W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > September 2009

Re: [ADMIN] Minutes of 1 September 09 telecon

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:52:58 +0100
Message-ID: <4AA0027A.3060402@deri.org>
To: leora@cs.nyu.edu
CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org
For the records: There were some small changes on DTB and some 
discussions about it:

1) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Aug/0002.html
2) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Aug/0011.html
3) I think I asked in the last TC whether we can/shall change the 
non-uniformity of the list-functions in DTB, which have a different format
(informal mappings only) to all the other functions and predicates in 
DTB. I could try to tackle that, but not before two weeks from now.

With the resolution to go to CR, should I consider these resolved/accepted?

Axel

p.s.: Belated regrets due to arrival of our child ;-).

Leora Morgenstern wrote:
>
> Attached are the minutes of the 1 September 2009 telecon.
>
> Please let me know of any corrections.
>
> Best regards,
> Leora
>
>
>
> --
> Leora Morgenstern, Ph.D.
> Visiting Research Scientist, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/leora
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> W3C <http://www.w3.org/>
>
>
>   RIF Telecon 1-Sept-09
>
>
>     01 Sep 2009
>
> Agenda 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Aug/0037.html>
>
> See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-irc>
>
>
>     Attendees
>
> Present
>     Harold Boley, Jos de Bruijn, Mark Dean, John Hall, Sandro Hawke,
>     Stella Mitchell, Leora Morgenstern, Christian de Sainte Marie,
>     Chris Welty 
> Regrets
>     Michael Kifer
> Chair
>     Chris Welty
> Scribe
>     Leora Morgenstern
>
>
>     Contents
>
>     * Topics <#agenda>
>          1. admin <#item01>
>          2. Liaison <#item02>
>          3. Action Review <#item03>
>          4. Exit Criteria <#item04>
>          5. Publications <#item05>
>          6. Implementations <#item06>
>          7. Test Cases <#item07>
>     * Summary of Action Items <#ActionSummary>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
>       admin
>
> <ChrisW> Scribe: LeoraMorgenstern
>
>
>       Liaison
>
> sandro, chris: OWL, like RIF, relies on XSD 1.1., and that is still in 
> candidate recommendation.
>
> sandro: prognosis for XML schema datatypes is not promising.
> ... OWL will have an appendix referring to XML schema datatypes.
> ... and RIF can do something similar.
>
> <ChrisW> next item
>
> Nothing else in liaison.
>
> <ChrisW> next item
>
> <sandro> *ACTION:* sandro to make sure if OWL does a normative 
> appendix for XSD 1.1, that it's phrased in a way that makes it also 
> work for RIF. [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action01]
>
> <trackbot> Created ACTION-903 - Make sure if OWL does a normative 
> appendix for XSD 1.1, that it's phrased in a way that makes it also 
> work for RIF. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-09-08].
>
>
>       Action Review
>
> <ChrisW> close action-902
>
> <trackbot> ACTION-902 Look at message from Nick B. and check FLD 
> schema closed
>
> close action-898
>
> <trackbot> ACTION-898 Answer faq 3.9 closed
>
>
>       Exit Criteria
>
> <ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Exit_Criteria
>
> <johnhall> zakim ??p0 is me
>
> <johnhall> P0
>
> <johnhall> zakim P0 is me
>
> <johnhall> Thanks Jos
>
> Chris: The exit criteria for RIF are listed at 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Exit_Criteria
>
> Sandro: I am concerned that Chris's revision to my proposal --- 
> namely, reducing the requirement from implementing a dialect of FLD to 
> merely specifying the dialect --- is putting the bar too low.
> ... I don't think it's too high a burden to require an implementation.
>
> Chris: I think it's an unnecessary burden.
> ... Regarding Sandro's point that someone can just flip through FLD 
> and figure out how to have some sort of (trivial?) instantiation: 
> Someone can also just say that they have an implementation.
>
> Sandro: Shouldn't they at least have to show that they can read and 
> write XML?
>
> Chris: Implementation tests the dialect, not FLD.
>
> Sandro: I won't object; just wanted to make the point.
>
> Harold: Should we also require a syntax and semantics for the dialect 
> specification?
>
> Chris thereupon made that change to the Exit Criteria.
>
> <ChrisW> PROPOSED: accept 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/index.php?title=Exit_Criteria&oldid=10799 
> <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/index.php?title=Exit_Criteria&oldid=10799> 
> as RIF CR Exit criteria
>
> <josb> +1
>
> <StellaMitchell> +1
>
> <Harold> +1
>
> <ChrisW> +1
>
> <sandro> +1
>
> <LeoraMorgenstern> +1
>
> <johnhall> +1
>
> <ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/index.php?title=Exit_Criteria&oldid=10799 
> <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/index.php?title=Exit_Criteria&oldid=10799> 
> as RIF CR Exit criteria
>
>
>       Publications
>
> Chris: Editors need to make changes to their Last Call documents: BLD, 
> PRD,
>

