- From: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:24:12 -0500
- To: Alex Kozlenkov <alex.kozlenkov@betfair.com>
- CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Alex,
You just need to clean up the section headings a bit (ie move them), as the first
couple (at least) seem to label the sections before them.
-Chris
Alex Kozlenkov wrote:
> Big apologies for the omission. The minutes are attached this time.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> *From:* public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Alex Kozlenkov
> *Sent:* 15 January 2007 09:27
> *To:* public-rif-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* RIF WG Minutes from 9 Jan. 2007 telecon
>
>
>
> I’ve attached the draft of minutes for the 9 of January teleconference.
>
>
>
> It would be good if the speakers had a look as sometimes the discussion
> was way too fast for me to capture the salient points.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Alex Kozlenkov
>
>
>
> Advanced Technology Group
>
>
>
> Office: +44 (0)20 8834 6854
>
> Yahoo! Messenger: alex.kozlenkov
>
>
>
> Betfair Limited | Winslow Road | Hammersmith Embankment | London | W6 9HP
>
> Company No. 5140986
>
>
>
> The information in this e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is
> intended only for the named recipient(s). The e-mail may not be
> disclosed or used by any person other than the addressee, nor may it be
> copied in any way. If you are not a named recipient please notify the
> sender immediately and delete any copies of this message. Any
> unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this
> e-mail is strictly forbidden. Any view or opinions presented are solely
> those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> In order to protect our email recipients, Betfair Group use SkyScan from
> MessageLabs to scan all Incoming and Outgoing mail for viruses.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> In order to protect our email recipients, Betfair Group use SkyScan from
> MessageLabs to scan all Incoming and Outgoing mail for viruses.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> W3C <http://www.w3.org/>
>
>
> - DRAFT -
>
>
> RIF Telecon 09 Jan 07
>
>
> 9 Jan 2007
>
> Agenda <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jan/0036.html>
>
> See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2007/01/09-rif-irc>
>
>
> Attendees
>
> Present
> Harold, ChrisW, Francois, FrankMcCabe, Sandro, Hassan_Ait-Kaci,
> csma, Dave_Reynolds, Deborah_Nichols, Jeff_Pan, Allen_Ginsberg,
> AlexKozlenkov, Gary_Hallmark, StellaMitchell, agiurca, johnhall,
> [IVML], igor, Michael_Kifer, Gerd_Wagner
> Regrets
> PaulaLaviniaPatranjan, JosDeBruijn, LeoraMorgenstern, MichaelSintek
> Chair
> Christian de Sainte-Marie
> Scribe
> Alex, Alex Kozlenkov
>
>
> Contents
>
> * Topics <#agenda>
> 1. Admin <#item01>
> 2. F2f <#item02>
> 3. Liason <#item03>
> 4. Technical Design <#item04>
> 5. UCR <#item05>
> 6. Technical Design <#item06>
> 7. RIFRAF <#item07>
> 8. Technical Design <#item08>
> * Summary of Action Items <#ActionSummary>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> <ChrisW> /topic #rif 09 Jan RIF agenda:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jan/0036.html
>
> <ChrisW> dave hirtle, you there?
>
> <ChrisW> are you joining us today, dave?
>
> <csma> david, could you scribe today, please?
>
> <ChrisW> dave hirtle are you thjere?
>
> <ChrisW> john hall? are you joining us today?
>
> <johnhall> trying to get a phone connection
>
> <csma> scribe: Alex
>
> <ChrisW> Scribe: Alex Kozlenkov
>
> <ChrisW> scribenick: AlexKozlenkov
>
> Next meeting 16th of January
>
> ChrisW: actions review
>
> Chris: no admin actions
>
>
> Admin
>
> <ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept Dec 19th telecon minutes
>
> csma: December 19th minutes approved
>
> Deborah: There are additional notes from Harold
> ... we should wait for the new version
> ... the minutes will be published tomorrow
>
> csma: action for F2F5
>
> Sandro: the meeting page is not yet set up
> ... should be there in the next couple of days
>
> <ChrisW> action 201 continued
>
> csma: Allen, any news about the meeting?
