RIF Telecon 2 October 2007

2 Oct 2007


See also: IRC log


+43.512.507.9aaaa, barry_b, csma, Sandro, ChrisW, +539158aabb, IgorMozetic, agiurca, AxelPolleres, Harold, LeoraMorgenstern, StellaMitchell, Gary_Hallmark, MichaelKifer
PaulVincent, DaveReynolds, MohamedZergaoui, PaulaLaviniaPatranjan, JosDeBruijn
Christian de Sainte-Marie
Barry Bishop


<csma> scribe: Barry Bishop

<csma> scribenick: barry-b

<ChrisW> scribenick: barry_b

Christian: The purpose of the meeting is to de-brief the F2F

Plus sandro to discuss naming conventions

Christian: action 341 on Chris complete?

Action closed

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: Accept minute of Sept 25th telecon


<ChrisW> csma: PRR is now an "alpha" spec

Christian: Clean up draft for specification form
... Non-normative info to be removed(?)


Next F2F 5th & 6th Nov in Boston

Deadline for hotel registration is tomorrow!

Hotel will be full.

Christian: Debriefing F2F

<csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F7

Christian: Propose explaing how it worked and what we did (different to agenda)

Planned to discuss syntax, but really discussed abstract syntax and how many syntaxes.

The syntax 'triangle' was discussed, but nothing resolved.

Resolved presentation syntax. Remove ASN from BLD

<Harold> s/syntax 'triangle', but nothing resolved/syntax 'triangle', but nothing resolved on the first day/

Keep presentation syntax and mapping to XML

1st afternoon, semantic issues discussed as well as XML schema, external data schema & RDF compatibility

No resolutions.

Discussed frames, is it needed? Not resolved

Classification syntax to be part of 2nd working draft

2nd morning, planned more of the same to push 2nd part (draft?) of BLD

Started with abstract syntax

Change spectral model of rules

Moved to discussion of XML syntax (most important)

Sandro: Use conventional XML syntax

Based on ideas about what XML should be like, e.g. not use SQ names

<sandro> rif:identifier, rif:Document

Decisions recorded as resolutions

Decision not to use RDF XML syntax...

ChristW -> Discussed most important issues

<AdrianPa> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Arch/XML_Syntax_Issues_2

Discussed how to identify rule sets

resolution: use rif:about or rif:identifier at least in the next draft

Also whether syntax specifies if order matters

but XML ordered anyway

Serialisation of constants also discussed

Sandro: Left the way it is in current draft

ChrisW: Decided not to use curi's

For identifying dialect of RIF - have unique IRI

Document associates itself with dialect with special attribute

Abstract syntax mechanism

Decision: Remove ASN from draft

<Harold> Syntax Translation Table for Positive Conditions: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/Positive_Conditions#sec-translation

Represent relation between presentation and XML syntax through a table


<Harold> Syntax Translation Table for Horn Rules: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/Horn_Rules#sec-translation

Resolution with XML syntax is critical for 2nd working draft

<csma> OCT 12 -- Frozen ED of WD2

<csma> OCT 19 -- Reviews

<csma> OCT 26 -- Freeze

1 week to review frozen draft

editors have 1 more week to implement comments

and then voting takes place

Review between 12 & 19th is only to raise issues that can not be lived with!

We want to know as early as possible about serious issues

For final closing version, everyone should be ready to vote to accept.

Want to have as few comments as possible after frozen draft

At F2F there were then more discussions

Discussed future of F2F, F2F9 probably in early next year in europe

Discussed future of working group itself, what are the options:

a) terminate

b) ask for extensions (same charter)

<AxelPolleres> I made a proposal for F2F9 at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F9

c) re-charter

Agreed for short extension to allow for progress on extensibility and other items in charter

Also, discussed how much correlation there should be between progress of BLD and OWL compatibility

1 option, move forward and consider OWL later

No, OWL too important, BLD goes forward in synch with OWL

There was also an informal discussion about RDF compatibility - no resolutions

ChrisW: Important point - close to agreement

Christian: Will publish draft minutes shortly

MichaelKifer: Jos wants separate document

<Harold> Some issues are color-coded in http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/RIF-RDF_Compatibility

sandro: split in to separate draft

ChrisW: Not in favour
... Need to discuss

Michael: Also made remarks on this topic, to distinguish different entailment regimes

RDF already has 3 dialects

Christian: Add to agenda for next week

Harold: reviewers are the best people to monitor progress of comments

Christian: Reviewers please monitor progress and check if comments are implemented

<AxelPolleres> 5min ok, gotta go then

<ChrisW> +1 extend

<IgorMozetic> 5min ok

Christian: Extend 5 or 10 minutes

sandro: Agreed we want naming conventions
... How? Should we wait until later?

vote: who wants to rename now, who later

<sandro> +1 talk about renaming now

<ChrisW> +1 for discussing naming

<AxelPolleres> How do you want to vote? per tag or per gneral conventions?

<sandro> per tag

<Harold> -1

<csma> +1

<IgorMozetic> 0

<AdrianPa> -1


<MichaelKifer> -1 for wd2

<LeoraMorgenstern> 0

sandro: proposing something like at F2F
... is anyone motivated to discuss now?

<AxelPolleres> +1

Christian: Majority in favour

Axel: Look in to topic for working draft 2

Harold: only had chance to work on BLD issues, but not naming conventions
... don't know alternatives

sandro: 2 phase - gather suggestions and then vote?
... or continuous selection

harold: Should use same principles throughout to get a good language

sandro: for each term in BLD syntax, suggest alternatives
... can be edited as we go

christian: linked with naming conventions?

sandro: wanted to talk about this at F2F

harold: can discuss this week

Christian: straw poll can help

<AxelPolleres> I suggest an action on sandro to send a mail by tomorrow to announce the starting points for the poll, allow until next telco others to make additions/modifications on the wiki with rationales, and we start, after a quick review the strawpoll next week? too late?

<AxelPolleres> +1 to christian, exactly what I just wrote.

Christian: To try to gather input

sandro: just a straw poll, not a vote?

Christian: using straw poll to get input

michaelK: should not try to put this in working draft 2, not enough time (1 week)

too much pressure time-wise

sandro: Ok, iF XML agreed syntax is throw-away

michaelK: naming conventions or structure changes also?

<Harold> We use names like Var and Const both in the syntax and the semantics.

christian: names only

<Harold> We already have this:

<Harold> EDITOR'S NOTE: The XML syntax for BLD presented here is one of the proposals the Working Group is considering. It is presented here to get feedback on this strawman and to give readers an idea for the kind of information that will be presented in this section.

christian: what is harm of straw poll

sandro: if we can change names later, then better to focus on other things

christian: label names as temporary in draft?

<ChrisW> and we are out of time

christian: no poll, no discussion of naming conventons before draft 2

<IgorMozetic> +1

christian: close meeting, next in 1 week

<csma> public-rif-wg@w3.org

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.128 (CVS log)
$Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13 $