allen: no opinion
Chris: start new WIKI page - as before
Paula: I will help if needed
<ChrisW> action paula to start phase 2 wiki page
Chris: ACTION Paula set up new WIKI page
<csma> ACTION: PaulaP to start a new wiki page for phase 2 reqs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/13-rif-minutes.html#action04]
<rifbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - PaulaP
<ChrisW> ACTION: paula to start phase 2 wiki page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/13-rif-minutes.html#action05]
Chris: <sarcasm deleted>
<rifbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - paula
Chris: next item - RIFRAF
Axel: problems with aligning
different stuff with UML diagrams
... would like to go higher-level
... no feedback so far
Chris: Leora will be at F2F, but
not other RIFRAFers
... what to discuss at meeting?
Axel: I will try to attend by phone.
Chris: Metamodel discussion is
scheduled, RIFRAF also, these are the important ones
... how much time to allot?
Axel: depends on other people!
Chris: will put email on list of to-be-read
Axel: should I prepare slides?
Axel: will produce something by Monday
<ChrisW> ACTION: axel to send slides on proposed rifraf ontology [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/13-rif-minutes.html#action06]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-227 - Send slides on proposed rifraf ontology [on Axel Polleres - due 2007-02-20].
Chris: other business - going once, going twice, gone
<ChrisW> Scribe: Peter Patel-Schneider