RIF Telecon 30 October 2007

30 Oct 2007


See also: IRC log


Harold Boley, Jos de Bruijn, Gary Hallmark, Sandro Hawke, Michael Kifer, Doug Lenat, Stella Mitchell, Leora Morgenstern, Paula Lavinia Patranjan, Axel Polleres, Christian de Sainte Marie, Chris Welty
Allen Ginsberg, Igor Mozetic, Dave Reynolds
Chris Welty
Leora Morgenstern





<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Oct/att-0118/23-rif-minutes.html

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept minutes of 23 Oct telecon

No agenda amendments


ChrisW: Common Logic is now an ISO standard.

csma: what is the impact on RIF of it now being a standard?

ChrisW: unknown, since not much participation of Common Logic people in RIF.

csma: question was more general: what's the impact in general?

ChrisW: same as any other ISO standard: a particular organization can decide whether or not to use a particular ISO standard.

<josb> "ISO is a network of the national standards institutes of 157 countries, on the basis of one member per country, with a Central Secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland, that coordinates the system."

Some discussion between Chris and csma on what exactly ISO is, what their standards signify, and so on.

<josb> "ISO is a non-governmental organization: its members are not, as is the case in the United Nations system, delegations of national governments. Nevertheless, ISO occupies a special position between the public and private sectors. This is because, on the one hand, many of its member institutes are part of the governmental structure of their countries, or are mandated by their government. On...

<josb> ...the other hand, other members have their roots uniquely in the private sector, having been set up by national partnerships of industry associations."

<josb> http://www.iso.org/iso/about.htm

No other liaison news.


Sandro: no particular news

csma: there is a slightly more detailed agenda now on the web page

<josb> " Member bodies

<csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F8

<josb> A member body of ISO is the national body "most representative of standardization in its country". Only one such body for each country is accepted for membership of ISO. Member bodies are entitled to participate and exercise full voting rights on any technical committee and policy committee of ISO."

<josb> http://www.iso.org/iso/about/structure/members_categories.htm

ChrisW: Everyone should familiarize themselves with the agenda.
... As always, agenda is flexible, but probably we'll stick closely to it this time.

csma: Will put out reading list tomorrow.

sandro: There will be about a dozen participants.
... I'm asking for input from RIF group on whether to admit observers.
... There have been several requests coming in each day.
... anyone on the call with an opinion on observers?

<Doug> I think that would be fine, in small numbers, with even a bit of vetting.

Harold: We should be selective on which observers to allow. We could allow some with technical expertise, but we shouldn't encourage philosophical discussions on basic issues during our technical meetings. (For that purpose, there are coffee breaks, lunches, dinners, etc.)

<csma> Doug, what does "vetting" mean?

csma: We could allow observers to observe only, but not to speak.

<Doug> It was the negation of what Chris just said lol.

<Doug> But I don't feel strongly about it.


<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/bld/draft-2007-10-19

ChrisW: We have a frozen draft of BLD, the Basic Logic Dialect.

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/bld/draft-2007-10-30

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/bld/diff-2007-10-19-to-2007-10-30

<csma> ok, I see them now

ChrisW: Any discussion on the most recent changes?

Michael: Took some comments from Igor into account, and some comments sent privately from Jos. These are the only changes.

ChrisW: What's the status of the xml syntax?

<sandro> XML Syntax

<sandro> EDITORS' 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.

<sandro> also XML Syntax

ChrisW: also a note before section
... I thought we were more sure about this being xml syntax.

<sandro> PROPOSED: to drop those two 'EDITOR'S NOTE'

ChrisW: Can we remove those caveats?

<Doug> +1

<sandro> PROPOSED: to drop those two 'EDITORS NOTES' (,

<csma> sakim unmute me

RESOLUTION: to drop those two 'EDITORS NOTES' (, 3.1.1.,3)

<MichaelKifer> +1

csma: no agreement regarding xml syntax.

ChrisW: Nevertheless, it's as mature as other parts of the document, and therefore, there's no need to single out xml.

csma: We did discuss having such a warning at the last F2F.

sandro: as the caveat is written, it's not correct. The text says it's a strawman, etc. So we'd have to correct the text.

<sandro> PROPOSED: to drop those two 'EDITOR'S NOTE'

<sandro> oops

csma: dropping these caveats is not something we all agreed on.

sandro: There are lots of open issues that we are not calling out.
... open issues that could affect BLD.

ChrisW: We're past the stage that the comment was intended to address.

csma: I agree that this editor's note is not to the point, so I have no objection to removing it.

<sandro> csma: I wont block this. Let the resolution stand, to drop these.

csma: I think we should draft Section 5, which is an appendix.

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/bld/diff-2007-10-19-to-2007-10-30#Specification

RESOLUTION: to drop those two 'EDITOR'S NOTE'

<GaryHallmark> +q

csma: Various changes to Section 5.

<GaryHallmark> +1 to publish XSD

harold: point to XSD in Appendix.

<GaryHallmark> +1 to XSD consistent w/ syntax transform rules

csma: objection to other sentences in Appendix, in fact all.

