See also: IRC log
<trackbot-ng> Date: 08 April 2008
<ChrisW> Meeting: RIF Telecon 8-Apr-08
<ChrisW> Scribe: IgorMozetic
<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Apr/att-0017/01-04-2008-rif-minutes.html
<ChrisW> PROPOSED: accept minutes of April 1 telecon
<ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept minutes of April 1 telecon
Axel: no news on F2F10
Michael: metadata are described as frames and added to the rules/rulesets
Axel: status of DT&B - version for review by Friday, April 11
chrisw: we have frozen versions of FLD nad BLD
Michael: we have a notion of scope (corresponding to block in PLs)
<Harold> "rif:local constant in different documents are viewed as unrelated distinct constants" <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/FLD#Symbol_Spaces>
<ChrisW> ACTION: mkifer to add definition of rif:local to BLD [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/08-rif-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-461 - Add definition of rif:local to BLD [on Michael Kifer - due 2008-04-15].
<Hassan> I made the same comments as ChrisW and Dave Raynolds made re. "Group"
michael: a base case for metadata is a group of rules, not a single rule
chrisw: group vs. block is not decided yet, it seems an aestetic issue
<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/draft/rif-bld/
<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/draft/rif-fld/
<AxelPolleres> until end of next week ok?
<ChrisW> need reviews by april 15th
chrisw: volunteers for review by next week, April 15
<AxelPolleres> can try bld until then, but not both
<ChrisW> ACTION: axel to review bld [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/08-rif-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-462 - Review bld [on Axel Polleres - due 2008-04-15].
<markproctor> sorry I'm just not going to get the time at the moment.
sandro to send an email to the group, searching for reviewers
sandro: deadline for publication
request is noon, April 15
... actual publication deadline is April 17
... will prepare the request
<sandro> ACTION: Chris to send e-mail telling the group about us making publication decision on 15 April. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/04/08-rif-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-463 - Send e-mail telling the group about us making publication decision on 15 April. [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-04-15].
<AxelPolleres> ok.
<sandro> Chris: Let us know as soon as possible about any issues with new draft.
chrisw: the group will decide on April 15 to publish or not
<sandro> Harold: Keep in mind that this is Working Draft (and FPWD of FLD).
harold: it's WD1 for FLD and WD2 for BLD
michael: BLD will eventually refer to DT&B document regarding rif:local
chrisw: BLD should be as self
contained as possible
... a short mention of what rif:local is would be helpful
<ChrisW> PROPOSED: Repeal resolution regarding moving "RIF-BLD as a specialization of FLD" to appendix and keep that as section 2
<Hassan> -1
michael: every dialect should be
specialization of FLD, therefore this section
... might be even more important then the BLD document
itself
hassan: argues that this fits into the appendix
chrisw: for implementors of BLD,
FLD is not required
... for dialect designers FLD is essential
... proposes to move sec.2 to the last section
<ChrisW> PROPOSED: Repeal resolution regarding moving "RIF-BLD as a specialization of FLD" to appendix and keep that as section 5
<Hassan> +1
<ChrisW> PROPOSED: Repeal resolution regarding moving "RIF-BLD as a specialization of FLD" to appendix and keep that as last section before refs
<sandro> +0 I prefer appendix, but this is fine.
<Hassan> +1
<AxelPolleres> +1
<MichaelKifer> +0
<IgorMozetic> +0, I prefer as it is now
<Harold> +0
<ChrisW> +0
<ChrisW> RESOLVED: Repeal resolution regarding moving "RIF-BLD as a specialization of FLD" to appendix and keep that as last section before refs
<Harold> What about a brief para at the end of the Overview suggesting two possible 'workflows' through the document? Something like: Dialect designers and readers who want to understand comprehensively should read the last section of the document (before the references) next. Other readers just proceed sequentially.
hassan: would prefer an abridged version of presentation syntax
<GaryHallmark> +1 for better syntax
<GaryHallmark> but "better" is subjective...
hassan: better name for "Group"
-> maybe "RuleSet"
... names will last, we have to pick them carefully
<csma> issue-49: Naming in RIF-BLD EBNF and XML syntax
<Harold> We use "Group" because FLD has formulas more general than rules and because it's just a grouping construct.
hassan: the core (presentation) syntax is good for reading, but lacks detail for tools
<GaryHallmark> ideally, the use cases in the UCR can be expressed in presentation syntax and this would serve as a good introduction and advertisement for RIF
michael: RuleSet is not neutral to other dialects
<Harold> For a later WD, we could have an Abridged presentation syntax as well as the current Full presentation syntax. Hassan and I looked at this:
| Full presentation syntax | Abridged presentation syntax | Remark |
| "foo:bar"^^rif:iri | <foo:bar> | IETF's angular bracket notation |
| "purchase"^^rif:local | purchase | locality by default |
| "a b c"^^xsd:string | "a b c" | Full quotes are part of syntax |
| "10"^^xsd:integer | 10 | as in programming languages |
| "1000000000"^^xsd:long | 1000000000 | as in programming languages |
| "3.14"^^xsd:decimal | 3.14 | as in programming languages |
<Harold> . . .
<GaryHallmark> how about X and Y instead of And(X Y)
<GaryHallmark> how about B if A instead of B :- A
michael: a problem if there is a different syntaxt between defined language and examples
<csma> Gary, in PRD, it would be if A then B; That's why I believe that presentation syntaxes should be different in different dialects
harold: proposes a shorthand (abridged) syntaxt, presentation syntax, and XML
<GaryHallmark> csma - then what is the presentation syntax of Core>
<Harold> The Abridged presentation syntax could be just a SHORTHAND for test cases.
<Harold> But let's not do it in this round. We cannot risk any delay for our Apr 15 and 17 deadlines!
michael: doesn't object adding a shortcut (abridged) syntax to examples
<sandro> Chris: This is NOT for this publication round.
<sandro> MichaelKifer: Let's think about this (presentation syntax issues) after the 16ths.
<csma> Gary, any, or both... the prez syntax is not normative, it is not interchanged; the XML is
<AxelPolleres> +1
<sandro> NONBINDING-PROPOSAL: Allow shortcuts in Presentation SYntax?
<sandro> +1
<Hassan> +1
<AxelPolleres> :-) please!
all: let's try common shortcuts for the abridged presentation syntax
<GaryHallmark> +1
+1
<Harold> +1 (There could be an *additional* Appendix in BLD WD3)
<DavidHirtle> +1
+1
<csma> ok
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133 of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/final version/version for review/ Succeeded: s/bse/base/ Succeeded: s/understand/understand comprehensively/ Found Scribe: IgorMozetic Inferring ScribeNick: IgorMozetic Default Present: Sandro, ChrisW, IgorMozetic, Harold, AxelPolleres, +1.631.833.aaaa, MichaelKifer, Mark_Proctor, Gary_Hallmark, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, +6928aabb, csma Present: Sandro ChrisW IgorMozetic Harold AxelPolleres +1.631.833.aaaa MichaelKifer Mark_Proctor Gary_Hallmark Hassan_Ait-Kaci +6928aabb csma Regrets: DaveReynolds PaulVincent JosDeBruijn Found Date: 08 Apr 2008 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/04/08-rif-minutes.html People with action items: axel chris mkifer[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]