See also: IRC log
<ChrisW> Scribe: DaveReynolds
<ChrisW> scribenick: DaveReynolds
<ChrisW> Last weeks minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2010Feb/att-0010/2010-02-02-rif-minutes.html
<ChrisW> PROPOSED: Approve last week's minutes
<ChrisW> RESOLVED: Approve last week's minutes
csma: latest PRD draft added
notion of compound action, introduces notion of simple action
(atomic or compound)
... retract can retract single fact, or whole object
... added form to retract all values for an object on a given slot (also atomic)
... compound is fixed sequence of atomic actions, single instance of this is modify, retract all values of slot in frame then assert new value
... consequent editorial changes - replacing atomic action by simple action, changing examples etc
csma: second non-editorial
change, new section 4.2.2, rules normalization
... avoid changing semantics by assuming rules normalized to remove disjunctive conditions by mapping to set of rules with same action part
... also normalize by replacing compound actions by their atomic actions
csma:last change, introduce notion of intermediate state of the
... cycle states are the state after an action block has been executed, transitional state is state after each atomic action has been performed
<Harold> RE: Definition (Production rule system state).
<Harold> "... is either a system cycle states or a system transitional states. "?
csma: changed concept resolution to apply in each transitional state, previously only applied to what is now called the cycle states
csma: this is a substantial change to the semantics
<sandro> queue yourself to ask that, Harold?
csma: Also clarified use of xml:base (section 8.2) as discussed and resolved at last telecon, allow relative IRIs in RIF XML syntax anywhere IRIs are allowed
<Harold> RE: 8.2 xml:base
<Harold> "... including constant type, symbol spaces, location, and profile."?
<Harold> constant types
Harold: typos in draft noted via IRC
Leora: modify is now a compound act?
<AdrianP> before we had it as a "true" modify, where the implicit retract does not fire negated rules
csma: yes, previously an atomic
action now equivalent to a sequence, relevant due to the
transitional states affecting refraction
... the absence of an atomic modify is a problem for object based systems such as jRules, will have to change implementation substantially
Harold: many people would distinguish simple v. compound, nomenclature is potentially confusing
csma: would prefer better wording
but this choice meant least changes to text
... simple actions are simple in terms of syntax, though can represent an implicit sequence, whereas an action block is an explicit sequence
Gary: could say "action" rather than "simple action"
Chris: has there been a review other than from Gary?
<scribe> ACTION: Adrian to review changes to PRD spec by Thursday [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-rif-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-978 - Review changes to PRD spec by Thursday [on Adrian Paschke - due 2010-02-16].
<ChrisW> ACTION: adrian to review PRD draft by noon (europe) thursday [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-rif-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-979 - Review PRD draft by noon (europe) thursday [on Adrian Paschke - due 2010-02-16].
<sandro> PROPOSED: Publish the new draft of PRD as a Last Call WD, after csma changes simple actions to actions, corrects a few typos, and pending Adrian's positive review by 6am ET Thursday.
<Harold> +1 (NRC)
<Gary> +1 Oracle
<sandro> PROPOSED: Publish the new draft of PRD as a Last Call WD, after csma changes simple actions to actions, corrects a few typos, and pending Adrian's positive review by 6am ET Thursday. (Others are also free to object by that time, as well.)
<LeoraMorgenstern> +1 (self)
<sandro> last call period to be minimum, 21 days.,
<csma> +1 (IBM)
<AdrianP> +1 (self)
RESOLUTION: Publish the new draft of PRD as a Last Call WD, after csma changes simple actions to actions, corrects a few typos, and pending Adrian's positive review by 6am ET Thursday. (Others are also free to object by that time, as well.)
Chris: simply remove test case?
csma: yes, will also add new test cases in parallel with last call, being discussed in PRD task force
<ChrisW> PROPOSED: remove http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Modify_noloop
<ChrisW> RESOLVED: remove http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Modify_noloop
<ChrisW> ACTION: leora to ask stella to remove modify_noloop [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/02/09-rif-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-980 - Ask stella to remove modify_noloop [on Leora Morgenstern - due 2010-02-16].