<csma> A syntactic specification of RIF BLD is given here as the combination of the RIF Condition and RIF Rule syntaxes.

csma: First sentence points to nothing and therefore should be removed.

<GaryHallmark> -q

harold: but if you go into XSD you have it.

csma: Then this sentence has to be made clearer, so it's clear it's pointing to xml schema.
... Since diagram has been removed, sentence should be removed as well.
... And also, remove the word "default" from second sentence.

ChrisW: point to XSD or include it?

csma: include it. (Otherwise people may not click and read it.)

sandro: will copy xml schema into this section.

<sandro> PROPOSED: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/Specification as on the wiki right now PLUS having the XML schema included there.

<sandro> RESOLVED: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/Specification as on the wiki right now PLUS having the XML schema included there.

<sandro> csma: I want to make sure the Slotted Syntax bit is on the issues list

<sandro> jos: I think it should be mentioned in the draft that slotted is under discussion as per subclass

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/bld/diff-2007-10-19-to-2007-10-30#head-aa15dd38046d0b497df6b86069c4006083d0c0d1

csma: we have never decided to include slotted terms in BLD.
... should have caveat in text saying that this hasn't been decided and pointing to the issue.

sandro: editorially, this should be an editor's note.

<sandro> Let's change the text, "The use of membership and subclass formulas is an open issue in the current draft http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/41." to be prefixed with 'Editor's Note'

<josb> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/44

<csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/44

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/Slotted_Conditions

<sandro> both changes made.

sandro: no other links of this sort exist in the document.

PROPOSED: publish first working draft of Basic Logic Dialect (BLD)

<sandro> Doug Lenat, Cleveland Clinic

<Doug> +1

<sandro> Harold Boley, National Research Council Canada

<Harold> Yes.

<Harold> +1

<sandro> Paula-Lavinia Patranjan, REWERSE

<PaulaP> yes

<sandro> Leora Morgenstern, IBM Corporation

<Leora> yes

<sandro> Jos de Bruijn, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano

<josb> +1

<AxelPolleres> sorry!

<sandro> Sandro Hawke, W3C/MIT

<sandro> YES

<sandro> Michael Kifer, W3C Invited Experts

<MichaelKifer> +1

<sandro> Gary Hallmark, Oracle

<sandro> YES

<sandro> I'll note proxy from HP: Yes.

<josb> JSI

<sandro> Chris: Proxy YES from Igor, JSI

<AxelPolleres> if votes for drafts are discussed at the moment: DERI Galway votes yes.

<sandro> Christian de Sainte Marie, ILOG, S.A.

<sandro> YES

<sandro> RESOLVED: Publish BLD

RESOLUTION: publish first working draft of Basic Logic Dialect (BLD)


<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/swc/draft-2007-10-19

<csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/swc/draft-2007-10-19

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/swc/draft-2007-10-25

josb: There have been updates since the last frozen version which was discussed in the telecon.

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/rdf-owl/draft-2007-10-25

josb: This update was done on Oct. 25.

ChrisW: Comments on this version?

<sandro> PROPOSED: Publish http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/rdf-owl/draft-2007-10-25

<sandro> Doug Lenat, Cleveland Clinic

<Doug> yes

<sandro> Christian de Sainte Marie, ILOG, S.A.

<csma> yes

<sandro> Harold Boley, National Research Council Canada

<Harold> yes

<sandro> Paula-Lavinia Patranjan, REWERSE

<PaulaP> yes

<sandro> Leora Morgenstern, IBM Corporation

<Leora> yes

<sandro> Jos de Bruijn, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano

<josb> +1

<sandro> Sandro Hawke, W3C/MIT

<sandro> yes

<sandro> Michael Kifer, W3C Invited Experts

<MichaelKifer> +1

<sandro> Gary Hallmark, Oracle

<GaryHallmark> yes

<sandro> Axel Polleres, DERI Galway

sandro, axel seems to have just quit

<sandro> yes vote from Axel

<sandro> [ Proxy Dave Reynolds, HP -- YES ]

<sandro> [ Proxy Igor, JSI -- YES ]

<sandro> RESOLVED: publish rdf-owl-compat, all in favor

<PaulaP> :)

<josb> will you pay?

ChrisW: We thank the 3 editors, Michael, Harold, and Jos, for a job well done.

<sandro> <applause>

csma: item not on the agenda: New publication regarding Core.

sandro: At this point, it looks like the March 30 version of Core is the latest thing, not BLD. So perhaps there should be a stub for Core, pointing to the BLD document.

<sandro> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Oct/0135.html

sandro: So I drafted some next text:

<sandro> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Oct/0130.html

sandro: at the above two links.

ChrisW: Comments or discussion on this text?

PROPOSE: Replace RIF Core Working Draft with stub consisting of these two emails, linked above.

<sandro> PROPOSED: Publish a Core stub as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Oct/0130.html amended as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Oct/0135.html

ChrisW: any objections?
... any abstentions?

