- From: Donald Chapin <Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 16:08:41 +0100
- To: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <001401c6b57c$602530a0$0200a8c0@DonaldChapin>
To correct mailing list _____ From: Donald Chapin [mailto:Donald.Chapin@btinternet.com] Sent: 29 July 2006 13:02 To: 'public-rif-wg-request@w3.org' Subject: [RIF] Draft Minutes for July 25th RIF WG Telecon <http://www.w3.org/> W3C - DRAFT - RIF Working Group Telecon 25 Jul 2006 See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/25-rif-irc> Attendees Present Hassan_Ait-Kaci, csma, MarkusK, ChrisWelty, +1.650.857.aaaa, FrankMcCabe, Mike_Dean, David_Hirtle, Philippe_Bonnard, pfps, Sandro, Dave_Reynolds, Leora_Morgenstern, Donald_Chapin, Axel_Polleres, StellaMitchell, Jos_De_Roo, +43.512.507.9aabb, PaulaP, +1.441.224.aacc, jeffp, josb, johnhall, igor, Harold, GiorgosStoilos?, Gary_Hallmark, MichaelKifer Regrets AllenGinsberg, MohamedZergaou,i FrançoisBry (apologies for the late notice due to sickness), MichaelSintek Chair Christian de Sainte Marie Scribe Donald Chapin Contents * Topics <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/25-rif-minutes.html#agenda#agenda> * Summary <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/25-rif-minutes.html#ActionSummary#ActionSummary> of Action Items _____ TOPIC: Admin Who will attend the August 1st telecon? <Hassan> +1 <FrankMcCabe> i should be there <donald_chapin> +1 <pfps> +1 <AxelPolleres> -1 <MarkusK> -1 <DaveReynolds> -1 <PhilippeB> +1 <LeoraMorgenstern> +1 <mdean> +1 <DavidHirtle> +1 <trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel <PaulaP> +1 <Darko> +Darko <ChrisWelty> RESOLVED: Accept minutes of July 11 telecon TOPIC: Liaison <PaulaP> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/ <PaulaP> it is a new WG Everyone should look at the charter of GRDDLL-WG to see if they have an interest in it. TOPIC: Use Cases & Requirements Close Action 39 Action 59 closed, but discussion is going on about standardizing the Semantic Web Layer Cake diagram - no decision TOPIC: RIFRAF Action 61 done Action 73 done TOPIC: Discussion on Questionnaire Axel - Can Francois reformulate the questions 3.1 & 3.2 about decidability - agree that there is a problem <csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jul/0040.html <PaulaP> +1 for the third suggestion of Francois Chris w - 3.1 not confusing, 3.2 doesn't see problem, the new question is a good one Christian - propose add a discriminator on which kind of data format that the language is able to consume <PaulaP> no, it is not <ChrisWelty> DaveR's message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jul/0041.html <ChrisWelty> RIFRAF questionaire: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/38457/RAFQuestionnaire/ Questionaire is strictly incremental. If you need a new discriminator, simply ask for it to be added. Once it is there new languages can use it. <MarkusK> +1 for Francois' remark on 3.1. Decidability of a rule language in the sense of Computer Science really is not what we mean here. Decidability should refer to some inference problem or similar reasoning/computation task. <AxelPolleres> ok Data format consumed can be multiple <AxelPolleres> ok! <AxelPolleres> ACTION: Axel to add to questionnaire question whether the language has means to [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/25-rif-minutes.html#action03] <AxelPolleres> access data in Web formats such as HTML, XML, RDF, OWL data. ACTION Alex Add the data format discriminator <JosDeRoo> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/38457/RAFQuestionnaire/ <Harold> Initially, we referred to Decidability of the QUERY problem of a rule language. <AxelPolleres> it should be about decidability of "entailment" of facts, probably. <Harold> E.g., Datalog has a decidable QUERY problem. Hornlog doesn't. <MarkusK> 3.1 just is a formal issue <MarkusK> that should be easy to fix <MarkusK> just say what "decidability" refers to <MarkusK> "decidability of a language" means deciding whether something belongs to the language. <AxelPolleres> I suggest that francois and markus both propose reformulations for 3.1 and 3.2 <MarkusK> I will send an email regarding 3.1 <MarkusK> I have nothing to say about 3.2 so far ... <JeffP> ACTION: MarkusK Write email with solution to 3.1 & 3.2 on the questionaire [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/25-rif-minutes.html#action04] <AxelPolleres> Can you formulate a question plus options for answers, Frank? FrankeMcCable Need to add the kinds of 'types' supported as a discriminator <AxelPolleres> Let's post all these suggestions on the mailing list under the [RIFRAF] header. We won't add Dave Reynolds email second point as a discriminator. If some language needs it they will add it Gary – Not all questions relate to every type of rules – not always possible to know whether they relate or not – need reorganization or better guidance on how questions relate to types of rules <AxelPolleres> +1 to Gary, shall we split the questionnaire then? <PaulaP> +1 to Gary's comment Christian - Need to say not applicable for any question or a comment space for any lack of clarity Gary - Need a mapping of 'Prolog-like' languages to production rules See the ILOG answer for questions on the mapping to Production Rules Axel - Comments are switched on and can be used to say 'not applicable' ChrisW - Can't uncheck / unanswer a question Alex - Could use checkboxes throughout as they can be 'unchecked' <Darko> it is possible not to answer a question and then you get a notification: (1 response didn't contain an answer to this question) <AxelPolleres> what about a checkbox: "not applicable (please specify)" TOPIC – Questionaire is Not Ready for People Outside the Working Group to Fill In Dave Reynolds - Questionaries would need some work before it is used outside the Working Group <Harold> In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006May/0235.html I responded to Axel's 'Syn' comment about types -- I agree, could be spliced in thus: Typed vs. Untyped Variables (Types can reuse class definitions in RDFS and OWL). Chris W - The RIFRAF should be the place where the explanation of discriminator belongs. People outside the RIF WG should be able to understand the RIFPAF Wiki