See also: IRC log
<ChrisW> Scribe: John Hall
<ChrisW> scribenick: johnhall
Jan 16 minutes approved
Jan 23 minutes approved
No agenda amendments
<csma> action-210 closed
Action 210 completed - Allen to add hotels to F2F page
Allen: will there be time on day 3 to show some demos?
csma: time on day 3 for demos needs to be on F2F agenda
ChrisW: people wanting to do demos - contact Allen for infrastructure needed for demos
Allen: telecon facilities - use W3C bridge
... networking - wireless access
... wil look into details
Allen: for accommmodation, recommend Comfort Inn
ChrisW: make reservation now - can cancel later if necessary
<csma> action to allen to check telecon and network for F2F
<ChrisW> ACTION: allen to check telecon and network for F2F [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/01/30-rif-minutes.html#action01]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-214 - Check telecon and network for F2F [on Allen Ginsberg - due 2007-02-06].
csma: how long needed for demos?
Allen: maybe 2 hours - depends on who wants to demo
csma: need to know who, for agenda
Allen: deadline Feb 10?
<Sandro> 2 weeks in advance
csma: agenda needed - at least draft - end of this week
Feb 10 OK deadline for demos
johnhall: SBVR - no change
<PaulVincent> PRR - no change
ChrisW: What OMG phase is PRR in?
PaulVincent: V1 to be completed in next few OMG meeting cycles
ChrisW: Is it in finalization?
PaulVincent: to be submitted in April, finalization a further 6 months
<csma> action-182 closed
ChrisW: Discussion - lots of email activity on Sandro's proposal
<ChrisW> regarding the XML syntax from the abstract syntax
Sandro: decouple XML syntax from information in rules
... XML syntax mechanically derived
... 2 classes - fully striped or stripe skipped
... recommend stripe skipped
ChrisW: stripe skipping - discussion now or abstract approach in general?
... stripe skipping seems like implementation
Sandro: people will judge the report from skimming the XML
<Harold> Mapping between fully striped and stripe-skipped is itself an important (though syntactic) interchange transformation.
<Harold> We can 'reach' different classes of languages in this way.
Sandro: the sooner we settle this, the sooner we can implement interoperable tools
ChrisW: we have seen an example a month ago, using abstract syntax
... a lot of discussion and confusion
... now that they have developed - people have seen how abstract syntax can yield an XML syntax - any discussion?
... not on Sandro's specific proposal
Axel: there is a close relationship with OWL ontology
Sandro: I agree, a subset of OWL
Axel: try to convert , have representative classes
<Harold> The fully striped class is important to reach the UML, RDF, ... communities; the stripe-skipped class is important to reach the logic, XML, ... communities: RIF's internal stripe-skipping mapping can help to bring theses classes together.
ChrisW: asn06 or OWL - we need to discuss
<AxelPolleres> Not to be misunderstood: I do NOT suggest or encourage by any means OWL as a syntax for RIF.
csma: we decided to have abstract
syntax, but left open how it would be expressed
... for now keep to this, not decide what is normative
ChrisW: how many should be maintained?
... Just one and generate others from it?
Sandro: I did not address this
<Harold> Chris, these two version could be an example for 'standard dialects'.
csma: it would be trivial if not for stripe skipping?
<AxelPolleres> ... if there is an overlap though, I would welcome it.
Sandro: if not trivial,then straightforward
ChrisW: it seems to make most sense to maintain one
<Harold> The inverse mapping is 'stripe-reconstruction'.
ChrisW: would like to make decison now?
<AxelPolleres> "straightforward" I always only believe/understand after having it written down somewhere. :-)
csma: what should be normative is the abstract syntax
Sandro: Chris, are you assuming a specific mechanism for abstract syntax?
<ChrisW> scribenick: axelpolleres
harold: we should have both asn
metasyntax and a fully striped syntax.
... this has advantage of being back and forth translatable between object-oriented and XML world.
<DaveReynolds> translators are not so easy if you want forward compatibility via self-describing syntax
ChrisW: Harold do you want both normative? stripe-skipped and full asn?
Harold: would prefer to call asn "object oriented abstract syntax"
Sandro: straw poll between "meta-model", "ontology", and "abstract syntax"?
<scribe> scribenick: johnhall
Harold: what Sandro did was make a model
csma: a model of RIF is model of RIF rules
... metamodel of RIF rules
... Sandro's model translates easily
Harold: we need a format for interchange
ChrisW:OK to call this approach a metamodel
Sandro: we need to discuss, compared with 'ontology'
Axel: there are metamodel languages - if an ontology, then OWL
<csma> advantage of asn06 over UML is simplicity, as I see it
ChrisW:we are discussing metamodel vs ontology?
Sandro: I was trying to bridge between the two camps
... not argue about UML and OWL
<sandro> bridging between metamodel & ontology via asn06 --- which should map to a subset of OWL and a subset of UML.
<AxelPolleres> fair enough, if it is well-defined in a document as an abstract syntax proposal for OWL.