>
> Allen: Hotel is the main issue. Comfort Inn is good
> ... free shuttle from Dallas airport
> ... the information will be put up shortly
> ... Dulles the bets place to fly
>
> Sure, my fault obviously
>
> It's not Texas :-)
>
> <ChrisW> despite attempts by the president...
>
> Allen: the page will have to have nationalities registered on the
> meeting web
>
> Deborah: we need to have nationalities for security procedures
> ... all requirements will be checked shortly
>
> <ChrisW> *ACTION:* Allen to check information needed for foreign
> visitors, deadline for reg [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2007/01/09-rif-minutes.html#action01]
>
> <rifbot> Created ACTION-206 - Check information needed for foreign
> visitors, deadline for reg [on Allen Ginsberg - due 2007-01-16].
>
> <johnhall> SBVR - nothing new
>
>
> F2f
>
> csma: Liaisons, nothing new from OMG
>
>
> Liason
>
> Slots and constraints discussion
>
>
> Technical Design
>
> csma: Michael Kifer is not here
>
>
> UCR
>
> ChrisW: start first with the use cases and requirements
> ... proposes action review
>
> csma: action 132
>
> <ChrisW> action 132 closed
>
> johnwall: finished as reported two meetings ago
>
> <ChrisW> action 144 continued
>
> csma: 144 continued
>
> <ChrisW> action 167-168 closed
>
> <Allen> yes
>
> <igor> ok
>
> csma: 167/168 closed: definition of "covers"
> ... 169: glossary
>
> <ChrisW> action 169 continued
>
> Hassan: continued, but proposes other should contribute
>
> <ChrisW> action 169 closed
>
> csma: closes the action waiting for a new responsible
> ... 197
>
> Allen: cleared and ready apart from small details in UC1
>
> csma: takes up an action on UC1 motivation for linking to requirements
>
> <ChrisW> *ACTION:* Christian to clean up UC 1 requirements motivation
> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/09-rif-minutes.html#action02]
>
> <rifbot> Created ACTION-207 - Clean up UC 1 requirements motivation [on
> Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2007-01-16].
>
> <ChrisW> action 197 closed
>
> <ChrisW> action 205 closed
>
> csma: 205, new definition of covers added to UCR
>
> <Allen> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Introduction
>
> csma: question: any objections tro the proposed definition linked above
>
> <ChrisW> "One of the critical factors for a successful RIF is that it be
> useful for interchange of rules among the set of rule languages it is
> intended to cover. Section 5, Coverage, deals with the issue of how to
> characterize the space of rule languages in such a way that clear and
> principled decisions as to what the RIF will (and will not) cover can be
> made. We note that in this document we deliberately refrain from
> defining the notion of "coverage" in a rigorous manner,
>
> <igor> didn't Sandro propose an alternative?
>
> <ChrisW> Proposed: Accept definition of covers and close Issue-22
>
> Allen: altrernative Sandro's proposal is actually included based on
> e-mail exchange
>
> csma: definition is approved and issue closed
>
> <Deborah_Nichols> chris, yes, I can
>
> <ChrisW> RESOLVED: Accept definition of covers and close Issue-22
>
> ChrisW: it is approved by consensus
>
> <ChrisW> *ACTION:* deborah to update issues list to reflect resolution
> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/09-rif-minutes.html#action03]
>
> <rifbot> Created ACTION-208 - Update issues list to reflect resolution
> [on Deborah Nichols - due 2007-01-16].
