See also: IRC log
<agiurca> Next week I will scribe
Christian: Action-295 on Deborah N is continued
DeborahN: Also, I have the June 26th minutes ready to send. I just have to ask ChrisW about something first.
Christian: Action-324 obsolete
Christian: Any objections to accepting last week's minutes?... none, Sept 4th minutes are accepted.
PRR liaison: no news except submission at OMG before next F2F
Sandro: Re: Liaison with OWL WG (for OWL 1.1). Membership in that WG should be settled down by November. But if someone in this group wants to join and be the liason we can settle on that now
JosB: XML schema WG was queried by me, but no response
Christian: Action-399 is closed
<sandro> ACTION: Sandro to find out from XML Schema WG's staff contact how we should proceed with getting a response to Jos' email [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/11-rif-minutes.html#action01]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-342 - Find out from XML Schema WG\'s staff contact how we should proceed with getting a response to Jos\' email [on Sandro Hawke - due 2007-09-18].
<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F7
Christian: No open actions on F2F7. All RIF WG members should register to indicate whether or not they will attend
<sandro> F2F7 Registration/Regrets Form
Christian: F2F7 objectives: to
publish BLD as early as possible in October, so issues must be
settled as much as possible.
...and BLD XML schema to be decided
...freeze BLD version ASAP and email link - action for Harold
<sandro> ACTION: Harold to freeze and editors draft of BLD when he's ready (soon), and send the WG e-mail with the frozen version (or a pointer to it). [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/09/11-rif-minutes.html#action02]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-343 - Freeze and editors draft of BLD when he\'s ready (soon), and send the WG e-mail with the frozen version (or a pointer to it). [on Harold Boley - due 2007-09-18].
Christian: After the BLD is frozen, please review it and send any issues you have with the draft to the chairs
Sandro:Let's try to minimize surprise issues at the F2F; think about and raise any important issues you have beforehand
Christian: We are aiming to have a frozen BLD draft by this Friday, September 14th
Christian: Possibility of F2F8 at tech plenary in early November in Boston, what's the feeling of the group?
Sandro: The reason that I think a F2F in November is a good idea is because it will be a crucial time - the time when we will be making a case for extending the life of the working group.
Christian: Poll in F2F8 on November 5-6 in Boston?
<PaulVincent> +1 also to F2F8 in November
<sandro> +1 to F2F8 Nov 5-6 in Boston
<DaveReynolds> -1 (I would not be likely to make it)
<Harold> I try to come.
<josb> not yet sure
<csma> +1 to F2F8 in Boston
<PaulaP> I also try to be there
<agiurca> I also try to be there
<IgorMozetic> +1 to F2F8 in Boston
<GaryHallmark> +1 to f2f8
Christian: W3C rule that you must decide on F2F at least 8 weeks before holding one. That's why it is important that we decide ASAP
Sandro: We need ChrisW's input to make the decision
Christian: We will discuss at the chair's meeting and let the WG know
<GaryHallmark> we already discussed bpel orchestration (UC9), last week
DaveReynolds:We can discuss mine, UC8
Christian: Any objection to discuss UC8, although it wasn't on agenda?... none
<Harold> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UC8_Worked_Example
DaveReynolds:The link
is above. I wrote this a long time ago, so some syntax and issues are out of date
...this UC is about vocabulary mapping - typical use of rules with RDF
...the rules are simple: take triple patterns, and deduce a new type or new set of values in the target ontology
...I wrote the rules in Jena Rules and then did the analysis
...Re: issues. the rules are mostly Horn (some syntactic sugar about conclusions in head),so not so many issues
...quantification over RDF predicates - with frames there is now no restriction on quantifying over RDF predicates, so this is no longer
an issue
...datatypes: also resolved
...builtins: we still need some more, but shouldn't be too controversial
...bNodes: in examples like this (which are realistic), people are treating bNodes as skolem constants
...would need gensym equivalent to do what Jena rules does
...metadata: I had based my example on my proposal at that time,but that's not the way we're going now
...xml syntax doesn't match what we have right now, but it won't be hard to redo once the XML syntax is solidified
<Harold> Re builtins: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/List_of_functions_and_operators
Sandro: Did you do this by hand, or automate?
DaveReynolds: Largely hand editied, but some generated
Sandro:Do ou have a sense of how hard it would be to automate the translation?
DaveReynolds: Handling the covered items wouldn't be too difficult, but there is much that isn't covered by RIF
Christian: Rule where condition would check against RDF data set, and modify the data set?
Sandro: It would be nice to go between N3 and Jena Rules by November as a demonstration
DaveReynolds: That would be difficult for me to do by then
Sandro: Is there anyone else you work with who could do it?
DaveReynolds: Maybe
Sandro: I started with a strawman.
<sandro> Proposed Naming Conventions
Sandro: Naming conventions make it easier for everyone to work with a vocabulary
... easier for users, and easier for the people coming up with new names
... In this proposal, I followed the conventions of Java
... CamelCase for class names, and don't abbreviate, and use noun phrases
... property names are more controversial: start with lowercase, and other than first letter, use CamelCase, and use noun phrases
... and, convention in industry is to keep them singular
... also, I propose that we don't use all caps for any names
Christian: Any questions on this proposal?
DaveReynolds: I think this is useful, but not critical, and I'm happy with this proposal, but I would add one thing ( something about clarifying names that can be ambiguous)
<josb> +1 to proposal Sandro and suggestion daver
<agiurca> we notice this to the WG for a long time. +1 to Sandro proposal
<Harold> We had a WG decision to rename Con into Const.
