Re: DRAFT Minutes of August 22, meeting

See corrections below:

Leora Morgenstern wrote:
> ============================================================================================================================ 
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *-- DRAFT --*
>
> *RIF Working Group Minutes*
>
> *22 August 2006*
>
> Note: These minutes were taken off-line due to problems with the IRC.
>
> For maximum readability, the comments of people who typed into the IRC 
> have sometimes been incorporated into these off-line minutes.
>
> Please refer also to http://www.w3.org/2006/08/22-rif-minutes.html and 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/08/22-rif-irc
>
> *Attendees*
>
> /Present (in alphabetical order):/
>
> /Hassan Ait-Kaci, Harold Boley, Francois Bry, Mike Dean, Jos De Roo, 
>  Allen Ginsberg, Michael Kifer, Paula Lavinia Patranjan, Frank McCabe, 
> Stella Mitchell, Leora Morgenstern, MoZ (Mohamed Zergaoui?), Igor 
> Mozetic, Peter Patel-Schneider, Deborah Nichols, Axel Polleres, Said 
> Tabet, Chris Welty, 1.503.317.aaaa (unidentified)/
>
> /Regrets (in alphabetical order):/
>
> /Jos De Bruijn, Gary Hallmark, David Hirtle, Dave Reynolds, Michael 
> Sintek/
>
> /Chair: Chris Welty/
>
> /Scribe: Leora Morgenstern/
>
>
> *Topics*
>
> *1. Admin*
>
> The minutes from the July 18th meeting were approved.
>
> The discussion of Said's minutes for the August 8, 2006 meeting was 
> deferred, since the minutes were only sent out yesterday.
>
> *2. Liaison*
>
>
> *Chris: *need someone to do PRR liaison.
>
> Chris discussed liasion to Fair Isaac
>
> *Chris: *SPARQL is in candidate recommendation.
>
> ... This means there will be lots of discussion on SPARQL
>
> ... Hopefully this will be enough to open up lines of communication
>
> ... This (candidate recommendation) is the final step before acceptance
>
> *Sandro*: After candidate recommendation, still need proposed 
> recommendation.
>
> (That is, candidate recommendation is the penultimate as opposed to 
> final step.)
>
> *Chris: *Anything on SBVR?  ODM?
>
> No responses for ODM.
>
> John Hall said on the IRC that with respect to SBVR, Donald Chapin has 
> established good liaison with ISO terminology groups, and was in fact 
> this week at an ISO workshop in Beijing.
>
> *3. Use Cases and Requirements*
>
>
> The discussion moved to new cases and requirements that have been 
> proposed after the last deadline.
>
> *Chris: *Deborah Nichols has moved all issues with the document into 
> Issues Tracker
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/open
>
> ... This will be our official vehicle for tracking issues
>
> ... Everyone should be aware of open issues.
>
> ... Start looking at it, be ready to discuss at the meeting next week
>
> Deborah said on the IRC that she wanted especially to discuss issues 
> 3, 4, 9--11, and 21.
>
> *Allen: *Did issues of coverage ever make it into Open Issues?
>
> *Deborah: *Issues 14--16 are related to coverage.
>
> (Issue 14 is: Proposed Phase 2 Requirement: RIF must cover RDF;
>  Issue 15 is: Proposed Phase 2 Requirement: RIF must cover OWL;
>  Issue 16 is: Proposed Phase 2 Requirement: RIF should support 
> external calls (e.g., to query processors)
>
> ... Put one sentence into document about OWL-RDF coverage.
>
> *Deborah: *Would like to discuss several issues.
>
> ... Issues 9,10, and 11 seem to be directly related to editing of 
> docuemnt. Perhaps Allen and David could take these and just do them.
>
> (Issue 9 is: Proposed changes to Table of Contents in UCR Document;
>  Issue 10 is: Structure of UCR Document, Section 3, needs improvement;
>  Issue 11 is: Need to fix formatting in the UCR Working Draft)
>
> ... Issue 3: concerns XML syntax. It is just presented as a question. 
> Who was it that raised the question? It needs to be sharpened.
>
> (Issue 3 is: Question regarding XML syntax Requirement)
>
> ... Should it be linked to critical success factor in document?
>
> *Chris: *What were we talking about when we raised  this issue (i.e., 
> the XML question)
>
> *Sandro: *Don't remember any real discussion about this. Everyone 
> thought this was obvious --- a basic requirement.
>
> *Frank: *There was a big discussion about supporting w3c and 
> supporting take-up of the spec.
>
> *Sandro: *There should be an action taken to answer this question.
>
> *Chris: *The XML syntax requirement applies to widespread adoption, 
> perhaps.
>
> *ACTION* on Frank to address issue 3.
> (Note: this action was never recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/08/22-rif-minutes.html and 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/08/22-rif)
>
>
> *Deborah: *issue #21:
>
> (Issue 21 is: Proposed Phase 2 Requirement: RIF representation of XML 
> is *XML)
>
> ... What does this mean? RIF isn't going to be translating from XML to 
> XML as part of the spec. RIF representation of XML will be XML.
>
> ... Does that mean that XML will be part of RIF? That XML will just be 
> used directly in RIF?
>
> *Chris: *That's the idea.
>
> *Deborah: *Can clean up open issues page to make this clear.
>
> *Deborah: *Issues 9, 10, and 11 all seem to be document organization 
> and formatting issues.
>
> Chris asked Allen to take  an action to see which of these  issues can 
> be deal with quickly.
>
> (Note: this action was not recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/08/22-rif-minutes.html and 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/08/22-rif)
>
>
> *4. RIFRAF*
>
>
> *Axel: *With regard to the questionnaire: Actions 82 and 83 are a bit 
> problematic. Copying the questionnaire would be a short-term solution. 
> Every time something is changed, change must be replicated.
>
> *Sandro: *Hold off until someone wants to answer the questionnaire a 
> second time.
>
> Action 82 is therefore droped.
>
> *Axel: *Action 83 [add "no answer" to questionnaire questions] is a 
> technical problem. There are two options: Either add N/A to comments 
> to implement "no answer," or put a "no answer" check box in every 
> question. The first is easier.
>
> *Chris:  *Okay, the first is okay.
>
> *Chris: *Said had action.
>
> *Said: *Has to wait until Christiane gets back from vacation.

