[RIF] Draft minutes for August 8 2006 meeting

Hello RIF colleagues,

Below, please find draft 3 of August 8th RIF meeting minutes.

Thanks,

      -- Said

 

 <http://www.w3.org/> W3C


- DRAFT 3 -


RIF WG Teleconference


08 Aug 2006


See also:  <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/18-rif-irc> IRC log


Attendees


Present 

Hassan_Ait-Kaci, FrankMcCabe, Philippe_Bonnard, SaidTabet, Harold, ChrisW,
Deborah_Nichols, Leora_Morgenstern, Sandro, PFPS, David_Hirtle,
Elisa_Kendall, igor, Allen_Ginsberg, MarkusK, Donald_Chapin, Jeff_Pan,
Mike_Dean, Gary_Hallmark, Mala_Mehrotra 

Regrets 

        PaulaLaviniaPatranjan, DaveReynolds, MichaelKifer, JosDeBruijn,
MohamedZergaoui (Extreme XML), MichaelSintek 

Chair 

Chris Wealty 

Scribe 

SaidTabet


Contents


*
<outbind://10-0000000054CC1C3701D57F4991A2541EE838DDB7E4073800/#agenda>
Topics 

*
<outbind://10-0000000054CC1C3701D57F4991A2541EE838DDB7E4073800/#ActionSummar
y> Summary of Action Items 

  _____  


Administration


First issue to decide: Hold or Cancel next week's meeting?

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/2006-08-15_Meeting

8 people posted regrets to the meeting wiki page

<Harold> Given how few we are even today...

Anyone on the call who does not expect to be on the call and did not post
regrets?

Sandro: Will happily not be there but I can if I need to :-)

<Harold> People do not even have time to enter themselves in the Regrets
page.

<DavidHirtle> let's make Sandro happy...

<FrankMcCabe> no objection

Objections to canceling next week's?

<igor> no objection

No objections

<sandro> RESOLVED: no meeting next week

<ChrisW> Next week's telecon canceled

<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Aug/0002.html

2 weeks ago minutes: any objections to accepting the minutes?

No objections, minutes accepted

<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Aug/0003.html

Last week's minutes: any objections to accepting those?

Sandro: there a formatting problem in the table of contents

<Deborah_Nichols>: I will take care of the format

Sandro: plain text is fine

<ChrisW> ACTION: deborahN to clean up html links in Aug 1 minutes [recorded
in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/08-rif-minutes.html#action01]

<ChrisW>: Any Amendments to the agenda?

<ChrisW>: Sandro: you have an action to change Frank's email address?

<Sandro>: We are all set, just need to do a little administrative work

<ChrisW>: CSMA: still outstanding action on F2F3 minutes

  _____  


Liaisons


<ChrisW>: news from liaisons?
... Elisa any news on ODM?

no news on ODM

<Elisa> One small item- we will be chartering our finalization task force
for the ODM at the Anaheim meeting in September,

<Elisa> so anyone who wants to participate should let me know.

<Donald_Chapin>: TC 37 handles terminology (SBVR is based on it). Donald
will post a link

<Elisa>: ODM is in the process of having a recommendation vote taken. Likely
we will be chartering finalization task force at Anaheim meeting.
... Anyone who wants to help, please touch base

<Donald_Chapin> ISO Technical Committee (TC37) for Terminology Standards
(http://www.iso.org/iso/en/stdsdevelopment/tc/tclist/TechnicalCommitteeDetai
lPage.TechnicalCommitteeDetail?COMMID=1459)
<http://www.iso.org/iso/en/stdsdevelopment/tc/tclist/TechnicalCommitteeDetai
lPage.TechnicalCommitteeDetail?COMMID=1459%29>  (http://www.iso.org/tc37)
<http://www.iso.org/tc37%29>  -- New two way active liaison with the OMG

  _____  


Use Cases and Requirements

<ChrisW>: tracking of requirements moved to issues tracker (outcome from
F2F3 meeting)

discussion: along the lines of starting a wiki page...but this didn't make
sense since we have a mechanism for tracking

<Sandro>: what happened, at the telecon we decided to use a wiki, then CSMA
and Sandro decided to use the available mechanism
... subjects put on tracker are based on high level items

<ChrisW>  <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Document_issues>
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Document_issues

<ChrisW>: David Hirtle: there is a wiki page called document_issues (posted
above)

<Deborah_Nichols>: that's what I have as a reference to work from

<ChrisW> ACTION: deborahN to move wiki page issues to tracker [recorded in
<http://www.w3.org/2006/08/08-rif-minutes.html#action02>
http://www.w3.org/2006/08/08-rif-minutes.html#action02]

<ChrisW>: reviewing remaining action items

<David_Hirtle>: IE browser issue (also off in Firefox)....issue continued

<ChrisW> Donald: ACTION: clarify with CSMA UCR working draft issue

<Donald_Chapin> When he comes back - continued

<ChrisW>: anything else to discuss on use cases and requirements?

no

  _____  


RIFRAF

ChrisW: moving on to RIFRAF

<MarkusK> yes

<MarkusK> ...it has been written...

