See also: IRC log
<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?
<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
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
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
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:
b) ask for extensions (same charter)
<AxelPolleres> I made a proposal for F2F9 at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F9
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
<MichaelKifer> -1 for wd2
sandro: proposing something like at F2F
... is anyone motivated to discuss now?
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
christian: close meeting, next in 1 week