16 Sep 2008


See also: IRC log


+6928aaaa, csma, Sandro, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Harold, ChrisW, Michael_Kifer, Mike_Dean, +1.212.781.aabb, Leora_Morgenstern, StellaMItchell, +1.503.533.aacc, GaryHallmark?
JosDeBruijn, AxelPolleres, AdrianPaschke, StuartTaylor, DaveReynolds
Christian de Sainte Marie
Michael Kifer




<csma> Meeting RIF telecon 16 September 2008

<csma> agendum+ Admin

<csma> agendum+ Liaisons

<csma> agendum+ Publicity and public comments

<csma> agendum+ Actions review

<csma> agendum+ F2F11

<csma> agendum+ Core

<csma> Agendum+ Test Cases

<csma> Agendum+ AOB (pick scribe!)

<csma> Michael, do you remember that you scribe, today?

<csma> Scribe: Michael Kifer

<csma> scribenick: Michael_Kifer


<csma> PROPOSED: accept minutes of telecon Sept 9

<csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Sep/att-0094/rif-meeting-miutes-09-09-2008.html

<csma> RESOLVED: accept minutes of telecon Sept 9

<Harold> The OWL 2 RL profile was just a section in another doc.

<Harold> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profiles

<csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Publicity

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_RG1

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_TK1

<ChrisW> ACTION: chris to finish responses to public comments by sept 22 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/16-rif-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-575 - Finish responses to public comments by sept 22 [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-09-23].


<ChrisW> Adrian?

<csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F11#Agenda

<csma> PROPOSED: Core will not have equality in the head

<MichaelKifer> Discussion of the proposed resolution that Core will not have equality in the head

<MichaelKifer> Addl info: Dave R removed his objections to restricting equality in the body

<MichaelKifer> RESOLVED: No equality in the head

<csma> RESOLVED: Core will not have equality in the head

<MichaelKifer> equality in the body will be discussed at the Core telecon next Monday, 11am.

<Harold> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/76

<Harold> PROPOSED: Core should keep unrestricted equality in rule bodies (cf. ISSUE-71).

<Harold> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/71

<Harold> PROPOSED: Core should keep unrestricted equality and external function

<Harold> calls in rule bodies and keep external functions calls in rule heads.

<MichaelKifer> Note: external functions are NOT allowed in the head in BLD

<MichaelKifer> The above "PROPOSED" resolutions are examples of what is to come from the "Core" subgroup.

Test Cases

<Stella> let's start with EntailEverything

<Stella> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/EntailEverything_1

<Stella> no

<MichaelKifer> Leora: need test cases that illustrate hard issues in the language of BLD

<Stella> 1 through 6

<Stella> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/EntailEverything_2

<MichaelKifer> Gary: the purpose the EntainEverything test cases is to test the basic features of BLD.

<Stella> that is not in proper format

<Leora_Morgenstern> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Frames

<MichaelKifer> Regarding the Frames test case, the ? in the vars is in a wrong position

<Stella> Adrian intended to update this once the PS syntax is finalized

<MichaelKifer> Gary: the Frames example seems wrong conceptually. Customer should be an object or a variable (Sandro).

<Hassan> The choice of syntax must be justified and explained...

<Stella> yes, I think we do

<MichaelKifer> Csma: how complete should be the test suite?

<MichaelKifer> Sandro: somebody should go through the spec and suggest the places that are suitable for the testsuite.

<MichaelKifer> But this is hard to do, since we don't have an automatic way to check these tests.

<Hassan> I agree with Sandro regarding syntax

<Hassan> Otherwise semantics of the syntax is a guess...

<Stella> but then reviewers of the tests will have to learn multiple languages

<Stella> yikes

<MichaelKifer> Issue: how to express the test cases? The PS is a moving target

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-77 - How to express the test cases? The PS is a moving target ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/77/edit .

<Leora_Morgenstern> q

<Stella> there is currently a PS documented in BLD, we can use that

<Stella> and if it changes, update the test cases

<MichaelKifer> Sandro proposed that test cases would be labeled with timestamps that indicate the version of the PS. A number of people did not like that.