<sandro> RESOLEVED: (no objections, no abstentions) Publish a Core stub as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Oct/0130.html amended as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Oct/0135.html


<sandro> RESOLVED: (no objections, no abstentions) Publish a Core stub as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Oct/0130.html amended as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Oct/0135.html

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

csma: We have a strawman for a PR dialect, based on relatively standard use of substitutions in production rules.
... Syntax and semantics are the same as for BLD, but don't use classification. Also some syntactic sugar added for
... semantics is given in terms of operational terms wrt pattern matching
... thinks this can be shown equivalent to model-theoretic interpretation of conditions
... Two actions: assert and retract
... to comply with OMB PRR, must have an assign action
... specification for rule-set rules.
... syntax is slightly different than for BLD, but they could be aligned.
... operational semantics can be mapped onto model-theoretic semantics here too.
... preliminary: no examples, no xml
... has some feedback from Philippe Bonnard at ILOG, who loved it.
... Is on reading list for F2F8

<csma> s/bernard/bonnard/

ChrisW: need to read in next few days in order to have comments in time for F2F.

harold: question about bindings of variables in conditions
... will these differ from what happens to rule variables in a logic language.
... i.e., what happens with respect to binding of variables to conditions of rules in a logic language.

csma: production rule systems use variables and patterns differently.


<Harold> My first impression: PRD patterns could/should be represented as BLD conditions with free variables -- maybe we could enrich BLD in WD3 to introduce optional annotations for what's needed in PRD.

<GaryHallmark> there is also a lot of historical crud in PR systems that we don't necessarily need to perpertuate...

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Arch/Extensibility_Design_Choices

+1 to Gary

<csma> Harold, I used ATOMIC for pattern for simplicity's purpose, but I agree that they could be full-fledged CONDITION

<Harold> +1

<AxelPolleres> probably best to go quickly through it, I suggest. my silence is due to lack of time reading it, honestly

csma: has some comments on this document; hasn't yet had a chance to send comments via email.

<csma> Harold, Gary, the reason why I limited patterns to ATOMIC (which means that the set of patterns is a conjunction of patterns)

<csma> is that I am not sure most PR implementation would be able to implement full CONDITIONs as patterns.

<Sandro going through his document, since most haven't had a chance to read it.>

csma: comments on definition of "independent extension"
... Sandro's text says: Independent Extensions are extensions which can be arbitrarily combined with each other,
... "arbitrarily" seems a bit strong.

sandro: e.g., if you have a dialogue with a bunch of extensions, it makes sense to say they're independent if they can be arbitrarily combined.
... analogous to software packaging today.
... you could have very complex dependecies between extensions.
... perhaps cleaner to define that, and define independence in terms of that.

<AxelPolleres> I think we should mark the "invisible extensions" definitly as to be discussed. It is difficult to deal with such extensions. I think semantically different things should be syntactically different.

<AxelPolleres> +1 to Leora, that we need an example where one would think that this is useful... well ,you may refer to something like "layering" in OWL here, which we discussed on the list?

<sandro> Lattice

csma: don't understand the issue of planning for non-standard extensions, dialects
... all extensions formed by the non-standard dialects of Core?

<Harold> We could talk about the 'big picture': the lattice of all possible and all envisioned dialects as well as the 'extends' relationships between them.

sandro: yes to csma

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/AbstractModel

sandro: could define dialect in terms of extensions

<Axel now presenting his new doc, linked above.>)

<AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/AbstractModel

<csma> MagicDraw

sandro: Axel, your dialect is defined as a set of constraints on the abstract model, as opposed to constraints on xml.

csma: could dialects have different xml syntaxes?

axel: possibly --- after all, different existing rules languages already have different xml syntaxes.
... but could have an additional sort of rif independent xml syntax.

ChrisW: This draft will be discussed at the F2F meeting next week.


<PaulaP> bye

<Doug> bye

<sandro> Harold, e-mail me when the Schema is on, okay?


no other business. Adjourned.

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.128 (CVS log)
$Date: 2007/10/30 16:32:40 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.128  of Date: 2007/02/23 21:38:13  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/basic decisions/discussions on basic issues/
Succeeded: s/Micahel/Michael/
Succeeded: s/quite/quit/
Succeeded: s/public/publish/
Succeeded: s/absentions/abstentions/
FAILED: s/bernard/bonnard/
Succeeded: s/above.)/above.>)/
Succeeded: s/above.)/above.>/
Found Scribe: Leora Morgenstern
Found ScribeNick: LeoraMorgenstern
Default Present: +1.512.342.aaaa, Doug, csma, ChrisW, Harold, +1.800.555.aabb, PaulaP, LeoraMorgenstern, StellaMitchell, josb, Sandro, +1.631.833.aacc, MichaelKifer, Gary_Hallmark
Present: +1.512.342.aaaa Doug csma ChrisW Harold +1.800.555.aabb PaulaP LeoraMorgenstern StellaMitchell josb Sandro +1.631.833.aacc MichaelKifer Gary_Hallmark
Regrets: IgorMozetic AllenGinsberg DaveReynolds
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Oct/0127.html
Got date from IRC log name: 30 Oct 2007
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/10/30-rif-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]