>
> <csma> sandro, are you here? We are discussing issue 12
>
> Dave: Sandro's objections are not critical
>
> csma: RIF is the base of SWRL
> ... is the core question
>
> DaveReynolds: can live with that
>
> csma: we prefer that RIF will be the basis of SWRL
>
> Sandro: OK with that, perhaps a third path could be found
>
> csma: we would not work on that
> ... RIG WG is not responsible for this
> ... proposes to accept Sandro's proposal
>
> ChrisW: proposes to put it back to next week
>
> <ChrisW> *ACTION:* Christian to put resolution of issue-12 on next weeks
> agenda [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/09-rif-minutes.html#action04]
>
> <rifbot> Created ACTION-209 - Put resolution of issue-12 on next weeks
> agenda [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2007-01-16].
>
> csma: the text will be added to UCR
>
> Dave: probably into the Introduction
>
> Sandro: we could put it into the UCR now
>
> csma: still let us wait for a week before adding it
> ... close to the third version of UCR
>
> <ChrisW> Who is IVML?
>
> Allen: make a note about specific features in RIFRAF
>
> csma: could be for the next draft
> ... it is for the time when RIFRAF is complete
> ... Version 3 should be released before the end of the month
>
>
> RIFRAF
>
> csma: action review on RIFRAF quickly before returning to the Technical
> Design
> ... All ontologizing actions are continued
>
> <ChrisW> all RIFRAF actions continued
>
>
> Technical Design
>
> csma: all actions are continued
> ... back to the Technical Design
>
> Mic
>
> MichaelKifer: summary on the issues
> ... two styles: relational and OO
> ... relational is less general, no explicit object id
> ... relational can be converted to OO
>
> MichaelKifer, in general, the opposite may not be possible
>
> MichaelKifer, OO uses binary and unary predicates with object ids as
> first arguments
>
> MichaelKifer: this means going baack to relational notation is not possible
>
> <ChrisW> Michael, please stop breathing into the phone
>
> csma: confused because all the information in the OO slotted notation
> can be expressed in relational notation by combination of binary predicates
> ... conversely, adding information is not possible that is introducing
> object id that is not in the relational model
>
> MichaelKifer: going back is problematic because there is no place for
> object-id
>
> csma: refers to his example in e-mail
> ... object id can be made explicit
> ... in relational notation
>
> MichaelKifer: relational slotted notation is more restricted
> ... id is uniquely implied there by the values
>
> <Harold> Michael, what Christian seems to say is
> oid:Class{s1-v1,...,sN->vN} can be simulated via
> Class{s0->oid,s1-v1,...,sN->vN}.
>
> csma: is of opinion it is an important issue
>
> <csma> acq francois
>
> <Zakim> Francois, you wanted to translation oriented to relational.
>
> Francois: OO has implicit ids vs. the ones that should be made explicit
> in the relational case
>
> <MichaelKifer> Harold, the point is that Class{s0->oid,s1-v1,...,sN->vN}
> in the relational notation is an object with id that is different from oid.
>
> FrankMcCabe: object is the query itself
> ... no handle as blank nodes in RDF
>
> <ChrisW> Adrian, are you here?
>
> <Harold> Michael, the (relational) 'key' is a local id only.
>
> Harold: perhaps the dimension for slotted notations should be
> reconsidered for RIFRAF
>
> <Hassan> I agree with Frank. Michael seemed to agree. Slotted notation
> should be out of CORE and left to each dialect to be specified as
> constraints.
>
> <GaryHallmark> all the rule languages I'm interested in are slotted
> because they bind to "real world" data -- relational data, XML data, or
> Java data
>
> <GaryHallmark> -1 for not addressing this up front in a common way in CORE
>
> MichaelKifer: including slots or constraints affects roundtripping
> ... based on this understanding it should be agreed on where it is
>
> <GerdWagner> q
>
> GaryHallmark: better to have a common way of representing slots
>
> <MichaelKifer> my understanding is that slotted or not slotted impacts
> only the roundtrip point. in fact, any syntactic feature beyond plain
> unsorted predicate calculus (including constraints) is a round trip issue
>
> <Harold> Closed slots can be introduced without introducing oids at the
> same time, which is what we need for Phase 1.
