Admin

<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Dec/att-0023/2-Dec-2008-rif-minutes.html

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: Accept last week's minutes

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: Accept last week's minutes

Liason

scheduled telcon Thursday noon EST about OWL and RIF to discuss common issues, e.g. OWL compatability, DTB, and OWL RL rules profile, and rdf:text

Jos: OWL 2 compatability will not require much change, but would need to redo last call
... 5 subproposals to decide on

Sandro: OWL last call drafts published (except OWL Full)

<ChrisW> ACTION: chris to confirm axel's participation for owl telecon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-rif-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-670 - Confirm axel's participation for owl telecon [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-12-16].

Actions

Hassan and Michael reviewed PRD, thank you!

Scribe note: consult action tracker for latest action status

Hassan will need til after the Holidays to debug some complex translator issues

Publication plans

<sandro> 5.1.6 Rule language coverage

<sandro> 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 all the features which are common to all the major rule languages in that cluster.

sandro: above proposal in UCR in 5.1.6

chrisw: do we want a new coverage requirement and what wording shall we use?

csma: instead of a new requirement about inter-dialect compatability, we modify the existing requirement to be about intra- and inter-dialect compatability

<sandro> PROPOSED: Replace in UCR the requirement on Rule language coverage by the following statement: 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. 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.

<sandro> _+1

<sandro> +1

no objection to this change

<sandro> RESOLVED: Replace in UCR the requirement on Rule language coverage by the following statement: 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. 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.

<sandro> PROPOSED: Publish http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/UCR as WD, given the above change

<sandro> +1 (W3C)

<Harold> +1 (NRC)

<Hassan> +1 (ILOG)

<Michael_Kifer> +1 self

<josb> +1 (FUB)

<Gary> +1 (Oracle)

<LeoraMorgenstern> + 1 (IBM) (I'm assuming this is not last call for UCR)

<sandro> RESOLVED: Publish http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/UCR as WD, given the above change

jos: DTB has one pending change

<josb> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Dec/0045.html

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: publish DTB as a next WD after changes listed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Dec/0045.html

DTB change is editorial clarification about argument type checking

<josb> +1 (FUB)

<Hassan> +1 (ILOG)

<Gary> +1 (Oracle)

<sandro> +1 (W3C)

<LeoraMorgenstern> +1 (IBM)

<Harold> +1 (NRC)

<Michael_Kifer> +1

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: publish DTB as a next WD after changes listed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Dec/0045.html

Core

leora: missing Core editors notes
... in 3 or 4 places in the Core draft
... will draft email about missing editors notes NOW

<Harold> Editorial changes done.

<Harold> Eds notes TBD.

<josb> +1 (FUB)

<LeoraMorgenstern> +1 (IBM)

<Gary> +1 (Oracle)

<Hassan> +1 (ILOG)

<sandro> +1 (W3C)

<Michael_Kifer> +1 (self)

<Harold> +1 (NRC)

<sandro> RESOLVED: Publish next WD of CORE pending changes in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Dec/0067.html

PRD

csma: some PRD edits yet to be done. Will consolidate into one list so we can vote

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: Publish next WD of PRD pending changes in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Dec/0066.html

<Hassan> +1 (ILOG)

<sandro> +1 (W3C)

<josb> +1 (FUB)

<Gary> +1 (Oracle)

<LeoraMorgenstern> +1 (IBM)

<Harold> +1 (NRC)

<Michael_Kifer> +1

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: Publish next WD of PRD pending changes in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Dec/0066.html

F2F12

<sandro> ACTION: sandro to make teleconf reservation for F2F12 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-rif-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-671 - Make teleconf reservation for F2F12 [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-12-16].

Test cases

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Category:Proposed

chrisw: let's start from W for alphabetic equality

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/UCR_4.7a

stella: UCR 4.7a
... demonstrate ontology + rules for greater expressiveness

chrisw: repair URL to delete google cache part
... in SeeAlso part

sandro: should include RDF XML
... "real world" examples tend to be very big
... link to separate file containing RDF XML

chrisw: could remove unused parts of ontology
... can we assume a translator from more readable OWL presentation syntax to normative RDF XML?

<Hassan> BTW: Stella - the link http://example.org/testOntology.owl is stale (on UCR 4.7a)

sandro: requiring an OWL translator for RIF test cases might be too burdensome

chrisw: how to summarize this discussion on test case page?

sandro: link to minutes using RRSAgent pointer

<josb> it might also be OWL 2.0; not sure

chrisw: should use OWL 1.0 or 2.0 syntax, not 1.1

sandro: OWL abstract syntax is not machine parsable (in a standard way)
... a Java API for OWL parsing (called OWL API) may be needed here

chrisw: in favor of using functional OWL syntax, but we need a translator

<ChrisW> ACTION: sandro to send email to OWL wg asking about tooling for "functional syntax" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-rif-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-672 - Send email to OWL wg asking about tooling for \"functional syntax\" [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-12-16].

<sandro> ACTION: sandro check on software for parsing OWL2 Functional Syntax, for use with test cases like http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/UCR_4.7a [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/12/09-rif-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-673 - Check on software for parsing OWL2 Functional Syntax, for use with test cases like http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/UCR_4.7a [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-12-16].

<sandro> action-672 closed

<trackbot> ACTION-672 Send email to OWL wg asking about tooling for "functional syntax" closed

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/UCR_4.1a

test case UCR 4.1a

stella: this example has guard predicates

chrisw: issue of what document is the conclusion in

<josb> it is not in a document

sandro: should endorse transforming conclusion to a condition in same doc as premise
... could even have a bundle of test cases in single document

<ChrisW> PASSED() :- <CONCLUSION>

hassan: similar issue to Prolog's default USER file

<csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Dec/0067.html

<csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Dec/0066.html

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: Publish next WD of CORE pending changes in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Dec/0067.html

csma: some of Hassan's comments really are about BLD, and PRD will wait for their resoution in BLD before uptaking them

hassan: most of the substance boils down to "taste", and we should acknowledge that

michael: unusual to mention "taste" in a standards doc

<sandro> PROPOSED: Publish Core as WD with changes detailed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Dec/0067.html

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: Publish next WD of CORE pending changes in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Dec/0067.html

<ChrisW> PASSED() :- <CONCLUSION>

jos: the proposal to add a rule doesn't work because of local name separation, but you could put the added rule in an imported doc

<josb> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Local_Constant

<Hassan> Yes Jos is right - this is exactly what I meant with the "USER" level import

michael: need a protocol that supports query
... like Hassan mentioned, the interactive session in prolog

<Hassan> The issue is one of module scoping - plain and simple (nested name spaces)

chrisw: the test cases make one wonder where the prefixes in the conclusion come from

<josb> I suspect there is a problem with the bridge in France; will try the one in Britain

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/UCR_4.1a

chrisw: in test cases, the premise is a document, but what is the conclusion?

<Harold> Jos, I had the same problem with the French bridge: dropped twice.

<sandro> Chris: A Test-Case-Conclusion is a Rule-Condition

chrisw: a test case conclusion is a rule condition. confusing but true

hassan: issue is module scoping
... prefixes are related to imports and module scoping

chrisw: no, more like a macro expansion

<StellaMitchell> sometimes conclusions need prefixes that are not in the premise

jos: propose to simply document that conclusions can use prefixes from premise

<josb> then these should be added in the premise, at least on the wiki

jos: and in the XML, the prefixes are expanded anyway

chrisw: can we have a solution that does not change the BLD spec?

michael: but notion of query is fundamental to logic rules