See also: IRC log
Christian: Any objections to accepting minutes from last week's telecon?... none
<csma> RESOLVED: accept minutes from last week's telecon
Christian: Any agenda ammendments?
JosB: I would like to discuss the comments on the RIF,RDF and OWL Compatibility document by Uli Sattler, but that will be covered in the public comments section
Sandro: OWL2 WG is hoping to have the last call documents out today
Christian: Other liaisons?
JosB: Question for Sandro: how can we get things into the RDF errata document? I sent some proposed changes to the RIF list.
<josb> My proposed text: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Dec/0013.html
Sandro: Haven't figured that out yet. I have to look into it.
ChrisW: I will send the OK1 response now
Christian: I drafted some comments to RAK1 ... ChrisW, can you look over my response to RAK1?
<ChrisW> ACTION: chris to look over reply to RAK [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-rif-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-666 - Look over reply to RAK [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-12-09].
Christian: Comments by Uli Sattler on the RIF, RDF and OWL Compatibility document are not yet on the wiki page, but will be added
JosB: These comments on RIF, RDF and OWL Compatibility document were
sent to the RIF mailing list, not the public comments list
... most comments are editorial, but there is one larger one that we should discuss: the first comment says that the document doesn't fully address OWL2, but OWL2 is now stable enough to be covered.
Christian: The RIF, RDF and OWL Compatibility document went to last call before OWL2 was sufficiently stable
Sandro: We had asked Uli to say what changes would be needed for OWL2, and I didn't think she identified any
ChrisW, Jos: don't agree with Sandro's assessment
Jos: I expect it wouldn't be too much work, but there would be changes in the document
ChrisW: I sent a message to Ian
about this and related issues. Given the timelines of both
WGs, there is no excuse to not address this now.
... so I think the updates should be made if Jos has time, and we could consider reopening the joint RIF-OWL task force
... and if the outcome is that something needs to be changed in OWL, they should be open to doing that also
JosB: So, this would mean redoing last call of RIF, RDF, OWL compatibility
Christian: Chris, Did Ian respond?
Christian: If we are going to reopen the joint RIF OWL task force, we should do it as early as possible
ChrisW: Jos, do you have a sense of what changes would be needed?
ChrisW: We are not talking about changing the current material, right? because there are lots of implementations of OWL1, but we are talking about adding a new section
JosB: Depends somewhat on how backward compatible OWL2 is with OWL1
Christian: When could you do it?
JosB: I think I could have a reasonable draft by the end of December, and then would need reviews by OWL group
Christian: And you may have feedback
to give to OWL2
... The joint task force should meet by the end of Dec or early Jan
<ChrisW> ACTION: chris to set up call with OWL WG for joint RDF&OWL TF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-rif-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-667 - Set up call with OWL WG for joint RDF&OWL TF [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-12-09].
JosB: Should we send an official response to Uli's comments?
<ChrisW> ACTION: jdebruij2 to look at what it would take to add OWL-2 compatibility to RDF&OWL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-rif-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-668 - Look at what it would take to add OWL-2 compatibility to RDF&OWL [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2008-12-09].
Sandro: I think starting the task force is enough, so we don't need an official response
action 665 is continued
<DaveReynolds> That wasn't 665, 665 was the problem with the frozen version which is fixed.
659 continued (comment below)
<Hassan> Mostly done - will be done by the end of today ...
658 continued, because will have to rereview changes before publication
646 closed, and GaryH will review RAK1
604 continued (comment below)
<AxelPolleres> continued, still one full editing pass over DTB needed which I didn't find time yet :-( anyway for the current freeze, I am fine with the current Ed notes.
564 continued (comment below)
<Hassan> continued - been off this issue for a while ...
439, 152 continued
<ChrisW> action 632 closed
Christian: There may be difficulties with travel policies
<DaveReynolds> I won't be able to make it, travel restrictions as you say.
<AxelPolleres> I won't be able to attend, sorry.
AxelP: My reasons are due to other commitments, not travel budget.
Sandro: I can't travel because of budget, but will attend remotely the whole time
Christian: ILOG has been mostly acquired by IBM, which means that IBM travel policy might apply to ILOG in January, I don't know what this means for me.
ChrisW: I don't know yet what the
travel policy for IBM will be early next year
... by the policy of this quarter a working group meeting for standards committee would have been acceptable travel
<AdrianP> I already booked my flight
<AdrianP> so can not change travel plans
AdrianP: Does GaryH have recommendations for hotels?
ChrisW: There is a list of hotels on the meeting page
GaryH: I just googled for hotels in the area, I'm not particularly familiar with them.
Christian: We have plans to publish
UCR, Core, PRD, Test, DTB
... we want to see if we can formally agree on some of these today
... Adrian, UCR?
Adrian: One of the new proposed requirements still has to be approved
Christian: Are there any objections to
publishing UCR as is? this isn't a formal vote, just getting an
... no objections to publishing UCR
Christian: Core. Leora, can you summarize your comments on Core?
Leora: I felt it's a good draft
but could use some more examples, clarifying text,
restructuings... I gave some specific examples
... this is a working draft, so it's fine to publish, but could benefit from changes
Harold: Can we vote contingent on editorial changes?
ChrisW: What would the changes be?