<ChrisW> who needs to imagine, i've DONE it

<Stella> why don't we use the PS for the human readable version, and XML for the runnable version, and a tool to translate between

<ChrisW> that is, i hope, what hassan is proposing (and doing)

<Leora_Morgenstern> Stella, the problem is the multiple versions of P

<Leora_Morgenstern> of PS

<ChrisW> but the PS is not in a form yet that can support that

<Stella> there are not multiple versions yet

<Hassan> XML is not "normal form" but "normative"

<Hassan> I agree with ChrisW on XML generated by people!

<Stella> people can even submit them in email in informal form for now

<Stella> we will translate them into ps for them

<Leora_Morgenstern> good point, Stella. We've said it before, but I think people have forgotten.

<Stella> submission does not have to be in xml. tool will create the xml, and the xml is the normative form that will be run

<Hassan> BTW - in that example it should be ?Name

<Hassan> not Name?

<Stella> +1 chris about making ps serializable

<MichaelKifer> Hassan: proposing to complete the PS to make it into a parsable syntax. Chris expressed support.

<MichaelKifer> Csma: wants to write everything in XML, against a parsable PS.

<Leora_Morgenstern> +1 to Sandro's point above. This is the whole point of RIF, after all.

<MichaelKifer> Sandro: Prolog is not good for writing test cases, as there is no standard mapping to RIF-XML.

<Stella> it's kind of ok, except the testers will have to get use to multiple presentation syntaxes to understand the cases

<MichaelKifer> CSMA: correction: don't want to write everything in XML. I think that the point of the test cases is to *document* the cases. XML is a good way for doing this.

<MichaelKifer> Leora: but we also need to test the cases.

<sandro> Sandro: let's say that each test case in the wiki exists in any language which has a well-defined mapping to RIF and for which code is installed by the test-case-managers, so that the downloadable version has the XML and that's what is run.

<sandro> Sandro: This degenerates to the current situation if we assume Hassan's PS->RIF-XML is our only defined+implemented language.

<Zakim> sandro, you wanted to say the problem with using other rule languages (eg Prolog) is that there is not a standard mapping to RIF XML. I suggest mappings must be defined and

<Hassan> Sandro: this is not the case - I think Aberdeen folks have an implementation as well. Am I right?

<MichaelKifer> Leora: disagree with Sandro's proposal that people should be able to write test cases in their own languages.

<Leora_Morgenstern> no, Michael, I disagree with Christian's proposal

<Leora_Morgenstern> Michael, I don't think Sandro and Christian are saying the same thing at all!

<Stella> I think we can get fairly broad (not deep) coverage

<Stella> I can work on it

<MichaelKifer> They are saying different things, but I thought that your argument was against Sandro's proposal (for the most part)

<GaryHallmark> stella, I hope you will use RIF-PS and not prolog or ilog or mylog, or ...

<Stella> and then we need the deeper coverage in the corner and difficult cases

<Leora_Morgenstern> Let me just write this rather than say this, because I think it will be clearer:

<Leora_Morgenstern> The presentation syntax is built on the underlying BLD semantics.

<Leora_Morgenstern> This is not the case for the syntaxes of other languages, right?

<Leora_Morgenstern> Christian, I don't think you can entirely separate the issue of a comprehensive set of features from the issue of corner cases.

<GaryHallmark> corner case = things that are hard for PRD :-)

<Leora_Morgenstern> I agree, Chris. It's when you look at things, feature by feature, that you may come up with corner cases.

<Harold> If someone has their own syntax, OS, but give a mapping to RIF's XML, OS->RIF/XML, then OS can be seen as just their 'shorthand': only the XML produced by their mapping will be relevant for RIF syntactically and semantically.

<Stella> they all involve features, but it's a matter of focus

<Stella> whether we only want hard or non-obvious cases, or the general coverage also

<GaryHallmark> Harold, assuming I'm not familiar with OS, I would not find this useful unless you can completely specify OS->RIF/XML in a way that is easy to understand (i.e. not just a black box service)

<MichaelKifer> Leora: "corner cases" correspond to features. To distill them one needs to go feature-by-feature.

<Harold> Sandro, right, I don't take any standpoint here.

<csma> nobody does, zakim

<MichaelKifer> Leora: test cases should "cover enough" situations. It does not need to be exhaustive.

<MichaelKifer> Gary: Stella's cases are real good.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: chris to finish responses to public comments by sept 22 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/09/16-rif-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]