<MarkusK> ScribeNick: msintek

next topic: requirements cont'd

slide: what does it mean to "cover" (slide here)

explains "RIF covers L" and "RIF covers L1 and L2"

example: RIF covers RDF

Sandro: def is not more precise than his own
... what does equivalence mean is the problem

csma: no agreement that the new definition is really ok

<sandro> for example -- changing variable names does not change what's entailed, but does change how it affects users.

Sandro's definition attempt is on the wiki

<AxelPolleres> can you add the link to sandro's definition?

process to discuss on this will be decided later

<sandro> ACTION: Chairs to come up with a process for settling on definition text for "cover"

next topic: support XML requirement

(on-screen: slide 31 from http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F3?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=Goals%2C+CSF%2C+Requirements+%28final+version%2Blinks+to+minutes%29.ppt)

jos: not all xml schema datatypes in phase 1

<sandro> AxelPolleres, my defn is http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Design_Constraints/Terminology

charter specifies which are in phase 1

rest is phase 2

accepting XML elements is phase 2

(slide 32)

next topic: rif will cover languages identified in RIFRAF: already agreed

(slide 33)

support lp semantics with NAF and strong negation: moved to RIFRAF, phase 2

<sandro> pfps_home, the (mailing list / wiki) floor is open for improvements. CSMA proposed one, but I didn't think it was an improvement. It moved the "faithfully convey" fuzzyness into an "equivalence" fuzzyness. We may need to go straight to test cases on this.

(slide 34)

module construct for scoped negation and NAF queries: is RIFRAF, or not?

might be phase 1

(slide 35)

permit restricted form of equality

goes in RIFRAF

(slide 36)

tagging intended semantics

replaced by "markup of semantics"

(slide 37 and 38)

higher order and frame-based syntax, moved to RIFRAF

possible phase 2

(slide 39)

consistency with mahor market tech

replaced by ... (lot's of phase 2 stuff)

dave clarifies sql queries part

are external calls

so moved there

(slide 38)

harold: back to higher order and frame-based syntax
... is in charter in p 1

<sandro> frame-based syntax is in charter for phase 1 -- in the sense of slot/role names

only aspect of slots is in p1

moved to RIFRAF

(slide 40)

next: metadata for "currency" of rules

posponed for future version

(slide 41)

next: capability to pass comments

is p1

(slide 42)

next: meta-data indication executab. of rules

<scribe> postponed

next: RIF scope - exchange of RDFS/OWL fact models

(slide 43)

dave: thinks this is "dont invent new syntax for RDF"

chris: is question, not requirement
... agrees with question, doesn't know answer

dave: where is issue list

sandro: doesn't understand this as issue

"does this impact rif"?

<ChrisW> www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub describes best practices for publishing an RDFS or OWL vocabulary or ontology on the Web. Does this impact RIF?

moved to an issue

next: modal operators

(slide 44)

phase 2(+)

goes to RIFRAF

next: discussed requirements go to requirements section; internal review

csma: paula: can document be updated next week?

support for paula searched

paula: tries during conference, does not promise anything

csma can help on monday; david after 20th only

david will work on it with paula during rifraf discussion

<scribe> ACTION: Paula and David update requirements section

dave: raises question of splitting rif into many dialects

csma: covered by multiple semantics requirement

<sandro> Dave: We should have a requirement that there be a modest number of dialects

<sandro> Dave: It's been talked about for months, but somehow fell off the list

csma: many trivial requirements missing

like rule sets

csma: such requirements still have to be formalized

<sandro> Sandro: this is not a trivial requirement -- without it, the obvious solution to have a zillion dialects (and thus no interoperation)

csma: does anyone request more of these requirements?

<sandro> csma: last call for requirements....

<sandro> csma: none.

<sandro> (except this)

(slide 45)

dave: proposes "rif to encourage interop"

<sandro> RIF Aims to Encrouage Interoperability. RIF will provide a mechanism, such as a modest number of dialects, ...

<sandro> The design of RIF will encourage interoperability, such as through a limitted number of dialects.

uta to be scribe now

<scribe> scribeNick: Uta

core plus extensions

Can have common parts that are not called dialects.

encourage overlap between dialects. Requirement or goal?

Dave: is requirement

csma: is requirement

Phase I

<sandro> RESOLVED to add this new requirement

no objections, new requirement: encourage inter-operabilty

<sandro> (RIF will encourage interoperability such as through a limitted number of stantrd dialects and/or a common core)

next topic: RIFRAF

<sandro> [ Ugh -- I didn't see the "and/or a common core" added when I agreed to it. ]

<sandro> [ the disjunction weasel-word is the problem. ]