-
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 organization,
not per individual.
<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 $