See also: IRC log
Christian: Will propose to accept the
above minutes at the next call.
... added UCR publication plan to today's agenda per Adrian's request
Christian, Sandro: RIF/SPARQL topics will continue by email
<ChrisW> trackbot, associate this channel with #rif
<trackbot> Associating this channel with #rif...
<ChrisW> close action-1047
<trackbot> ACTION-1047 Write down "RIF-direct semantics" proposal for RIF-in-RDF. closed
Sandro: I decided not to work on action-1046, so we can close that - it's not high enough priority for the time left
actions 1043 and 1041 are completed
actions 1035 and 1036 continued
Sandro: Axel and I talked about
imports and he updated that part of the spec - this will be a Note. It would be
good if someone could check over the semantics.
... "rif-used-with-profile" vs. "rif-imported-with-profile" - is Chris OK with this naming?
ChrisW: Yes, I was more concerned that it is past tense rather than "used" vs. "imported".
Sandro: The document needs a review; aiming to publish as a note by the end of the month
Christian: Should we have a telecon each week until the end of the group?
<AdrianP> yes, will make sense to have a RIF telecon for the remaining three weeks
Leora: I will review the RIF/RDF
document for clarity and usability since I need to review it in
detail in order to write my primer section anyway
... it would take me a week - if I get it by Weds afternoon
Sandro: Remaining changes are not something Leora really needs to wait on
Leora: I'll review it by tomorrow then
<csma> ACTION: Leora to review RIF in RDF by Sept 14 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/07-rif-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1048 - Review RIF in RDF by Sept 14 [on Leora Morgenstern - due 2010-09-14].
Sandro: I would like Dave Reynolds to review this docment also
<csma> ACTION: Dave to review RIF in RDF by Sept 14 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/07-rif-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1049 - Review RIF in RDF by Sept 14 [on Dave Reynolds - due 2010-09-14].
Sandro: Does anyone know about WSML light? - it involves RIF being embedded in RDF as one big string.
Christian: We still have an issue open on RIF and RDF: 105 above
Sandro: This has been resolved: that's
the recent work by Axel and I, which now needs to be
... we'll leave it open for now and resolve after the reviews
Christian: Almost ready to have the next version of the "RIF and XML data" document reviewed...I think I have addressed all issues raised on earlier versions
<ChrisW> sandro: never believe me when I say "I don't need an action"
Christian: Issue 103: spec doesn't refer to that data model any longer
Christian:issue 104: using NCNames in spec - issue is really how to deal with attributes and properties that are not in a namespace
Christian: There are 2 suggested
... 1. use dummy namespace
... 2. extend space of RIF:IRI to contain ncnames
... (1 abuses notion of namespace and 2 abuses notion of iri)
Sandro: Maybe there's a 3rd option...
Christian: The examples above are what we're talking about: 1st involves attribute of element, 2nd involves child of element
Sandro: Should we spend more telecon time going over this issue now?
Doug: Yes, I think we should
<sandro> ?x[<http://example.org/customertable#Name -> ?y]
<sandro> And( ?x[<http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace#attribute(lang)> -> "en"^^xs:language])
<sandro> ?x[<http://example.org/customertable#Name> -> ?y]
<csma> <Customer xml:lang="en">
<csma> <Name> John </Name>
Christian:1st pasted example above pasted by Sandro (with the And) can be used to bind to the language attribute
Christian: 2nd is used to bind to child element "Name"
Christian: And problem is when there isn't a namespace
Sandro: Even when there is a namespace, I think this syntax is odd
<sandro> sandro: ... #attribute(lang) ... seems very odd
Christian: I have no problem with changing the syntax. The current syntax is intended to be explicit.
<csma> ?x[<Name> -> ?y]
<DaveReynolds> XML Schema component designators do use (..) in their syntax, though rather differently
<csma> ?x[<#Name> -> ?y]
<csma> ?x[<http://example.org/dummy#Name> -> ?y]
<sandro> maybe: http://www.w3.org/ns/none
Christian: But if attribute language or
subelement Name have no namespace...
... in first 2 examples above don't work
... we could use a dummy namespace as above
<csma> ?x["Name"xs:NCName -> ?y]
Sandro: Dummy namespace works but it's a hack
Christian: Alternatively, we could change the spec so that an ncname is a RIF:IRI
<sandro> sandro: about about just using a string, instead of an iri?
Christian: For the frame slot name
<sandro> ?x[ ("Element", "Name") -> ?y ]
<ChrisW> time check
<sandro> ?x[ ("Element", "http://example.org", "Name") -> ?y ]
<sandro> ?x[ ("Attribute", "http://example.org", "Name") -> ?y ]
<sandro> ?x[ ("Attribute", "Name") -> ?y ]
Sandro: We could do something like above: the slot name could always be a list that would optionally include a namespace
DaveR: Lists are allowed as slot names but this would break RDF. Also..
