-
DRAFT -
RIF WG TeleConf Minutes
18
Apr 2006
See
also: IRC log
Attendees
Present
Allen Ginsberg, Christian de
Sainte Marie, Chris Welty, Darko
Anicic, Dave Reynolds, David Hirtle, Deborah Nichols, Edward Barkmeyer, Evan
Wallace, Francois Bry, Frank MacCabe, Gary Hallmark, Harold Boley, Hassan Ait-Kaci, Ian Horrocks, Jos De Roo, Leora
Morgenstern, Mala Mehrotra, Markus Kroetzsch, Michael Kifer, Paula Patranjan, Said Tabet, Sandro Hawke, John Hall, Mohamed Zergaoui, Philippe Bonnard
Regrets
Chair
Christian de Sainte Marie
Scribe
Philippe Bonnard
Contents
csma: next meeting on next
Tuesday
<sandro> ACTION: [DONE] Christian will investigate RIF
Teleconf overlapping with DAWG/SPARQL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/04-rif-minutes.html#action04]
csam: proposal to accept
the last minute… Proposes to postpone the acceptation.
<LeoraMorgenstern> about the minutes --- some action
items weren't there
<sandro> ACTION: Leora to set up draft
proposal on what we mean by FOL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-rif-minutes.html#action02]
<sandro> ACTION: Leora to write up CSF for FOL
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-rif-minutes.html#action03]
<sandro> (these were from last time, but not recorded.)
<sandro> csma: We'll put those in retro-actively.
csma: About F2F4, last
day for proposal.
<sandro> ACTION: Sandro set up straw-poll on
F2F4 (MITRE - 3 different dates - and Peter/ISWC) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-rif-minutes.html#action04]
Chris: straw-poll indicates
the preference between the proposals
<PaulaP> one vote per organization?
csma: a form per individual,
not organization.
<sandro> Deborah_Nichols: Will we have phone call-in
ability for F2F3?
<sandro> ACTION: [DONE] Sandro to set up registration
page for F2F3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/11-rif-minutes.html#action03]
<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/38457/f2f3reg/
<johnhall> sorry, can't get on audio yet
<MoZ> csma, me too, i'm interest by telcon ability
<sandro> Paula: I think we'll have a conference phone
open the whole day, but I'm not sure.
<SaidTabet> same question for IRC please
<sandro> ACTION: Paula to check on
phone-call-in capability, and if we'll have a speaker phone, and network?
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-rif-minutes.html#action06]
<MoZ> liaison with Xquery is difficult
<MoZ> because of overlapping
csma: About design
constraint, what is Sandro’s naming
proposal for “prolog-horn” constaint ?
<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Horn_Logic
sandro: proposes "horn
prolog"
<FrankMcCabe> I think ordered horn logic is better
<MoZ> +1 ordered horn clauses
<IanH> -1 to calling it a logic!
<edbark> I like Horn Prolog == Horn intersect Prolog
<FrankMcCabe> I think that the subset that you are
interested in is sometimes called "clean prolog"
<Harold> Ian, so you also don't like linear 'logic' :-)
<Harold> What about "Sequential Horn
Clauses"? Does not mention 'logic'.
<sandro> "Sequential Horn Clauses with Prolog Syntax"
<Harold> Fine with me!
csma: Using prolog refers
to a concrete syntax
Francois: The name “Prolog”
would suggest a full compatibility with a programming language -- something
beyond what we can achieve in 1 year.
<MoZ> everybody agree to have "Horn" in the
name
<Francois> Call it "Horn Clauses"!!!!
<MoZ> MoZ prefer the extension of horn as the subsetting
or Prolog
<Francois> Can I say one more word?
Francois: we need something including
horn logic with a prolog like syntax. Just give
<Francois> I do not understand Sandro's viewpoint.
<Francois> I would like Sandro to write down his
viewpoint.
<Francois> I'll write my view point down.
<sandro> Sandro: I'm not saying RIF should have
procedural semantics, I'm saying we need to show how to use
<Hassan> +1
<Hassan> +1 on moving on
<Francois> Sandro: Then why pick up the very old lady
Prolog is and not one of the young and sexy business rule languages?
<sandro> Francois, because we all more-or-less know
Prolog.
<Zakim> sandro, you wanted to respond!
<Francois> Sandro, who is "we", the academic
crowd or the Business Rule uses?
<sandro> Francois, "we" is the 22 people on
this call.
<Francois> Do we design a
csma: Should RDF triples
be supported by
<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/The_RIF_Core_must_be_able_to_accept_RDF_triples_as_data
<sandro> Dave: The condition part of the a rule could
match RDF triples
<sandro> csma: doesn't that mean
csma: If RDF triple accepted as data, should SPARQL query be embeddable in
<sandro> dave: it's more a subset of SPARQL -- the
triple-match part
<sandro> dave: requirement leaves open whether RDF data
is translated or not
<sandro> dave: like
csma: what any
consequences of accepting this requirement?
