csma: accept minutes of last week
... any comment?
... no comments
... minutes of last week accepted

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept minutes of last meeting (3/21)

csma: amendments to agenda?
... there are none

F2F meetings

csma: F2F2 minutes late
... accept minutes of F2F2
... any requests for modifications?

+1

<igor> +1

<IanH> I object

IanH: has a comment
... but thought it is about F2F4

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: accept minutes of F2F2 meeting

IanH: no comment on F2F2

csma: minutes of F2F2 are accepted
... news on F2F3?

<josb> No news

there are no news

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept minutes of F2F2 meeting [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Mar/att-0230/Feb27-rif-minutes.html] and [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Mar/att-0230/Feb28-rif-minutes.html]

csma: no news on F2F3
... move to F2F4

<johnhall> I have let BR Forum know that we don't need meeting space for F2F4

IanH: I have no problem with the proposal
... there is a wiki page for proposing hosting F2F meetings
... chairs haven't replied with the fact that we have a procedure on this

csma: we should be more careful about procedures

ChrisW: solution is simple: take the proposal and put it on the wiki

Allen_Ginsberg: I can put the proposal on the wiki

ChrisW: criticism accepted

csma: action on Allen to put the proposal on the wiki

csma: people submitting such proposals should also inform us about deadlines for deciding about acceptance

Allen_Ginsberg: should go into the proposal on the wiki?

csma: yes

pfps: hotel information is needed

Allen_Ginsberg: is difficult to say something about costs
... MITRE will look for a kind of arrangement for a rate
... there is a hotel for 119
... MITRE will give a couple of proposals for hotels and arrange a MITRE rate for attendees

csma: it would be good to have an idea for the price of hotels
... not necessarily for making the arrangements, just to give a flavor

<IanH> Does it have to be North America, or just not Europe?

csma: following 2 F2F meetings in Europe, we should have the next one in the US
... Just not Europe?

<IanH> North America is fine for *me*

csma: North America, not just not Europe
... reason is the location of RIF participants

csma: any other comments on F2F meetings?
... no comments

Liaisons

csma: sparql?
... xquery, xpath?
... common logic?
... prr?

PaulV: no news on prr

csma: sbvr?

Donald_Chapin: specification is public
... comments on sbvr until July

csma: any comment on other groups we should be aware of?
... no comments

UCR

csma: review actions
... our first working draft has been released

ChrisW: my action is done

csma: my action is also done

<josb> (be be done soon)

csma: jos' action is continued

<PaulV> PRR publication done

Evan_Wallace: can take of Elisa's action

csma: remind you that comments are expected
... the comments on the UCR working draft will be answered by the chairs

<Donald_Chapin> To Report an SBVR Bug/Issue to the OMG: http://www.omg.org/technology/agreement.htm

csma: the comments and answers are archived

Sandro: nothing more to do after the UCR publication

Gathering design constraints

csma: critical success factor and goals can be applied in an informal way

FrankMcCabe: this is not a formal methodology

<Donald_Chapin> OMG's "Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules" Interim Specification (http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?dtc/2006-03-02)

FrankMcCabe: it is in a sense a reason to believe in you and your work

csma: it is appealing to use this methodology

<ChrisW> "grokked" == "understood deeply"

FrankMcCabe: the information I've sent about this would be enough for using the methodology

csma: the idea is to start with the goals

FrankMcCabe: actually we need to identify goals, critical success factors and requirements
... this is an ideal situation

<GaryHallmark> +1 use a 3 level outline to organize the large number of existing requirements we have collected

csma: I propose to start a structured collection of design constraints
... continue this with an addition
... when someone proposes a new design constraint
... then also comment if this is a goal, a critical success factor or a requirement

FrankMcCabe: you also need a restrictive side of it
... need a quality control for this
... we have to review it

csma: of course, the next step would be to discuss them
... and determine if they really are goals, requirements, ...
... we discuss them and need to converge

LeoraMorgenstern: we should also put up a kind of measure for requirements

FrankMcCabe: it should be obvious

csma: it depends on the design constraint

<LeoraMorgenstern> +1 with csma's design proposal

csma: and explain why and if a requirement is a measurable one, give the measure
... there are no other comments
... we should start adding design constraints on the wiki page

<GaryHallmark> does "design constraint" = "requirement"?