>
> csma: action on GaryHallmark t oprovide examples with rules where
> slotted notation is useful
>
> <agiurca> There are many examples of rules with slots. See for example
> JBoss Rules
>
> <csma> +1 to chrisw
>
> GerdWagner: refers to his previous e-mails with examples of JBoss Rules
>
> <agiurca> Must be a common understanding of what is a slot
>
> <agiurca> F-Logic examples:
> http://oxygen.informatik.tu-cottbus.de/rewerse-i1/?q=node/22
>
> <GerdWagner> see
> http://oxygen.informatik.tu-cottbus.de/rewerse-i1/?q=node/24
>
> <sandro> The nature of the Core -- whether it should have Option
> Features -- is a different discussion!
>
> <Francois> Sorry, Friends, I have to leave.
>
> <Francois> bye.
>
> <Zakim> ChrisW, you wanted to say i'm not sure having objects in rules
> and slotted notation are the same
>
> ChrisW: having named roles is not the same as OO representation
>
> <Harold> Chris, I agree calling them 'keyword arguments' can remove the
> confusion.
>
> <Hassan> Yes Chris !
>
> ChrisW: these are separate ideas possibly due to the term "slotted" used
> for both
>
> <agiurca> In F-Logic : X:person[ancestor->>Y:person] . How this
> translate to RIF?
>
> <Harold> What I called 'closed slots' could be called 'keyword arguments'.
>
> <csma> acq hassan
>
> <agiurca> JBoss Rules Column: i : Item(actualDeliveryDate :
> actualDeliveryDate, scheduledDeliveryDate : scheduledDeliveryDate ) is
> another example in favor of slots
>
> Hassan: agree on the same datastructure and then sugar it into any form
> )in dialects)
>
> <Harold> Hassan, the nice thing with 'keyword arguments' is we don't
> need extra semantics: this simple case we need in Phase 1 can be
> 'de-sugared', as you say.
>
> Hassan: agrees with Gerd that a convenience will be useful
>
> <Harold> In CLP terminology, 'keyword arguments' are very special kind
> of constraints. In Phase 2 we can generalize this in the light of full CLP.
>
> MichaelKifer: can Hassan clarify his proposal for the convenience in the
> core
>
> Hassan: if 80% of clients agree on the model even if it is not perfect,
> this syntax will be good to have
>
> csma: concerned about the remaining 20%. Would it be too bad for them
>
> Hassan: the convenince will be ignored by the 20%
>
> <GerdWagner> there is no 100% coverage goal!
>
> Hassan: the convenience notaiton would be able to be converted to the
> universal constraints notation and then it can be accepted by the
> remaining 20% of the systems
>
> <MichaelKifer> i don't understand hak's arg: what is the point of having
> slotted notation in the core, but not giving it a semantics
>
> ChrisW: taking up again the relational to OO roundtripping
>
> <Harold> Chris, I proposed a round-trip between positional and slotted
> arguments, or better between non-keyword and keyword arguments.
>
> ChrisW: how do we lose the relational tuples if it went to the OO and back
>
> <Harold> Round-tripping between relational and OO is much harder.
>
> ChrisW: are we giving up anything in that LangA goes to Core then to
> LangB and back it could be problematic
>
> csma: UC1 is such example
>
> <agiurca> We need to use object oriented notation. Then the roundtrip is
> possible.
>
> <Harold> oid:Class{s1-v1,...,sN->vN} ==> Class{s0->oid,s1-v1,...,sN->vN}
> ==> oid:Class{s1-v1,...,sN->vN} has some problems, as Michael mentioned.
>
> MichaelKifer: will work with csma on his example on this roundtripping
>
> ChrisW: the core will have a keyword syntax
>
> Chris: ... available to it
>
> <DaveReynolds> possibly, depends on what it says about signatures
>
> csma: consensus on that: have keyword arguments
> ... ... in the core
>
> csma; takes up notion of RIF compliance
>
> <GerdWagner> alex please add "keyword arguments in the sense of OO slots"
>
> <ChrisW> consensus that we should have "keyword" syntax with what
> Michael called "OO semantics"
>
> <Hassan> What is an optional feature?
