See also: IRC log
<csma> item 1
<csma> PROPOSED: accept minutes of telecon November 11
<sandro> scribenick: LeoraMorgenstern
<csma> RESOLVED: accept minutes of telecon November 11
csma: any agenda amendments?
Harold: Dave Reynolds and I would
like to bring in two topics from Core discussion yesterday to
... with respect to pattern matching vs. unification and also of # and ##
<trackbot> ACTION-1 -- Leora Morgenstern to set up draft proposal on what we mean by FOL -- due 2006-04-30 -- CLOSED
<sandro> (just testing trackbot)
csma: Discussing these would take more than 5 minutes. More urgent than DTB and UCR?
chris: Probably not, so will only discuss if there is time.
csma: Any news, comments from liaisons?
csma: was RDF text published?
sandro: no, due to publishing snafu; still debating, also, whether to send it out now, or later.
csma: anything new wrt XBRL?
sandro: <get answer wrt XBRL>
3 comments need to be responded to. There are draft responses or beginnings of responses.
chris: I have to deal with 2 public comments; Christian is supposed to deal with RAK (Kowalski).
csma: I will address this once I have gone through the paper http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~rak/papers/conditionals.pdf; will ask Gary for support.
Harold: text in BLD has changed somewhat [in accord with O'Keefe's comment that KIF's influence ought to be mentioned].
chris: I'm the one who is supposed to draft the response.
Action 655 on Dave to update EBNF to match BLD is done.
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 655
action 653 to open issue on polyadic functions per note in DTB 3.5 is continued
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 653
652 to write some more pathological test cases for potentially confusing uses of iri-string predicate --- continued
<Harold> Axel, Yes, we should have multi-arity built-ins (e.g. max and min).
650: continued (see above)
648 & 647 on Axel ( to add editor's note on xml schema compatibility, and add editor's note regarding status of finite/infinite characters) turned out to be the same action, and is/are done.
646 on Gary to draft a response to RAK: continued
645: Chris to send WL response is continued
644: Draft comment to OK: continued.
<AxelPolleres> harold, a) we have no resolution on this, b) this also aplies to e.g. fn:concat, not to new, not yet agreed built-ins
<AxelPolleres> do we have a resolution on min/max ?
637 on sandro to generate test case manifests: basically done, although Stella and Sandro still have to work out some details.
633 on Chris to discuss to how specify prefixes on email: continued, needs to be moved to PS task force.
604 on Axel: continued for now.
588 on Leora: continued; part of bigger effort to collect UCR cases that can't be represented currently in RIF.
573, 579 on sandro: continued
565 on sandro (access for Adrian to CVS) is done.
564 on Hassan: needs to be moved to PS task force, continued
439, 152 continued.
Pending reviews: postponed to agenda discussion
Task force updates.
csma: PRD task force: we are still discussing our next working draft; discusson will probably be concluded later today.
chris: PS task force: We met on
Friday. We split issues into 2 categories: (1) making the
syntax more presentable (2) making the syntax less ambiguous.
We came up with a set of changes that should reduce the
ambiguities. Everyone including Hassan was content. Hassan is
working through some implementational issues before changes can
... still a lot of disagreement about what's presentable. Hard to judge presentability, especially with a group so used to doing things in particular ways.
... easier to reduce ambiguity, because there are clear technical requirements.
<StellaMitchell> I will send to whole group
harold: perhaps we should look at OWL working group since many in RIF group will want to use RIF rules with OWL ontology.
<Hassan> +1 on Harold's suggestion to get inspired on OWL's abstract syntax
Harold: Core task force. Minutes
... Discussed member and subclass. Consensus: have # in rule bodies.
... More constructs on Core defined by referring to BLD. Process not finished, but should be done by Monday.
csma: Does this mean implementing Core will require reading and understanding BLD?
harold: yes, and PRD too.
csma: Doesn't that make things more difficult for people who just want to implement Core?
harold: yes, but necessary to facilitate maintenance.
dave: yes, otherwise there would be tremendous amounts of duplication.
csma: why not explicitly specify in Core, and have BLD and PRD make reference to it?
harold: Because BLD is further advanced, and last call, while Core is not yet stable.
<Harold> PRD colleagues, could you pleas briefly bring up if http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Core#Intersection_of_RIF-PRD_and_RIF-BLD is fine for the FPWD of Core?
harold: and Core is less than the
intersection of PRD and BLD.
... easier to extend BLD and PRD to Core.
<Harold> Yes, less than intersection.
adrian: I added two new
requirements to UCR
... First: inter-dialect and intra-dialect interoperability
... this had never been explicitly stated
<csma> RIF must allow intra-dialect interoperation, i.e. interoperability between
<csma> semantically similar rule languages (via interchange of RIF rules) within
<csma> one dialect, and it should support inter-dialect interoperation, i.e.
<csma> interoperation between different dialects with maximum overlap.
csma: discussion? Any objections to this requirement?
Dave: Just some comments on how
this got lost: We had this requirements structure, and
interoperatibility was one of the high-level goals.