> , SWC, FLD, Core
> ... Needs to be done by next week's meeting.
> ... Assignments: Jos, SWC; Chris,
>

> ; Christian, PRD; Harold, BLD, FLD, Core.
>
> Sandro: Even if no changes have been made, one needs to note in the 
> document that there have been no changes since Last Call draft.
>
> <sandro> target publication date: Setp 17
>
> <sandro> try to approve WD pubs of Test and UCR on Sept 15.
>
> <sandro> PROPOSED: Our Last Call drafts (Core, BLD, PRD, DTB, SWC, and 
> FLD) are ready to be published as Candidate Recommendations
>
> <ChrisW> +1
>
> <sandro> +1 (W3C)
>
> <ChrisW> (IBM)
>
> <Harold> +1 (NRC)
>
> <josb> +1 (FUB)
>
> <johnhall> +1 (OMG)
>
> <StellaMitchell> +1 (self)
>
> <LeoraMorgenstern> +1 (self)
>
> <sandro> RESOLVED: Our Last Call drafts (Core, BLD, PRD, DTB, SWC, and 
> FLD) are ready to be published as Candidate Recommendations
>
> Sandro: Note that the statement of no changes or changes to last call 
> drafts is CRITICAL PATH, and therefore should be done today or tomorrow.
>
> <sandro> "Change since the 3 July draft...." or "Changes since the 
> Second Last Call draft of 3 July..."
>
> <josb> tomorrow is fine for SWC changes statement
>
>
>       Implementations
>
> Chris: Since we have moved last call documents to candidate 
> recommendation, we are now in the call for implementations period.
> ... We had originally talked about a two-month period for implementations.
> ... To get out of CR, we need implementations.
>
> Sandro: Yes, those are in the exit criteria.
>
> <sandro> 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/How_to_Submit_an_Implementation_Report
>
> Sandro: we want to point people to the above wiki page.
>
> Chris: Now is the time to follow up with people who indicated in the 
> comments that they would be interested in providing an implementation.
> ... We need to get commitments from these people that they will do 
> this in this period.
> ... Let's begin by making a list of people who will do implementations.
>
> csma: ILOG is working on an implementation. A month ago, we had a 
> first prototype running, so we probably have more going on now.
>
> sandro: I don't know if I'll get one done.
>
> Chris: Someone in the XML group at IBM made a RIF-based rule storage 
> system. Really a demo of XML X-query technology, but they did take 
> some rules and translated them to RIF, and stored them in RIF-XML, and 
> queried them.
> ... question: does that count as a RIF implementation?
>
> <ChrisW> *ACTION:* try to dig up XML RIF store [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action02]
>
> <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - try
>
> Sandro: Mike Dean has an implementation.
>
> <ChrisW> *ACTION:* Chris to try to dig up XML RIF store [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action03]
>
> <trackbot> Created ACTION-904 - Try to dig up XML RIF store [on 
> Christopher Welty - due 2009-09-08].
>
> mdean: RIF implementation is in progress.
>
> Chris: Silk will be an implementation of BLD.
>
> csma: Gary mentioned he was doing something, but I don't know the 
> status of it now.
> ... will send Gary a message, asking for status.
>
> <ChrisW> *ACTION:* Christian to ask Gary about status of 
> implementation [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action04]
>
> <trackbot> Created ACTION-905 - Ask Gary about status of 
> implementation [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-09-08].
>
> csma: I think Adrian is working with tibco on an implementation of PRD.
>
> <ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RIF_Working_Group
>
> Sandro: maybe we should have a RIF Dev mailing list, similar to OWL dev?
>
> <sandro> *ACTION:* sandro request creation of public-rif-dev [recorded 
> in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action05]
>
> <trackbot> Created ACTION-906 - Request creation of public-rif-dev [on 
> Sandro Hawke - due 2009-09-08].
>
> Chris: Rolf Gruetter has said that his group at WSL needs to have 
> disjunction in rule heads.
>
> Note: Gruetter did not say anything about his group actually 
> developing an implementation
>
> csma: OntoBroker has some sort of implementation of BLD
>