<Harold> In our fully striped XML syntax we followed the Java convention.
Christian: So, you are agreeing with Sandro?
<Harold> no.
<Harold> only the basic java convention.
Christian: I would like to comment that complete phrases can result in excessively long names for classes and properties
<GaryHallmark> then compress it
Harold: Things are never completely unambiguous anyways
Sandro: I see your point
Christian: I think UniversalTerm is much more clear than Uniterm
<Harold> Christian, yes we dont want to expand Uniterm into UniversalTerm
<Harold> since UniversalTerm is *still* ambigous
<sandro> Maybe amend: If an abbreviated term is no more confusing or misleading than a longer term -- without external explanation -- to the target audience, then it may be used.
Christian: Let's have a resolution about this
<Hassan> I second Sandro's point
Harold: In BLD we are only following Java conventions; not everything Sandro proposed
Sandro: No, you don't completely follow Java conventions
- e.g. you don't use noun phrases
... I strenuously object to not using noun phrases in our naming conventions
Sandro: Settling on good naming conventions is critical for a usable exchange format
<GaryHallmark> +1 naming conventions
<sandro> PROPOSED: we will have naming conventions; people edit the page to propose theirs.
Christian: Any objections to above proposal? If you modify or object to someone else's proposal say what is your reason.
<sandro> PROPOSED: we will have naming conventions; people edit the page to propose theirs (with explanation and reasons for any differences from what's already on page)
Christian: Any objection to above? ... none
<sandro> RESOLVED: we will have naming conventions; people edit the page to propose theirs (with explanation and reasons for any differences from what's already on page)
<DaveReynolds> I thought I voiced some reservation
Christian: Re: ill-typed literals, do you have a counter proposal, Dave?
DaveReynolds: It has to do whether this
applies to embedding or combined model case
... it's OK in the embedding case, but not in combined model
case
... I think there should be a flag that says whether it's OK to let an
ill-typed literal through the translation
Christian: In the combined model situation, it doesn't make sense because you would not translate RDF graph into rules.
DaveReynolds: Exactly
JosB: In the combined model case, you might
encounter this type of thing if you query
... but you would not have it in the rules themselves
Christian: You would query to check entailment of the condition, and would never have that with ill-typed literal
JosB: No, one could write any type of query. There might be variables in it and one of the variables substitutions could be an ill-typed literal
DaveReynolds: e.g. a rule that queries an
RDF graph to query type of literal and the literal is ill-typed)
... I want to be able to query an RDF graph in its native form, and if my system can handle ill-typed literals, then I want to see them
JosB: We need syntactic correspondence between symbols in RDF and symbols in RIF
Christian: If RIF is used only for interchange, then this is not an issue; there is an issue when embed an RDF graph in a rule set, but not when you have rules that are about RDF graphs
JosB: There are still entailments in that case
Sandro: As an example, you could have a rule
that says ' if x works for ILog then x works in France'.
... if x is an ill-typed literal, then the conclusion will have one
Christian: In RIF, you will never have
an instance of that because it will be translated to a
rule language before being applied to the RDF data
... RIF has an entailment relation for the purpose of telling you how to translate, so that you can preseve the entailment relation
Sandro: I see, you are saying that that aspect should be left up to the implementation
JosB: I don't understand - how can you specify part of entailment relation and not another part? Entailment either holds or doesn't hold
DaveReynolds: (something about well-formed document)
Christian: My point is that it is specified in RDF, and the RIF semantics doesn't have to handle that case
Hassan: I strongly support Christian, and also what MichaelK has been advocating
... making the combined models normative is not a good idea
Christian: I'm confused: I though in
the combined model, we do not care about ill-typed
literals
... but in the embedding case (which MichaelK supports) we would have
to deal with ill-typed literal?
Hassan: I'm not sure about ill-typed. But, the semantics of RDF is not relevant for our RIF purposes
Christian: I would like to ask if others are confused about where ill-typed is an issue?
DaveReynolds: Hassan is addressing the question of embedding vs. combined model, not specifically ill-typed
Christian: Am I right that ill-typed is an issue in the embedding and not in combined models?
JosB: It is an issue in both cases
Christian: I agree with Dave then, that a flag (for whether ill-typed literals are OK) is a good idea
Christian: Any other comments on this topic?
<Harold> As I mentioned in the previous telecon, handling ill-typed literals need to be dealt with at least in the (partial) interoperability part of RIF.
<csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/RIF-RDF_Compatibility
Christian: Dave, regarding your concern about accessing RDF data: do you see in the normative section (Semantics, Common Interpretations) where it talks about correspondence between RDF triples and RIF molecules?
Dave Reynolds: OK, I hadn't seen that
DaveReynolds: But still, I think bNode discussion is only in informative part and I'm not comfortable with that
JosB: Re: bNodes the embedding is
only used for reasoning, and when you reason you can skolemize existentially quantified varialbes
... if you want to use them for representation and not reasoning, then you are deviating from the semantics of bNodes
DaveReynolds: But we need rules that operate over RDF data and those rules will need builtins, such as SPARQL has, to test various things about the data
Christian: Frozen BLD draft will be available by Friday, September 14th.
Christian: Any support for adjourning?
<PaulaP> +1
<Hassan> +1
<PaulaP> bye
<PaulVincent> bye
<DougL> bye
<agiurca> bye