<sandro> csma: do we mean: any RIF-compliant
application, receiving a ruleset that refers to RDF triples should be able to
process them?
<sandro> dave: cf RDF Compatibility pages --- binary
predicates map to RDF triples; or a single "triple" predicate -- providing
either of these would meet this requirement.
<sandro> (I find myself needing to see some designs
before I can really understand CSMA's questions)
<sandro> csma/sandro: as phrased this requirement is
perhaps too broad to be useful in distinguishing between designs.
allen: maybe there's a CSF
here about RDF-compatibility.
<sandro> Dave: I agree, in my strawman breakdown I had
"RDF Compatibility" as the 3rd CSF. This was one part of that.
<csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Apr/0005.html
<sandro> JosDeRoo: also RDF simple entailment rules?
are they covered by this requirement? RDFS-Closure
<Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask about RDF/XML Parser
csma: Is there a volunteer
for a use case using RDF triple ?
<sandro> sandro: I'd like to see this tied in with a
use case, a scenario where RDF data is used and matters.
<PaulaP> there is a use case concerning access to RDF
and XML data
<Francois> PaulaP is right. We already have such a use
case
<PaulaP>
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Rule-Based_Combined_Access_to_XML_and_RDF_Data
contains examples of rules.
<sandro> sandro: And I'd like to see whether or not we
need an RDF/XML parser in all
<MoZ> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Interchanging_Rule_Extensions_to_OWL
Francois: Supporting RDF
triple is a central feature. If not supported,
<Francois> Thanks Christian for clarifying!
csma: Dave should
explicit the link between use case and requirement.
<PaulaP> the use case is not in the UCR document
dave: The charter requirements
about RDF are not covered by the current use case.
<Allen> probably in the last one: Vocabulary Mapping
for Data Integration
<Francois> +1 with
<edbark> I think I will object to Sandro's rqmt for RDF
parser
<sandro> why, edbark?
<Francois> Christian: the specific requirement is to work
out a semantics covering Blank Nodes. This is a tough issue. But the only tough
issue.
<edbark> +1 to accepting
<MoZ> csma there is a UCR with "Requirements on
the rule interchange format include semantic compatibility with OWL-DL and
RDF"
<edbark> Sandro, it's not about syntax, it's about
assertions
Frank: The semantic of
prolog is incompatible with RDF.
<Francois> What means "The semantic of prolog is
incompatible of RDF"? it is defined, it is different. One can make both of
them compatible.
<Hassan> +1 with Frank
<IanH> Then we are done already aren't we? Surely
exchanging rules is trivial if we don't care about interoperability.
<DaveReynolds> +1 to IanH
<Francois> +1 with accepting RDF assertions with their
semantics
Francois: What kind of rules
we need? Rules with a prolog like syntax working with XML, RDF and OWL data.
<edbark> +1 to Francois
Francois: Old rule languages do not fit our needs.
What is the meaning of rules? Deduction rules, constraints rules (DB, OWL,
RDF), rules realizing changing (production rule).
<PaulaP> there are requirements regarding the different
types of rules
<PaulaP> on the design constraints wiki page
<sandro> ACTION: Francois write up what he's
saying on the DesignConstraints page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-rif-minutes.html#action09]
Francois: we need a clear declarative
semantics.
<sandro> Frank: We're not necessarily designing a new
language, we're talking about interchanging existing rule languages.
<sandro> MichaelKifer: I propose we resolve to never
mention Prolog in the telecon.
<sandro> ...: It's an illformed question. If you send
me some prolog text, what should I do with it? How many answers will it give
before it perhaps goes into a loop where it doesn't terminate.
<Francois> Sandro and Michael: Look at practical Use
Cases like EU-Rent. The points are right but academic.
<sandro> Move to adjourn!
<Hassan> +1
<JosDeRoo> Francois, the rules I meant are http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#RDFSRules
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Francois write up what he's
saying on the DesignConstraints page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-rif-minutes.html#action09]
[NEW] ACTION: Leora to set up draft
proposal on what we mean by FOL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-rif-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Leora to Write up CSF for FOL
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-rif-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: paula check IRC too [recorded
in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-rif-minutes.html#action08]
[NEW] ACTION: paula checking phone
possibilities and speaker phone [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-rif-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: Paula to check on
phone-call-in capability, and if we'll have a speaker phone, and network?
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-rif-minutes.html#action06]
[NEW] ACTION: Sandro set up straw-poll on
F2F4 (MITRE - 3 different dates - and Peter/ISWC) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-rif-minutes.html#action04]
[DONE] ACTION: Christian will investigate
RIF Telecon overlapping with DAWG/SPARQL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/04-rif-minutes.html#action04]
[DONE] ACTION: Sandro to set up registration
page for F2F3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/04/11-rif-minutes.html#action03]
[End of minutes]
$Date: 2006/04/18 16:36:57 $