> Chris: Alexander Riazanov working on an implementation that converts 
> BLD to TPTP.
>
> Harold: He has been on vacation; but I'll try to talk to him about that.
> ... There needs to be some web page on implementation of OntoBroker
>
> Sandro: Or better yet, send in an implementation report, as my wiki 
> page specifies.
> ... Doing that is very quick.
>
> Chris: Currently the public information about OntoBroker's 
> implementation is inconsistent. ontoprise web page says there's a RIF 
> implementation and links to OntoBroker web page, but OntoBroker's web 
> page says nothing.
> ... What about Tom Gordon. Is he an implementor?
>
> Harold: I don't think he's an implementor. He has a system LKIF, which 
> is for legal knowledge.
> ... I don't believe he will implement RIF: he has more of a 
> theoretical interest in whether one can represent legal knowledge 
> using RIF.
>
> <sandro> Chime
>
> <sandro> Chimezie Ogbuji
>
> Discussion also on Adreas Abecker's comments and Chimezie Ogbuji's 
> comments.
>
> <ChrisW> Nick Bassiliades
>
> Harold: Nick Bassiliades has been following RIF; does defeasible 
> rules; unclear as to whether he'll actually do an implementation of RIF.
>
> <sandro> CR dreadline Oct 23rd, friday before the conferences....
>
> Sandro: Let's make deadline for implementations October 23, so people 
> will be able to announce it before the rules conferences.
>
> Chris: We'll revisit this topic at each telecon.
>
> csma: will restart work on RIF XML soon.
>
>
>       Test Cases
>
> Chris: Axel had made an all built-ins test case
> ... And that test case seems to indeed include /all/ built-ins
>
> Stella: I think it would be better to split it up somehow.
>
> Chris: Perhaps by data-type?
> ... There are definitely some typos, like "listeral" instead of "literal"
>
> Stella: Perhaps organize it by string predicates, number predicates, etc?
>
> <josb> (I wanted to say exactly what Chris just said)
>
> Sandro: what's the problem with it being so big?
>
> Stella: If it fails, it's hard to figure out why.
> ... can we split it by positive guards, negative guards, etc?
>
> Sandro: We can group it by the things people are most likely to implement
>
> <ChrisW> *ACTION:* Stella to refactor All Builtins testcase [recorded 
> in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action06]
>
> <trackbot> Created ACTION-907 - Refactor All Builtins testcase [on 
> Stella Mitchell - due 2009-09-08].
>
> Stella: I can refactor the all built-ins case
> ... There are all sorts of issues still to be dealt with, with respect 
> to the test cases.
> ... Especially with all the changes in the documents, the 
> specifications, etc.
> ... We need more than 15 minutes to go through this.
>
> <StellaMitchell> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Jul/0026.html
>
> Chris: Let's make this a priority for the next telecon, since the set 
> of test cases will be very important to the implementors.
> ... What do we do with unapproved test cases? Require changes? Drop them?
> ... We do need an Assert/Retract case
>
> csma: We need an Assert /Retract case that is different from a Modify.
> ... I don't have a case in mind, but it probably should be a negative 
> case; that you can't assert something about an object that you've 
> retracted.
> ... I had a discussion with Adrian about this. He initially didn't 
> agree; then we had a discussion, including Changhai Ke and Gary, who 
> agreed with me. But Adrian has not replied, and therefore there has 
> been no conclusion.
>
> <ChrisW> *ACTION:* Christian to fix/update AssertRetract test case 
> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action07]
>
> <trackbot> Created ACTION-908 - Fix/update AssertRetract test case [on 
> Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-09-08].
>
> csma: I need to get a consensus on this, and then either modify the 
> test case myself, or get someone to do it.
> ... I think the assert test case is fine.
> ... However, there is no XML for it.
>
> Chris: do we have anything to generate XML for PRD?
>
> csma: Not yet.
>
> <StellaMitchell> jacc
>
> Stella: can the XML be generated automatically using a tool like jacc?
>
> Chris: What about the other PRD test cases? Won't this be a problem 