page. TOPIC: - Visibility and Update Access to RIFRAF Questionnaire Wiki Page <AxelPolleres> I set the questionnaire currently only visible to RIF WG members! <AxelPolleres> ... at the moment. Who should have access to the RIFRAF Wiki page? Only RIF WG members can fill out the questionaire The RIFRAF Wiki page questionnaire should be public because of our charter Christian - Add a box at the end where people can suggest additional discriminators together with their values <DaveReynolds> +1 <PaulaP> +1 <AxelPolleres> ... and drop 1.1.3 <DaveReynolds> Depends how you are going to do the analysis of the form results <JosDeRoo> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jul/0039.html <ChrisWelty> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jul/0027.html TOPIC Items Moved to RIFRAF from Requirements Chris W - The 'owners' of the items moved from Requirements to RIFRAF need to take responsibility for creating any necessary discriminator for RIFRAF Christian - move this topic to next week <ChrisWelty> paula's message from this morning: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jul/0039.html ACTION: 'Owners' propose new discriminators on email Christian - Comment on email if your disagree with additions TOPIC: Technical Design -- Semantics for Proposed RIF Condition Language Harold - Email today with draft of these semantics which he describes. Michael is working on the Wiki to make this really formal Christian - The semantics page doesn't really state explicitly what the semantics is <ChrisWelty> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/A.1_Basis%3A_Positive_Conditions Harold - Current wiki semantics is still very general. Now this is being more concrete on the Wiki - focusing on conjunctions only Michael - Defining semantics by stating what the models are and what is the abstraction <Harold> Positive condition semantics is at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/A.1_Basis%3A_Positive_Conditions <Harold> ... Given a condition formula phi(X1,...,Xn) with free variables X1, ..., Xn and an interpretation M, define M(phi(X1,...,Xn)) as the set of all bindings (a1/X1,...,an/Xn) such that M |= phi(a1,...,an), where a1,...,an are elements in the domain of M. ... TOPIC: Technical Design – How Many Semantics Should the Condition Language Have? Christian - Current semantics does not propose one semantic. Michael - Already agreed that there would be different dialects <pfps> As a point of interest, I would like to have a pointer to the decision that the RIF will have different dialects. <FrankMcCabe> there is no one semantics! Christian - Is it not possible to have one semantics for the conditions and that shared by all the dialects? <sandro> sadly, pfps, I don't think the minutes of the most recent F2F ever got done and approved, although they got very close. :-( <pfps> Hmm. That is not a very happy situation. Were they not supposed to be done quite some time ago. Michael - Different semantics simply exist for the different dialects, so a single semantic for the condition language is not possible <pfps> Given that there does not appear to be a recorded decision that there are going to be different RIF dialects, then it would probably be better not to treat it has having being decided. FrankMcCable - Thinks it is unrealistic that, except for possibly a very small core, to have a single semantics. It could even be counterproductive to do so. <ChrisWelty> The decision was that there would not be "too many" dialects <ChrisWelty> that does not preclude that there will be one <Harold> In the Roadmap discussion, we had basically three dialects: FOL, LP (Naf), and Production Rules. TOPIC Technical Design – Para-Consistent Semantics <AxelPolleres> para-consistent logics are nothing new... can you send a pointer on this? <MarkusK> +1 to send a pointer; there are so many approaches towards para-consistency ... <AxelPolleres> there are many different approaches to the issue of para-consistency, right? <FrankMcCabe> Carl hewitt's paper: http://www.pcs.usp.br/~coin-aamas06/10_commitment-43_16pages.pdf <Harold> Paraconsistency is a kind of scope-localized para-consistency, so nicely fits to our scopes <FrankMcCabe> I am not completely sure that this is the correct pointer <Harold> I meant above: Paraconsistency is a kind of scope-localized consistency, so nicely fits to our scopes. <pfps> paraconsistency does not necessarily have anything to do with locality <FrankMcCabe> right. Its my understanding that it refers to the shortest proof of inconsistency. Any shorter proofs are OK ChrisW - Everyone should record regrets on Wiki if they are not attending Aug 15th meting Summary of Action Items [NEW] ACTION: Axel to add to questionnaire question whether the language has means to [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/25-rif-minutes.html#action03] [NEW] ACTION: John will add regrets to July 18 minutes and resubmit [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/25-rif-minutes.html#action02] [NEW] ACTION: MarkusK Write email with solution to 3.1 & 3.2 on the questionaire [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/25-rif-minutes.html#action04] ACTION: Will have a meeting August 1st and Sandro will chair [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/25-rif-minutes.html#action01] ACTION Peter - Proposed a single dialect semantics - a kind of first order logic semantics by Aug. 29 - Condition Language only ACTION Harold make explicit the assumptions behind the semantics he and Michael are documenting ACTION - Christian will propose a single semantics for the Condition Language ACTION Axel add 'no answer' to each question ACTION Axel to add box to suggest more discriminators ACTION: Axel (and Sandro) - Fix questionarie so that it can be duplicated for different languages ACTION FrankMcCable will propose a list of type capabilities’ as a discriminator ACTION: 'Owners' propose new discriminators on email ACTION Alex Add the data format discriminator [End of minutes] _____ Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm> version 1.127 (CVS log <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/> ) $Date: 2006/07/25 16:31:31 $ _____
Attachments
- image/gif attachment: image001.gif
Received on Tuesday, 1 August 2006 15:09:16 UTC