ChrisW:I haven't heard any objection to the
proposed approach - maintaining one artefact and generating
... are there any objections?
LeoraMorgensternit is not an ontology, just a syntax
<Harold> Leora, is it not an 'ontology' of what rules are allowed, how they look like, etc.?
<LeoraMorgenstern> Harold, no, I don't see that.
<igor> abstract syntax seems fine to me
<AlexKozlenkov> any valid metamodel is an ontology
Axel: not clear on how it is translatable betwenn UML and OWL
<LeoraMorgenstern> One can construct a syntax that defines a language,
<LeoraMorgenstern> and then say, a string does or does not belong to the language.
ChrisW:we do not want to separate the approach from the language?
<Harold> OK, it's not the (model-theoretic) *semantics*, so you are right it is (abstract) syntax.
<LeoraMorgenstern> However, I believe that an ontology does much more.
<sandro> To be clear -- my intent is to help us stay in the intersection of Ontologies and Metamodels.
<LeoraMorgenstern> It organizes objects in a particular way.
Axel: not sure it's worth the effort
<LeoraMorgenstern> I don't see this abstract syntax doing that, unless I have missed something.
ChrisW:asn06 you would not agree, but OWL is OK?
<LeoraMorgenstern> well, sandro, I don't understand what you're saying either --- about the intersection between Ontologies and Metamodels.
Axel:there is no document for asn06 yet?
Sandro: not yet, but I can use the parts of OWL I need
Axel: if you can use part of OWL, RDF, then OK with me
... but we need it written down
<Harold> Leora, right, the RIFRAF ontology is more on the semantic level, but also is making a few syntactic distinctions.
<Harold> Not everything written in OWL is an ontology?!
LeoraMorgensternI don't understand where 'ontology' is coming from
Sandro: to me, an ontology is a set of classes and properties and constraining formulae
<AxelPolleres> +1to "Not everything written in OWL is an ontology", but this is not what worries me.
<Harold> BTW, 'partonomy' could be used when we talk about parts of rules.
LeoraMorgensternthe language is not the ontology
Sandro: the classes are there, and relationships
<Harold> asn06 then is a kind of 'partonomy' language. :-)
<AxelPolleres> my only concern is that RIF is not chartered to do a metamodel language, but well, if we use it, we need to define somewhere, what it means, even if that's trivial.
csma: this is a new topic
... even if we decide to maintain RIF as an abstract syntax/metamodel - maintained & normative
... we also need normative XML syntaxe
<Harold> I agree with csma: we also need a good XML concrete syntax.
Sandro: agree with csma
Sandro: I am hearing consensus on a two stage approach, but hesitation on stage 1
csma: I hear no objection to maintaining abstract syntax and XML that depends on it
... but we do not agree on the form
<AxelPolleres> I object to maintian an abstract sytax, a concrete synatax AND an ontology, but am not religious on what to drop.
ChrisW: where are you on more formally definiing the notation - OWL and RDFS?
<Harold> csma, the 'form' of asn06 is no problem because it can reach OWL, RDF, etc.
ChrisW: is it reasonable to investigate rather than inventing asn06?
<csma> Axel, if the ontology you are mentioning is the RIFRAF, I think that it is a different story
Sandro: it is too difficult to bridge the gap from OWL without some intermediate form
<csma> Harold, I did no say there is a problem, I said I did not hear consensus on that
Sandro: nailing down all the detail of
connecting to OWL is hard work - I do not want to do it unless it is
... and I would need help. Maybe Axel?
ChrisW: Axel - if abstract syntax is maintained in some arteftact, would you be happy?
<JeffP> +1 if OWL is enough, use OWL rather than asn06
Axel: I tried to deal with abstract syntax to
OWL in RIFRAF
... Sandro and I should work together
<DaveReynolds> RIFRAF and rule metamodel seem rather different to me
csma: the big advantage of asn is that it is simple
... if there are convincing arguments that it is adequate, that would be a strong argument for using it
Sandro: we would need to tweak it
csma: even for extensions?
<Harold> Likely, asn06 (in spite of its built-in 'partonomy' features) is a sublanguage of OWL-DL.
Sandro: yes. I have concerns around coactions - no multi-valued properties
csma: is it really difficult to map asn06 to OWL?
Sandro: there is a list restriction wrt OWL Full
ChrisW: most OWL parsers will handle it
<AxelPolleres> does that roundtrip?
Sandro: the only problem with OWL Full is readability of the published RIF
ChrisW: publishing as a UML-like picture would be easiest to understand
Sandro: I'm open to persuasion
ChrisW: if it's just another serialization of OWL
... is this what we are discussing?
ChrisW: if asn06 is just a fragment of OWL Axel would be OK
Sandro: I'm trying to show this
ChrisW: does not matter if it is a fragment of OWL-DL or OWL Full
<Harold> ChrisW, it all started with 'pictures' (F2F breakout presentation informally specifying the CORE in on slide), but we also need a plain-ASCII version, e.g. for copy&paste communication in email bodies.
ChrisW: Axel - is this what you are looking for?
