Admin

<csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Jul/att-0175/2008-07-22-rif-minutes.html

Christian: Any objections to accepting minutes from last week?

<csma> PROPOSED: accept minutes of telecon July 22

<csma> RESOLVED: accept minutes of telecon July 22

JosB: Do we know whether F2F11 will be held in NYC or Hawthorne?

Christian: It will be either in NYC or at Watson in Hawthorne, on Sept 26-27th

JosB: It would be good to know which location it will be at

Christian: Chris will be back next week, and we will discuss it

JosB: Sept 26th is eight weeks from this Friday. What about the W3C eight-week-advance rule?

Christian: We have the date and airport set, do we still have a problem?

JosB: Only if W3C rules make it one

Christian: Should be OK, will try to get this resolved as soon as possible

Christian: Any agenda ammendments? ... none

Liaisons

Christian: Any news from liaisons? ... none

Action review

Christian: Sandro not here

<sandro> (Sorry, I'm in an OWL F2F meeting now.)

Christian: action-530 Leora

Leora: Hard drive crashed, and have been without a computer for awhile, not able to review yet.

action-516, Chris not here

action-492 complete

Publication plan

Christian: We have reviews on BLD (Stella) and SWC (Christian) on 7/23 snapshots. MichaelK, Harold, JosB, do you want to comment?

MichaelK: Took care of Stella's comments on BLD

JosB: The comments were after July 23rd freeze, and the resolutions are worded with 23rd version, so do we want to take these last changes into account in the publications?

Christian: Yes, Sandro made new drafts yesterday. What kind of changes are they?

MichaelK: They are stylistic. Plus, 23rd versions had formatting problems so those versions are not publishable

Christian: Jos, BLD changes OK with you?

JosB: I didn't look closely at changes since July 23rd, Michael?

MichaelK: Editorial changes, plus added new signatures in section 6.1 (for external), but I would still say that's editorial

JosB: Yes, I'm OK with this

MichaelK: Still some things to fix: links etc

<AxelPolleres> Micheal fixed some broken links in DTB still and I fixed the few remaining ones only yesterday ... but that is purely editorial of course.

JosB: These are not substantial changes that would affect publication decision. There is still a list numbering problem in section 6.1.

MichaelK: I think I fixed the section 6.1 problem yesterday, but I don't know how to make a new frozen version to check it

<csma> PROPOSED: Publish the July 28 snapshot as BLD LC, after correction of the HTML problem in section 6.1

<AxelPolleres> +1

<AxelPolleres> :-)

please ask Leora to vote by phone for IBM

<csma> PROPOSED: Publish the July 28 snapshot as BLD LC, after correction of the HTML problem in section 6.1

<AxelPolleres> +1, DERI

<josb> +1 (FUB)

<csma> PROPOSED: Publish the July 28 snapshot as BLD LC, after correction of the HTML problems

<josb> +1 (FUB)

<Harold> +1 (NRC)

<MichaelKifer> +1

<AxelPolleres> +1, DERI

<IgorMozetic> +1 (JSI)

<DaveReynolds> +1 (HP)

<GaryHallmark> +1 Oracle

<Hassan> +1 (ILOG)

+1 IBM (Leora by phone)

<csma> RESOLVED: Publish the July 28 snapshot as BLD LC, after correction of the HTML problems.

<csma> PROPOSED: Publish the July 28 snapshot as SWC LC.

<Harold> +1 (NRC)

<josb> +1 (FUB)

<AxelPolleres> +1, DERI

<GaryHallmark> +1 Oracle

<IgorMozetic> +1 (JSI)

<MichaelKifer> +1

<Hassan> +1 (ILOG)

<DaveReynolds> +1 (HP)

+1 IBM (Leora by phone)

<csma> RESOLVED: Publish the July 28 snapshot as SWC LC.

<csma> PROPOSED: Publish the July 28 snapshot as UCR 3rd public WD

<Harold> +1 (NRC)

JosB: When are we going to publish LC of UCR?

Christian: I think we decided to keep it a living document

JosB: So it will forever be a working draft?

<sandro> (The final state of UCR could be Working Group Note. It doesn't need to go to Rec.)

Christian: Not necessarily forever, but for now at least. At the end of the working group we will publish it as a working group note

<josb> +1 (FUB)

<Hassan> +1 (ILOG)

<AxelPolleres> +1 (DERI)

<IgorMozetic> +1 (JSI)

<MichaelKifer> +1

<GaryHallmark> +1 Oracle

<DaveReynolds> +1 (HP)

+1 IBM (Leora by phone)

<csma> RESOLVED: Publish the July 28 snapshot as UCR 3rd public WD

<csma> PROPOSED: Publish the July 28 snapshot as FLD 2nd public WD

MichaelK: I found lots of html errors. Can we resolve it subject to correcting html errors?

Christian: I would like us to have a deadline for fixing these errors. Sandro prefers to publish all documents in one batch.

MichaelK: I will fix the html today, and will send Sandro a message. It will take a few iterations to make sure it's correct. Is there a way I can produce a frozen draft myself, to speed up the process?

<AxelPolleres> +q

AxelP: Is it true that if wiki version validates, the frozen version also validates?

MichaelK: Are we supposed to validate the snapshot version that Sandro produces?

<AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/FLD,validate

<AxelPolleres> you should fix it in the wiki version!

MichaelK: I validated the frozen version

JosB, Christian: You have to run validate and checklinks on the wiki version

<csma> PROPOSED: Publish the July 28 snapshot as FLD 2nd public WD, after correction of HTML errors

MichaelK: BLD wiki version also has problems when I run validate (several pages of them), and the tool doesn't seem to refer to the right line numbers

<AxelPolleres> click "show source"

JosB: Use the "show source" option

MichaelK: I will work on validation of wiki versions of BLD and FLD today

Christian: Send me a message when you're done

<csma> PROPOSED: Publish the July 28 snapshot as FLD 2nd public WD, after correction of HTML errors

<AxelPolleres> +1 (DERI)

<IgorMozetic> +1 (JSI)

<josb> +1 (FUB)

<Harold> +1 (NRC)

<Hassan> +1 (ILOG)

<MichaelKifer> +1

<DaveReynolds> +1 (HP)

+1 IBM (Leora by phone)

<GaryHallmark> +1 Oracle

<csma> RESOLVED: Publish the July 28 snapshot as FLD 2nd public WD, after correction of HTML errors

<csma> PROPOSED: Publish the July 28 snapshot as DTB FPWD

<AxelPolleres> small issue: http://www.w3.org/2007/rif#iri is not dereferenceable, do we want it to redirect to DTB? (not critical path)

<josb> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Jul/0203.html

JosB: I sent email about this, that there should not be links to non-human-readable content

<csma> PROPOSED: Publish the July 28 snapshot as DTB FPWD

AxelP: I made some link fixes in the wiki version, so need a few frozen draft of this

Christian: Publication is made from wiki, not snapshots

JosB: Resolution is worded about snapshot

Christian: Snapshot just refers to which version we are talking about

<csma> PROPOSED: Publish the July 28 snapshot as DTB FPWD, after the links are fixed

<GaryHallmark> +1 Oracle

<AxelPolleres> +1 (DERI)

<josb> +1 (FUB)

<IgorMozetic> +1 (JSI)

<Hassan> +1 (ILOG)

<DaveReynolds> +1 (HP)

<Harold> +1 (NRC)

+1 IBM (Leora by phone)

<MichaelKifer> +1

<csma> RESOLVED: Publish the July 28 snapshot as DTB FPWD, after the links are fixed

<csma> PROPOSED: Publish the July 28 snapshot as PRD FPWD.

<GaryHallmark> +1 Oracle

<Hassan> +1 (ILOG)

<josb> +1 (FUB)

<MichaelKifer> +1

<DaveReynolds> +1 (HP)

<IgorMozetic> +1 (JSI)

<Harold> +1 (NRC)

+1 IBM (Leora by phone)

<AxelPolleres> +1 (DERI)

<csma> RESOLVED: Publish the July 28 snapshot as PRD FPWD.

<Harold> Outstanding ed notes can be fixed with the extended wd2 eds list of PRD.

<AxelPolleres> yes, links are already fixed

DTB for PRD

Christian: I don't think that much needs to be changed in either DTB or PRD. Axel, others, do you have an idea of the changes required?

AxelP: Depends on whether you would need additional functions or predicates?

Christian: I was asking a different question: does DTB depend on the fact that BLD and FLD have a model theoretic semantics?

AxelP: We define semantics of built-ins in a model theoretic way

Christian: So, if we want to adapt DTB for dialects that don't have model theoretic semantics, we would have to give an equivalent definition?

AxelP: It would basically be reversing what we did. XPath/XQuery were defined in terms of operational semantics. We produced a corresponding version of semantics for purposes of BLD. So,for dialects that want operational semantics, they can refer to XPath/XQuery spec.

GaryH: Matching theory (as bridge) needs to be related to BLD. BLD shows how fixed interpreations are viewed in model theory

Christian: But if the bridge is in DTB it would serve for all dialects that have operational semantics

MichaelK: I'm not sure that every non-model-theoretic semantics dialect will need the same bridge

GaryH: As much as possible, we need to generalize DTB so it can work for both PRD and BLD

Christian: Yes, anything specific to PRD should be in PRD, but common things should be described in DTB in a way that works for both FLD and PRD (and for future dialects)

MichaelK: I think the current description is fairly applicable to PRD

<AxelPolleres> if you implement the built-ins (in an operational way... namely e.g. calling an xqath/xquery compliant library, you do get results that are compliant with the semantics). I have to admit that I still owe a proper review of PRD.

<AxelPolleres> +1 to mk

MichaelK: It doesn't require big changes, just change the way you talk about it

Christian: I see your point. Can you post this to the list, about grounding, etc?

MichaelK: Yes, I will. Also, I was thinking of extending FLD so it would cover PRD

<csma> ACTION: mkifer to provide a draft of how PRD expressions comply with FLD semantics [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/07/29-rif-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-546 - Provide a draft of how PRD expressions comply with FLD semantics [on Michael Kifer - due 2008-08-05].

GaryH: It just provides a model for the expressions, not the rules

<Hassan> I agree with Gary - there seems to be no issue w/ regards to PRD expressions comply with BLD's semantics

AOB

Christian: Propose to adjourn

<Hassan> +1

<AxelPolleres> +1

<GaryHallmark> +1

<MichaelKifer> +1