<sandro> dave: What about XML Schema Component Designators?
Christian: Good, thanks Dave, I am going to look at that document - it may provide the solution
Christian: One more topic: how XML schemas are handled in RIF/XML combinations
<csma> ?x[ ("Element", "number") -> 1000 ]
<csma> ?x[ ("Element", "number") -> "1000" ]
Christian: Consider the example above:
we may have a schema that tells us that cust number is an
integer or we may have no schema
... if we want the interpretation to be the same in both cases, then...
... however, we may not care whether the interpretation is the same in both cases
... I think it is reasonable that the interpretation with schema would be different from that without schema, however I can understand that some people would think it's more elegant that interpretation with schema is a subset of interpretation without schema
<AdrianP> often quotes are interpreted as indicating that the value is a String instead of a numeric value
Sandro: I think all 4 cases should be handled and have a boolean flag on the import
<sandro> sandro: Let's have a boolean flag on Import where you say whether the the RIF is written using only string (the lexrep of the values) or is written to use the actual values; orthogonal to whether a schema is present.
<DaveReynolds> not convinced that using strings in place of typed values when you know the typed values makes sense
Christian: The new version of this document will be ready by the end of the week, and we need a few reviewers. Ideally, I'd like Gary to, but he's not here...will ask him by email
Sandro: I'm thinking that if you have something that's working the way you want and then you get a schema, you don't want the behavior to change
Sandro: ...and you want to use the schema for validation
<sandro> Yeah, I'm fine with schema means you have to use the datatype values, not the string.
DaveR: You can do the schema validation elsewhere. I think it's OK that if you change the semantics of the ruleset (by introducing a schema) that the behavior changes
Christian: Other volunteers for reviewing the XML data and RIF document?.... none
Leora: We still need to finish
the compatibility section and the test suite section
... I will work on this today
ChrisW: We have to wrap this up very soon. We can drop the sections that are not complete.
ChrisW: I can put in a paragraph on the test suite in section 9, and we can drop section 7
Leora: Does it make sense to have a RIF/RDF section without a RIF/OWL section?
ChrisW: Yes, better to have both, but one section is still useful
Christian: If we only have time for one, I think RIF/OWL is more important
ChrisW: I think RIF/RDF would be more widely used and so is more important
DaveR: Distinction between "RIF in RDF" and "RIF and RDF"...latter is more important
<sandro> agreed -- by FAR the most important is rif AND rdf. more than rif AND owl, and more than rif IN rdf.
Christian: We have already identified reviewers for RIF Primer
Christian: We had decided to not have UCR as a current publication, but Adrian would like to revisit
AdrianP: I think it's an important document and we have already published and referenced it
<sandro> +1 rif UCR is important, if someone can do the work.
Christian: Only 2 active editors for UCR - Adrian and Leora
ChrisW: I don't think UCR is the
right place for usage examples
... so, I think the document has to be either completely rewritten to be useful, or we can deprecate the document, or we can remove the examples
<sandro> +1 "there were use cases that motivated RIF"
<Doug> Maybe include the examples in an appendix as ones which led to the current state etc.
Leora: I think it's important to include in UCR use cases that cannot be repesented in any RIF dialect
Christian: As ChrisW pointed out, UCR could be a Use Case and Requirements Document as originally intended and the Primer can contain RIF examples
<Leora> leora: my point is that it's important to indicate explicitly which use cases cannot be represented in RIF dialects.
ChrisW: These are design use cases
that influenced the design of the language; they are not all
... I'm just saying to remove RIF syntax of the usage examples, not the examples themselves
Sandro: Don't say you can't do in RIF, rather say you need extensions to RIF to handle them
<sandro> sandro: Yes, say "you have to use an extension to do this", and make clear it cant be done in existing dialects.
Christian: Adrian and Leora will both work on updating this
<sandro> +1 for each use case, say which dialects can be used.
<csma> ACTION: Adrian to remove RIF syntax from UCR [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/07-rif-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1050 - Remove RIF syntax from UCR [on Adrian Paschke - due 2010-09-14].
<csma> ACTION: Leora to annotate use cases wrt implmentability w existing dialects [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/07-rif-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1051 - Annotate use cases wrt implmentability w existing dialects [on Leora Morgenstern - due 2010-09-14].
<AdrianP> after next week telecon, would be good to have someone for review
Christian: Next call next week?
<sandro> I'm at risk next week, on vacation.
<csma> next telecon will be 14 Sept