THat's "Christian" and it was indeed Hassan not Said.

>
> (This conversation may have been misrecorded, since there seems to be 
> no record of Said having an action on the Action Tracker at 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions .
> Could this have been a discussion with Hassan who in fact, does have 
> an action (87) to write a response to Christiane's proposal?)
>
> *Chris: *Frank had an action (79).
>
> Hassan will work with Frank to merge their proposals for type 
> discriminators. Will communicate by email. *ACTION*(88) on Hassan to 
> work with Frank to augment type discriminators proposal.
>
> *Chris: *As of yesterday, the questionnaire had been filled out 6-7 
> times.
>
> ... Do those people or Axel have comments?
>
> *Axel: *Add discriminators on types of negation. But probably, I need 
> to do a summary to clarify this on a wiki page.
>
> *ACTION* on Axel to write up a wiki page clarifying the discriminators 
> on types of negation. Due by first week of Sept.
>
> *Axel:* When or how to add newly proposed discriminators, proposed by 
> Paula?
>
> *Chris:* No satisfactory discussion of this, but okay to add it to 
> questionnaire.
>
> *ACTION* (91) on Axel to add these to the questionnaire.
>
> *Axel: *How to propagate evolution of questionnaire to RAF page. Who 
> will maintain this?
>
> *Hassan: *But aren't we going to review the entries to the 
> questionnaire? And review the questionnaire in the light of what was 
> entered?
>
> *Chris: *But there are some things in questionnaire aren't on the RAF 
> wiki page, and the wiki page is the place for explanation, rather than 
> having too much text on the questionnaire.
>
> *Axel: *proposes to analyze this by early September.
>
> *ACTION* (90) on Axel to sync questionnaire back to RAF wiki page.
>
> *Hassan: *Trying to come up with discriminators that relate to types; 
> Paula is proposing new discriminators. Will these be merged? Doesn't 
> that suggest that early Sept. is too early?
>
> *Alex: *Refers to his previous emails on Mozilla XUL Templates Rules 
> Language.
> Would like to fill out questionnaire for this and JBOSS.
>
> (Problem is the technical issue of filling out a questionnaire twice.)
>
> *Chris:* What are the technical issues involved in filling out the 
> questionnaire twice?
>
> *Axel: *The problem is that it's a one-to-one relation.
>
> *Chris: *Alex, email the answers to the questionnaire to me; then I 
> will have someone else fill it out.
>
>
> *ACTION* (89) on Alex to fill out questionnaire for both XUL and JBOSS 
> and email it to Chris.
>
> *Axel: *It might be possible to just send all questionnaires to me by 
> email; then I could easily handle multiple answers by an individual.
>
> *Sandro: *It's nice, though, to have the data available to everyone 
> --- people can look at it; it may be possible to run some analysis on 
> it; etc.
>
> *5. Technical Design*
>
> *Chris: *Action review. One action (Peter's) is due soon, but none are 
> due yet.
>
> ... Any discussion on technical design?
>
> No responses.
>
> *6. AOB*
>
> *Chris:* Any discussion on AOB?
>
> No responses.
>
> Chris proposed to adjourn.  The proposal was seconded by Paula and 
> Hassan, and the meeting was adjourned.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Dr. Christopher A. Welty                    IBM Watson Research Center
+1.914.784.7055                             19 Skyline Dr.
cawelty@frontiernet.net                     Hawthorne, NY 10532
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty

Received on Monday, 28 August 2006 13:37:54 UTC