Harold: Leora would say which comments are editorial and others could be postponed to next WD
Leora: Section 1, first comment is editorial
...section 2 postpone
...section 3 editorial
...section 5 before section 5.1 is editorial
...section 5.1 can be postponed
...section 5.2 not sure, it could be simple or could need to rewrite
...section 6 editorial
Christian: For the postponed ones, do you think we need an editor's note?
Leora: Yes, that would be good
Christian: Harold, is this OK?
Christian: I also reviewed Core and
think there is no show-stopper. I do think though that section
6 should be replaced by an editor's note saying that in a
future draft core will also be specified as a specialization
... currently the sections for BLD and PRD are not of the same level
<AdrianP> section 6.1. in Core needs to be updated with the "new" construct
Christian: Other comments on
... would anyone object to publish conditional on the above comments?
ChrisW: How far are we from publishing PRD - what timeframe?
Christian: I looked over MichaelK's
comments, and I think that we can correct all of them easily,
except for the definition of satisfaction
... but Michael's review didn't go all the way to the end of the document
Adrian: Didn't look at items 12 & 13 yet
Christian: We will discuss those 2 at the PRD telecon today
MichaelK: Cannot attend the PRD telecon
... I did read the document to the end, but just didn't write up comments on the last part which was mostly about XML and execution strategy and that's not very technical material so I didn't comment on it
Christian: I think we can take all the comments into account by the end of tomorrow, Michael can rereview on the weekend
MichaelK: Also, for such an important document I don't think it's enough to have just one review
ChrisW: Given the timeline for PRD then, I don't think we need conditional resolutions on the other documents. Editors can make the necessary updates and we can vote on publication next week
Christian: Test cases document: we had 2 reviews, GaryH and Sandro, Gary can you comment?
GaryH: My primary concern was the
difficulty of building a test harness
... also I think people who aren't familiar with RDF will be confused by the manifest, so we should have a plain XML one
ChrisW: Can't we have both?
Christian: Is not having XML a show-stopper?
Sandro: Not for this draft, but we should have an editor's note
GaryH: My other comments are not
... conclusions are RIF condition formulas not RIF documents and I don't think it's obvious what should be done with those
... we should give some implementation advice
... I think every practical implementation will have a way to print a result or query the system, and we can describe how to implement a test harness using those
... combining conclusion and premise into one document could cause problems for some test cases (local document)
... but import could be used to include conclusions
GaryH: I don't think it has to stop publication
AdrianP: Point to repository?
GaryH: It already does point to
repository, but not clear what to make of premise and
... the section saying you have to build a test harness should be expanded
Yes, this sounds like a good idea to add to section 6
<Hassan> user manual
<AdrianP> "RIF test cases for dummies" ;-)
Christian: Don't require for FPWD, but will be good to have
Sandro: I think my comments have been addressed, but I have not verified that yet
JosB: A week ago, I sent comments about DTB to the list, but I didn't see a response
AxelP: I need to do one more pass over the document, I still need to address some of Jos' comments
Christian: Can you do it before the end of the week?
JosB: ...and please respond to my email
<ChrisW> ACTION: axel to incorporate and address Jos' comments from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Nov/0190.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/02-rif-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-669 - Incorporate and address Jos' comments from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Nov/0190.html [on Axel Polleres - due 2008-12-09].
ChrisW: What was the decision for Test document?
Christian: Sandro has to verify his comments, then it could be ready to go.
Sandro: We don't have to wait until next week for that
ChrisW: If we resolve now, we could avoid the discussion again next week
Christian: Does anyone have something to add or objections about the test cases document?
<csma> PROPOSED: to publish the test case document as FPWD (conditionned on Sandro's approval of modifications)
ChrisW: This is the only public FPWD in the current batch and so it involves more process, which is why it's good to resolve today
<LeoraMorgenstern> +1, IBM
<josb> +1 (UNIBZ)
<sandro> +1 (W3C)
<DaveReynolds> +1 (HP)
<AxelPolleres> +1 (DERI)
<AdrianP> +1, self
<Harold> +1 (NRC)
<Michael_Kifer> +1, self
<Gary> +1 Oracle
<Hassan> ilog +1
<csma> RESOLVED: to publish the test case document as FPWD (conditionned on Sandro's approval of modifications)
Christian: We will publish together with other documents that we decide on next week
Christian: Time remaining in today's telecon is too short for DTB issues. Let's discuss the proposed new requirement for UCR
<csma> Rule language coverage
<csma> Because of the great diversity of rule languages, no one interchange language is likely to be able to bridge between all. Instead, RIF provides dialects which are each targeted at a cluster of similar rule languages. Within that cluster, each feature of each rule language will have some degree of commonality with corresponding features of other rule languages in that cluster. The RIF dialect targeting a cluster must support, at a minimum, interchange of rules using al
Christian: The way this is written it is more than just a requirement: it also talks about how we will fulfill the requirement ... can't we shorten it?
<csma> Because of the great diversity of rule languages, no one interchange language is likely to be able to bridge between all. Instead, RIF provides dialects which are each targeted at a cluster of similar rule languages.
<csma> RIF must allow intra-dialect interoperation, i.e. interoperability between semantically similar rule languages (via interchange of RIF rules) within one dialect, and it should support inter-dialect interoperation, i.e. interoperation between dialects with maximum overlap.
AdrianP: I like Christian's version because it's more compact.
ChrisW: We could move the design oriented text out of the requirement into the beginning of the section
Christian: Propose to adjourn
<ChrisW> +1, self
<Hassan> +1 to adhourn
<AxelPolleres> +1 bye