... (i.e., high-level goal rather than requirement)
csma: So perhaps interoperabilty should be moved to a high-level requirement. Structure things so that there's no overlap.
<csma> RIF must support internationalized text - that is, text that additionally
<csma> conveys information in terms of a language tag.
adrian: Second requirement: internationalized text (see above).
csma: any discussion or objection
to internationalized text requirement?
... we'll have a resolution next week about this.
sandro: Is interoperability just restricted to common substrates of the dialects?
<StellaMitchell> "maximum overlap" had been my comment
csma: summary: resolution next week regarding internationalized text; while interoperatibility still under discussion
csma: according to plan UCR. Core, Test, PRD, DTB due to be frozen today.
chris: UCR has been reviewed
adrian: some open examples and
work needs to be done on the examples
... but otherwise ready for next publication
harold: There will be some changes before we can freeze it. Our target for freezable core is Monday, Nov. 24
<Michael_Kifer> next Mon should be ok
harold: gary, michael, and dave may need more time
<Michael_Kifer> next Mon should be ok
<LeoraMorgenstern> I can review Core
<DaveReynolds> The EBNF updates are done modulo decisions on #/## and external functions
<ChrisW> ACTION: csma to review Core by two weeks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-rif-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-656 - Review Core by two weeks [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2008-11-25].
<ChrisW> ACTION: leora to review core by two weeks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-rif-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-657 - Review core by two weeks [on Leora Morgenstern - due 2008-11-25].
csma: PRD: we still have the
question of # ##, but not holding up PRD since it's a working
... xml, external data models, also not in this draft.
... should be able to have this WD done by Friday.
... so we'll freeze by Friday.
<ChrisW> hassan, would you have time to review PRD?
<ChrisW> ACTION: mkifer to review Core in two weeks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-rif-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-658 - Review Core in two weeks [on Michael Kifer - due 2008-11-25].
<ChrisW> ACTION: hassan to review PRD - due in two weeks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-rif-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-659 - review PRD [on Hassan Ait-Kaci - due 2008-11-18].
<sandro> action-659 due 2008-12-03
<trackbot> ACTION-659 review PRD due date now 2008-12-03
stella: Test is ready to freeze. Still needs more work, especially wrt format, but Sandro feels it's okay for a first pass.
<ChrisW> ACTION: sandro to review test - due Dec 02 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-rif-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-660 - review test [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-12-02].
<ChrisW> ACTION: gary to review test - due Dec 02 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-rif-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-661 - review test [on Gary Hallmark - due 2008-12-02].
<LeoraMorgenstern> Stella, Adrian, should there perhaps be a pointer in the Test doc to the spreadsheet that I prepared regarding the test cases?
axel: DTB: Edtiing editor's note still needs to be done. Action 604 needs to be done.
chris: DTB has been reviewed.
axel: making changes in response
to reviews. Should be done by the end of the week.
... everything not done is marked with editor's notes. I will leave editor's notes, but may still make some changes to improve situation.
jos: Not all my comments resulted in editor's note, e.g., mapping , data type conversions.
axel: I will add editor's notes as needed.
This has already been done in above discussion.
Next topic to discuss: Issue 67
Issue 67: inconsistency in the way numeric-less-than operator is used.
josb: not natural to compare strings in the same way as numbers: numbers have a natural ordering
<Harold> Strings have lexicographic ordering.
Gary: What's more important for strings is equal and non-equal, rather than ordering.
<AxelPolleres> from fn:compare (xpath-functions): This function, invoked with the first signature, backs up the "eq", "ne", "gt", "lt", "le" and "ge" operators on string values.
csma: Also, issues 79, 80, 81.
csma: propose to have equal and non-equal for all those types (strings, etc.) and to leave the greater than and less than issues for now.
Axel: I'd prefer to mark this
with an editor's note, rather than remove the gt, lt, le, ge
orderings in those cases.
... issue 67, and thus the editor's note, was only on strings.
<DaveReynolds> Sorry I have to leave slightly early: no objection to =/!= on strings; regarding issue 80 I don't think this is yet closable
<AxelPolleres> I see no point in closing "half" of the issue...
<AxelPolleres> ... to be honest.
<csma> PROPOSED: Add equal and not-equal builtins for string
Axel: why is equal and not-equal less contentious than gt and lt?
<Harold> I think for DTB, which is a kind of taxonomy of mostly independent features (built-ins) we should keep reasonable built-ins, so DTB has a chance to become the ground layer of built-ins for the (Semantic) Web.
<josb> no, as it stands DTB is a part of BLD
<AxelPolleres> As i typed earlier, fn:compare in Xquery/Xpath backs up eq, ne, gt, and lt... so if we only want to have half of those... fine.
<ChrisW> ACTION: csma to put string= proposed resolution on next week's agenda [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/18-rif-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-662 - Put string= proposed resolution on next week's agenda [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2008-11-25].
<Hassan> +1 to adjourn
Adrian is scribe for next weekNo other business.