> for all of them?
>
> <ChrisW> *ACTION:* Christian to check into XML syntax for PRD test 
> cases [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action08]
>
> <trackbot> Created ACTION-909 - Check into XML syntax for PRD test 
> cases [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-09-08].
>
> Chris: 2 remaining open issues in Working Group:
>
> <ChrisW> PROPOSED: close issue-37 as it is addressed by the draft note 
> on RIF combination with XML Data
>
> <StellaMitchell> +1
>
> <ChrisW> +1
>
> <johnhall> +1
>
> <csma> +1
>
> <sandro> +1
>
> <josb> +1
>
> <mdean> +1
>
> <ChrisW> RESOLVED: close issue-37 as it is addressed by the draft note 
> on RIF combination with XML Data
>
> <ChrisW> PROPOSED: close issue-38 as it is addressed by the draft note 
> on RIF combination with XML Data
>
> <ChrisW> +1
>
> <csma> +1
>
> <sandro> +1
>
> <mdean> +1
>
> <johnhall> +1
>
> <LeoraMorgenstern> +1
>
> <josb> +1
>
> <ChrisW> RESOLVED: close issue-38 as it is addressed by the draft note 
> on RIF combination with XML Data
>
> <StellaMitchell> +1
>
> <ChrisW> NEXT MEETING IN TWO WEEKS!
>
>
>     Summary of Action Items
>
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Chris to try to dig up XML RIF store [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action03]
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Christian to ask Gary about status of implementation 
> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action04]
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Christian to check into XML syntax for PRD test 
> cases [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action08]
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Christian to fix/update AssertRetract test case 
> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action07]
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* sandro request creation of public-rif-dev [recorded 
> in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action05]
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* sandro to make sure if OWL does a normative appendix 
> for XSD 1.1, that it's phrased in a way that makes it also work for 
> RIF. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action01]
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Stella to refactor All Builtins testcase [recorded 
> in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action06]
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* try to dig up XML RIF store [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action02]
>  
> [End of minutes]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl 
> <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm> 
> version 1.135 (CVS log <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/>)
> $Date: 2009/09/01 16:31:33 $
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>     Scribe.perl diagnostic output
>
> [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
> This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20  
> Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/>
>
> Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)
>
> Succeeded: s/tipco/tibco/
> Found Scribe: LeoraMorgenstern
> Inferring ScribeNick: LeoraMorgenstern
> Default Present: Leora_Morgenstern, ChrisW, Sandro, Harold, Stella_Mitchell, +39.047.101.aaaa, josb, johnhall, csma, Mike_Dean
> Present: Leora_Morgenstern ChrisW Sandro Harold Stella_Mitchell +39.047.101.aaaa josb johnhall csma Mike_Dean
> Regrets: MichaelKifer
> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Aug/0037.html
> Got date from IRC log name: 01 Sep 2009
> Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html
> People with action items: chris christian sandro stella try
>
> WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
> You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.
>
>
>   
> [End of scribe.perl 
> <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm> 
> diagnostic output]


-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, Galway
email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Thursday, 3 September 2009 17:54:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 3 September 2009 17:54:16 GMT