-
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
Chair
Christian de Sainte Marie
Scribe
Philippe Bonnard
Contents
- Topics
- Admin
- F2F Meetings (F2F3 and F2F4)
- Liaisons
- Use cases and Requirements
- Technical Design, Extensibility (not discussed)
- Summary of Action Items
Admin
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]
csma: 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.)
F2F Meetings
csma: We'll put those in retro-actively. About F2F4,
it is the 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 per 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
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]
Liaisons
<MoZ>
liaison with Xquery is difficult because of
overlapping
Use cases and requirement
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: 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
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
dave: it's more a subset of SPARQL -- the
triple-match part. It leaves open whether RDF data is translated or not, like
csma: what any consequences of accepting this
requirement?
csma: do we mean: any RIF-compliant application,
receiving a ruleset that refers to RDF triples should
be able to process them?
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)
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.
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
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: 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: 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.
Frank: We're not
necessarily designing a new language, we're talking about interchanging
existing rule languages.
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.
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 $