See also: IRC log
<csma> PROPOSED: approve the minutes of July 13 telecon
<csma> RESOLVED: approve the minutes of July 13 telecon
csma: removing string match from xml-data
<ChrisW> close action-1034
<trackbot> ACTION-1034 Contact Stella about test cases status closed
sandro: a conversation with
sparql makes more sense than a big review, because there are
... ask Jos to send comments to sparql comments list
csma: one issue is we think sparql should not restrict RIF
csma: incorporating Jos' and
... currently doc is in flux
... reduce size of xpath related material
cmsa: use NCName to refer to many
attributes and some elements that have no namespace
... no namespace => can't use rif:iri
sandro: suggest using a dummy
... or a local symbol
<sandro> I cant decide if using local is incredibly evil, or pretty clever.
sandro: dummy namespace might be
... but could offend some xml sensibilities
csma: will go with dummy namespace for now
harold: making progress and have received some feedback
csma: why if a,b rather than if a then b?
leora: came from common logic, but is fine with if a then b
harold: don't want to confuse with PRD
<AdrianP> but shouldn't we use a syntax which is understandable to the RIF community in the Primer, since the Primer is meant to give easy access to RIF?
csma: it does not conflict (means the same thing)
chris: I uploaded several editorial changes to the primer on the wiki
harold: we will change to If a Then b
csma: target a review in 2 weeks
<csma> ACTION: Sandro to review RIF Primer by August 27 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/27-rif-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1035 - T oreview RIF Primer by August 27 [on Sandro Hawke - due 2010-08-03].
<csma> ACTION: Gary to review RIF Primer by August 27 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/27-rif-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1036 - Review RIF Primer by August 27 [on Gary Hallmark - due 2010-08-03].
sandro: differs from Dave R
... key issue: is RDF a KR?
dave: RIF is different from RDF. An encoding is closed world
sandro: instead of optional elements, use empty lists
dave: isn't this a corner case?
<sandro> dave: I expect extensions to add namespaces, not so much to fiddle with the core elements.
csma: can a dialect mark a mandatory piece of core as optional?
<sandro> sandro: I've gotten used to this idea that rif syntactic elements don't get changed by extensions, even if how they are used (eg their cardinality).
sandro: my mapping of xml to rdf requires that optional or repeated elements be lists
chris: I favor following existing xml syntax (and not lists)
csma: if you want to process a RIF XML document, you must understand RIF
sandro: wants RDF graph (encoding
a RIF document) to be "stable" under various RDF
... including open-world processing
<sandro> sandro: It's important to me that people use RDF in an open-world KR sort of way. I don't want RIF-in-RDF to go the other way....
sandro: sparql 1.1 lets you query lists but order is not preserved
<sandro> dave: It's important to me be able to use SPARQL to search for bits of rules -- 1.1 will provide that, so I can live with this.
<sandro> In SPARQL 1.1 you CAN query for list members, but you can't get the elements back in order.
<sandro> (sort of DESCRIBE on the list/rule)
<sandro> dave: You won't write a parser in SPARQL, but it's good to be able to query for rule structures.
<sandro> dave: I'd like the requirement phrased differently, though.
... probably easier to do some transformations if lists are used
<sandro> michael: The rule encoded in RDF is no longer a rule, so I no longer find the KR argument compelling. But transformations are probably easier with lists.
<sandro> harold: OWL can express some rules, eg subsumption.
chris: using lists doesn't correspond to our xml syntax in an obvious, neat way
<sandro> chris:What sways me against lists is the RDF and XML syntaxes not aligning as well.
sandro: no parallel to OWL2 xml to rdf mapping
<Harold> The names used in the RDF syntax should be chosen as close to those of the XML syntax as possible.
<sandro> the four optional/repeated properties are: directive, sentence, declare, formula
csma: prefer the mapping preserve the rif xml names, but not use lists
sandro: given enough time, would
implement with and without lists and see what works out
... but to choose now, would choose lists
<sandro> PROPOSED: Do RIF-in-RDF with repeated properties (instead of the list encoding)
<sandro> PROPOSED: Do RIF-in-RDF with the list encoding, instead of repeated properties.
<ChrisW> 0 (prefer cleaner correspondance to XML syntax)
<sandro> RESOLVED: Do RIF-in-RDF with the list encoding, instead of repeated properties.
<csma> RESOLVED: Do RIF-in-RDF with the list encoding, instead of repeated properties.