<MarkusK> yes

Frank: action continued

<ChrisW>
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jul/0039.html>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jul/0039.html

<ChrisW>: main thing to discuss: Paula's proposed discriminators (message
posted above)

Describing Event Condition Action rules (ECA)

accept this set of discriminators as requirements for RIF? Phase 1?

no problem accepting them for RIFRAF....not for RIF (esp. Phase 1)

any comments, questions?

ChrisW: Frank you are all right with this?

<Donald_Chapin>: small concern: quite a number of things moved from req to
RIFRAF...concerned about things getting lost during he process

<FrankMcCabe> sorry I got dropped off.

<ChrisW>: RIFRAF as a formal way to define all variations in rule systems

<Sandro>: Donald's point: 2 parts for moving req to RIFRAF: first become
discriminators and then use survey to validate that. We have not yet
gathered the data for that decision

<ChrisW>: Frank are you ok?
... anyone else?

<Hassan>: these discriminators make sense. They are just as good as what is
right now in the questionnaire for the other rules. Focus on event handling
more specifically than actions. They re good in my view

<Gary>: I endorsed them last week and I still like them

<ChrisW>: propose to accept these discriminators for RIFFRAFF. Any
objections?
... no objections.
... would like to discuss next steps: status of these set of discriminators
... quite a bit orthogonal to RIF. Shall we consider them for phase 1?
... or is this phase 2?

<Hassan>: Before that, perhaps filling a questionnaire for a few languages
will give us a better idea.
... in ILOG's rule language (IRL), we have event handling called
'chronicles'. I subscribe to this as a representative of ILOG but this is
not the main representative compared to the 'CA' part of 'ECA' rules, 'CA'
rules are a higher priority

<Gary>: agrees with Hassan's comment.

<Chris>: where do you stand with having requirements for phase 1 or accept
this as phase 2?

<Gary>: would like to see some of this as phase 1

<Chris>: for now, phase 1 is Horn. Do you feel that we need more than what
is there with respect to Prod Rules needs?

<Frank>: strongly suspect some of these to be phase 1
... dealing/responding to events requires some of these for phase 1
... to Chris: anything in Phase 2 would have to be expressed in terms of
phase 1.

<ChrisW>: never intended to say that
... RIFRAF intended to give us the framework for extensions
... any other comments?
... a requirement based on these set of discriminators seems to be phase 2.
It will be assumed as the default unless we have strong argument to make
this phase 1. We need a good reason to support something like that

Hassan: mundane comments on the questionnaire: there are some typos: in
2.2...

ChrisW: suggest to put these on an email. Hassan agreed

Jeff: minor point about Prod Rules: wondering if some experts here on Prod
Rules can provide some explanations and more detailed info on the wiki page

ChrisW: next step towards that is getting these discriminators to the RIFRAF
and then make some requirements out of that. Each requirement will be
described somewhere
... on the technical design, there was some recent message posted by Harold
and one by Hassan. I encourage everyone to read them. Technical design work
continues.... Frank you had an ACTION:

Frank: this is transformed into the issue on types. I will be generating a
series of discriminators.

  _____  


Technical Design


<ChrisW>: Action on PPFS...not due until end of month

Harold's ACTION: done. Linked requirements in UC&R doc with assumptions.
This could be extended.

<ChrisW>: Any other comments on technical proposal?

  _____  


Other Business


<ChrisW>: Any other business?

<Hassan> +1

<sandro> +1 adjourn

ChrisW: hearing none, I propose we adjourn.

Meeting Adjourned

  _____  


Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: deborahN to clean up html links in Aug 1 minutes [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2006/08/08-rif-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: deborahN to move wiki page issues to tracker [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2006/08/08-rif-minutes.html#action02]

[End of minutes]

  _____  

 Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm>  version
1.127 (CVS  <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/> log)
$Date: 2006/08/08 15:44:51 $