>
> Will do Chris
>
> <Harold> Take Gary's recursion discussion, as an example.
>
> <ChrisW> "implementing the core" means translating in/out of it
>
> <Hassan> Then it is necessary to have such options if we adopt the
> 80%/20% convenience slotted syntax.
>
> <Harold> The core could have optional feature recursive="yes" vs.
> recursive="no" (I think recursive="yes" should be the default, so we
> would have a 'negative' optional feature).
>
> MichaelKifer: implementing the core is not yet fully defined
>
> ChrisW: the question is not about implementing but about translating
>
> <ChrisW> we are out of time
>
> <ChrisW> we are out of time
>
> <csma> almost
>
> <johnhall> Sorry, I have another meeting
>
> csma: implementing a dialect and compliance
>
> AlexKozlenkov: we need both defintions
>
> csma: no consensus yet on this
>
> <sandro> +1 adjourn
>
> <Hassan> +1 to adjourn
>
> <GerdWagner> bye
>
> <agiurca> -agiurca
>
> <agiurca> quit
>
> <ChrisW> oops
>
> <ChrisW> hits the wrong button
>
> <csma> anything else you wanted to discuss?
>
> <ChrisW> no
>
> <ChrisW> see you tomorrow
>
> <csma> let's talk tomorrow, then
>
> <csma> bye
>
> <ChrisW> ciao
>
>
> Summary of Action Items
>
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Allen to check information needed for foreign
> visitors, deadline for reg [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2007/01/09-rif-minutes.html#action01]
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Christian to clean up UC 1 requirements motivation
> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/09-rif-minutes.html#action02]
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Christian to put resolution of issue-12 on next weeks
> agenda [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/09-rif-minutes.html#action04]
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* deborah to update issues list to reflect resolution
> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/09-rif-minutes.html#action03]
>
> [End of minutes]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl
> <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm> version
> 1.127 (CVS log <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/>)
> $Date: 2007/01/09 17:35:45 $
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Scribe.perl diagnostic output
>
> [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
>
> 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/Dallas/Dulles/
> Succeeded: s/kifer/Kifer/
> Succeeded: s/CrisW/ChrisW/
> Succeeded: s/thrid/third/
> Succeeded: s/convenince/convenience/
> Succeeded: s/CfhrisW/Chris/
> Succeeded: s/conformance/compliance/
> Succeeded: s/translatingf/translating/
> Found Scribe: Alex
> Found Scribe: Alex Kozlenkov
> Found ScribeNick: AlexKozlenkov
> Scribes: Alex, Alex Kozlenkov
> Default Present: Harold, ChrisW, Francois, FrankMcCabe, Sandro, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, csma, Dave_Reynolds, Deborah_Nichols, Jeff_Pan, Allen_Ginsberg, AlexKozlenkov, Gary_Hallmark, StellaMitchell, agiurca, johnhall, [IVML], igor, Michael_Kifer, Gerd_Wagner
> Present: Harold ChrisW Francois FrankMcCabe Sandro Hassan_Ait-Kaci csma Dave_Reynolds Deborah_Nichols Jeff_Pan Allen_Ginsberg AlexKozlenkov Gary_Hallmark StellaMitchell agiurca johnhall [IVML] igor Michael_Kifer Gerd_Wagner
> Regrets: PaulaLaviniaPatranjan JosDeBruijn LeoraMorgenstern MichaelSintek
> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jan/0036.html
> Got date from IRC log name: 9 Jan 2007
> Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/01/09-rif-minutes.html
> People with action items: allen christian deborah
>
> WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
> You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.
>
>
>
> [End of scribe.perl
> <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm>
> diagnostic output]
--
Dr. Christopher A. Welty IBM Watson Research Center
+1.914.784.7055 19 Skyline Dr.
cawelty@gmail.com Hawthorne, NY 10532
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty
Received on Tuesday, 16 January 2007 15:24:21 UTC