<DavidHirtle> no

Dave_Reynolds: suggest to use the mailing list to discuss the design constraints

<ChrisW> all requirements are design constraints

csma: when adding design constraints, send also an email

<DavidHirtle> the OWL UC&R doc may make the distinction clear: http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/#section-goals

Dave_Reynolds: just use the email for starting the discussion on design constraints

<EvanWallace> +1 on discussing these things on email 1st

FrankMcCabe: it is hard to extract the information on email

csma: I agree with Frank
... we use the term design constraint to avoid limiting us to requirements
... I prefer having a description on the wiki page
... their classification should be discussed through email

<FrankMcCabe> wiki + email conversation

csma: there are no other comments on this

<GaryHallmark> so requirements rollup to crit. success factors rollup to goals and all are design constaints?

Specific design constraints

csma: there are no design constraints yet
... we can skip this for this telecon
... start working on the page on design constraints
... so as to have something to discuss on email and at the next telecon
... we continue to discuss design constraints during the next telecons

csma: are there comments on the UCR work?

Dave_Reynolds: there is enough material on requirements
... why just another wiki page?

csma: I would like to have more comments on how the requirements relate to the use cases
... also motivation for requirements or goals
... requirements can be taken from the existing lists
... do not add a new slightly different requirement, but discuss the existing ones
... this way we can have a collective list
... it is just a way to consolidate the lists we have

<GaryHallmark> ideally some one with vision, time, and experience could take a crack at organizing the list we already have acording to the 3 level hierachy of goals, and crit. success factors

Dave_Reynolds: we will end with a long page on design constraints
... but it is fine with me
... let see how the work on the wiki evolves

csma: I propose to start to organize the list
... we should not just reinvent the list
... look at what we have already

FrankMcCabe: could be helpful to have someone to structure the list

<DavidHirtle> +1 to dave's/frank's suggestion

+1

<MalaMehrotra> +1

csma: there is no suitable list at moment

Harold: structuring is important
... is better than having flat lists
... we could have a couple of clusters of requirements

csma: there are places to reference the use cases in the template
... we added the structuring

Harold: the template seems to encourage flat lists
... an example is the list from the F2F2 brainstorming
... need to do it on the fly

csma: we have already structure in Paula's list

Harold: perhaps we give names to constraints

Harold: we can then simpler reference and discuss them

Sandro: the important thing here is to motivate the requirements and having discussions during the telecons
... not just a couple of sentences on the wiki page
... when you put something on the page, you need to be prepared to discuss it in the next telecon

csma: need also to take responsability for introduced design constraints
... put your name when you add a design constraint
... if you want to defend an existing requirement, take your requirements from the existing lists

Donald_Chapin: we confuse people with the notion of design constraints

csma: a design constraint could be a requirement, a goal, a success factor

Donald_Chapin: it should be made clear on the wiki

csma: it is already

Donald_Chapin: is there an official status of the existing requirements' lists
... it is important to understand where we are

csma: the idea is to consolidate the existing requirements and recognize new ones

Donald_Chapin: are we going to build on Paula's lists?

csma: we start with the existing lists (Paula's, Allen's work)

Sandro: we should not forget the existing work
... it is an evolving understanding

csma: we are at the end of our telecon today
... start working on design constraints

Harold: is the existing template a final one?

csma: no, it needs to be modified based on the discussion today

<DaveReynolds> The wiki page template already has name slot - the title

<sandro> sandro: The idea is that we need to have focussed discussion on these things, one at a time, and we can draw on those previous pages as we need in shaping the decision process.

csma: there is another item on the agenda
... we will discuss it during the next telecon

csma: any other comments?
... thank you for attending

end of telecon