Axel: not my main interest - but would like to know what its official status would be
ChrisW: but you would be OK?
Sandro: is this a resolution?
Axel: if is written down what fragment
ChrisW: this is the contingency in the resolution - "if asn06 is a fragment of OWL ..."
Harold: we need to say metasyntax for metamodel
ChrisW: concrete syntax will be created from the metamodel
Harold: and partly from the mapping
ChrisW: I agree
<sandro> PROPOSED: we'll maintain the XML syntax(es) of RIF in the 2-step process, where step one will use asn06 (which is understood as being a subset of OWL Full) and step 2 is the mapping from asn06 to XML (striped or stripe skipping or whatever).
csma: if asn06 is fragment of OWL, is the resolution to use it?
<Harold> [Admin] Can a WG have 'extra' results?
csma: make it part of RIF
Sandro: with asn06 normative, derived content as informative
<AxelPolleres> particularly, any well-grounded KR language in which we can ground asn would be fine with me, not necesarrily OWL ;-) if you write it down into FOL sentences, common logic, KIF, F-Logic, I am also fine
<Harold> 'extra' in the sense that some results can be immediately useful for other WGs.
csma: this is not the same ... the metamodel of RIF and the mapping should be normative
ChrisW: even if generated, the XML syntax is normative
csma: for another dialect, one could generate another XML syntax that is not compatible
ChrisW: any objections to abstract syntax and mapping being normative?
<AxelPolleres> I object, as long the meaning of abstract syntax is not formalized, sorry to be picky
<JeffP> Is the abstract syntax the same as the human readable syntax?
ChrisW: the consequence is one and only one XML syntax
<AlexKozlenkov> it is at least slightly odd
Sandro: derived syntax is normative?
... there is an internal W3C debate on derived intormation being normative
ChrisW: normative/non-normative needs more discussion
<DaveReynolds> Axel - if you have a formally specified mapping from a metamodel to the concrete syntax why do you need additional semantics for for the metamodelling language?
csma: I would agree to Sandro's resolution
<sandro> (repeat) PROPOSED: we'll maintain the XML syntax(es) of RIF in the 2-step process, where step one will use asn06 (which is understood as being a subset of OWL Full) and step 2 is the mapping from asn06 to XML (striped or stripe skipping or whatever).
ChrisW: then we can discuss what would be normative
<JeffP> Dave - but XML has no formal semantics
csma: ... contingent on asn06 being defined as a subset of OWL Full
<DaveReynolds> Jeffp - exactly, we are only using this to indirectly specify a syntax, no addtional semantics is requried
Axel: I want it written down
csma: if asn06 is defined as a subset of OWL Full, we do not have to include it as part of the RIF specification
<Harold> A small point regarding step 2: is it just a mathematical mapping or a mapping that itself is specified in a (W3C-standardized) language?
<sandro> PROPOSED-2: we'll maintain the XML syntax(es) of RIF in the 2-step process, where step one will use asn06 (contingent on asn06 being defined as a subset of OWL Full or some other standard formalism) and step 2 is the mapping from asn06 to XML (striped or stripe skipping or whatever).
<JeffP> DaveReynolds - the need for abstract syntax is usually for defining the semantics, like in OWL
Sandro: ... as a subset of OWL Full or some other acceptable specification?
<DaveReynolds> Jeffp - we are not talking about asn06 as being about specifying the semantics of rulesets!
Harold: is step 2 just a mathematical mapping, or must it be specified in the normative part?
<Sandro> PROPOSED-3: we'll maintain the XML syntax(es) of RIF in a 2-step ? process, where step one will use asn06 (contingent on asn06 being defined as a subset of OWL Full or some other standard formalism) and step 2 is the precisely specified mapping from asn06 to XML (striped or stripe skipping or whatever).
No objections to proposed resolution
<Sandro> RESOLVED: we'll maintain the XML syntax(es) of RIF in the 2-step process, where step one will use asn06 (contingent on asn06 being defined as a subset of OWL Full or some other standard formalism) and step 2 is the precisely specified mapping from asn06 to XML (striped or stripe skipping or whatever).
ChrisW: OWL and RDF Compatibility - table until later meeting
ChrisW: last week's status - not major for F2F - lots of actions outstanding
... now we have agreement on abstract syntax, relevant to RIFRAF
Axel: I would appreciate comments on proposal sent out
<csma> and thread
ChrisW: no actions open
... close to next working draft
Allen: I have added csma's section on processes
... now need to chack all the references
Sandro: I have sent pointer to web page for program
Allen: if the program does the job, there is nothing else to be done
ChrisW: We want a frozen document for the F2F
Sandro: HTML pages are not saved, Allen will need to send them to the group
Allen: I just did it (ran the program)
... I need to link the web page to the Wiki
... will do it in next couple of days
ChrisW: We are close to the final draft
<AxelPolleres> Just in the context of RIFRAF still: I would like to close or stall action 177, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jan/0106 mentioned before.
<csma> action-177 completed
ChrisW: action 177 is completed
Axel: but the issue is not solved
ChrisW: the action was to propose