Minutes Telecon, 10 January 2006

Find the draft minutes attached. Sorry for the delay, there were some 
permission problems with the rrsagent-minutes link.

best regards,
Axel Polleres

- Draft Minutes -

RIF Telecon 2006-10-01

10 Jan 2006

* Attendees (in order of appearance)
    AxelPolleres
    FrancoisBry
    ChristianDeSainteMarie
    PaulaLaviniaPatranjan
    HolgerLausen
    PhilippeBonnard
    ChrisWelty
    JosDeBruijn
    DaveReynolds
    AllenGinsberg
    MarkusKrötzsch
    IgorMozetic
    UgoCorda
    Hassan_Ait-Kaci
    IanHorrocks
    MichaelSintek
    JohnHall
    MichaelKifer
    DeborahNichols
    SandroHawke
    DavidHirtle
    ElisaKendall
    Mike_Dean
    DanConnolly
    JeremyCarroll
    WilliamAndersenxs
    MinsuJang
    JacekKopecky
    GaryHallmark
    JosDeRoo
    AndreasHarth
    GuizhenYang
    Leora Morgenstern
    PaulVincent
    PieroBonatti
    EvanWallace
  Unidentified: 
    fgm, , [NRCC], , +1.503.525.aabb, +39.0.aacc,

* Regrets: see mailinglist.
 
* Chair: Christian de Sainte Marie (csma)

* Scribe: Axel Polleres

* Contents
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jan/0026.html
IRC log: http://www.w3.org/2006/01/10-rif-irc
RSS Agent's Minutes: http://www.w3.org/2006/01/10-rif-minutes.html
Meeting wiki page: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/2006-01-10_Meeting

* Summary of Topics
  1. Admin
  2. Liaison
  3. Use Cases and Requirements
  4. OWL & RDF Compatibility
  5. Classification
  6. AOB
* Summary of Action Items
  ACTION: sandro update main web page re: meetings [DONE]
  ACTION: sandro add link about wiki usage [DONE]
  ACTION: sandro update main web page [CONTINUED] 
  ACTION: csma to ask ISO whether liaison is worthwhile and why
  ACTION: Use case editors publish first draft by Jan 17 [CONTINUED]
  ACTION: Ian writes up a new category "Rich Knowledge Representation features" in the use cases.
  ACTION: Francis McCabe to take over use case categoty "Information Integration"
  ACTION: ChrisWelty to find somebody for taking over use case category "Decision Support" 
  ACTION: csma to take over use case category "Interoperability Across Rule Engines and Tools"
  ACTION: Paula to take over use case category "Policy-based transaction authorization and access control"
  ACTION: Said to take over use case category "Regulation/Constraint Compliance Monitoring"
  ACTION: DaveReynolds to take over use case category "Publication"
  ACTION: Allen to take over use case category "Third Party Rule-Interchange-Enabling Service Providers"
  ACTION: Allen and David to check use cases for template-compliance and list incomplete use cases on the mailinglist.
  ACTION: benjamin to start a wiki page with initial list of systems [CONTINUED]
  ACTION: Harold to add fine classification [DONE]
  ACTION: chris to clarify desiderata for list of classifications [CONTINUED] 
  ACTION: chris to provide classifications draft Jan 31 [CONTINUED]
  ACTION: csma to open a wiki page for collecting implemented systems.

Detailed Minutes:

1. Admin:
     Minutes from last time accepted with minor modifications:
     csma: replace "standard bodies" with "organisations"
           remove NIST from liaison list, since they are part of the WG.
           change systems to rule systems in Benajmins action item, see
           http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-rif-wg/2006Jan/0001.html
    
     Next Meeting: 17 January

     No additional agenda items.

   ACTION: sandro update main web page re: meetings [DONE]
   ACTION: sandro add link about wiki usage [DONE]
   ACTION: sandro update main web page [CONTINUED] 

2. Liaison:
    ChrisW: Enrico Franconi to be SPARQL liason
    FrancoisBry: Massimo Marchiori would be a good liaison for XQuery/XPath.
    ChrisW: Paul Vincent to liason for PRR
    Elisa: ISO IEC Joint Task Force 1, SC 32, Working Group 2: Metadata 
           Standards US national body is ANSI L8
           might be interesting for liaison. See http://metadata-standards.org/
           Contact: Ed Barkmeyer. 
           Current work includes standards for metadata registration 
           (including ontology and potentially rules related metadata 
           registration), model registration, metadata interoperability, 
           and Common Logic.
 
    ACTION: csma to ask ISO whether liaison is worthwhile and why

    csma: further liaisons to be proposed by mail.

3. Use Cases and Requirements

   ACTION: Use case editors publish first draft by Jan 17 [CONTINUED]

   David: Allen sent out a classification this morning per mail.
          ... to be discussed.
   csma: to be discussed together with the editors' draft.
   Allen: added classification to the Wiki:  
          http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/General_Use_Case_Categories
          contains sort of in spirit of OWL-use case doc (see 
          http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/) a list of 
          categories of requirements and a classification.
   csma: main objective is of this document is to check whether all 
         requirements are covered or whether we missed anything.
   Sandro: Agreement on grouping use cases in more abstract categories.
   David,Allen: summarize their classification.
   Hassan: As for use cases classification, hassan sees two axes: language
           issues or certain application situations. Discrimination should be 
           done on these criteria.
   Francois: Classification by David and Allen is driven by applications, 
             but classification by types of rules and data accessed should be 
             considered, also relationships to query languages.
   Allen: Disagrees, the classification is more based on functionality 
          than applications.
   csma: We have to start somewhere, and Allen's/David's classification will help
         to progress. Any list of categories can be discussed.
   Ian: Use cases which are asking for certain features to increase language
        expressivity should be considered. although general and maybe not 
        specific to one concrete usage scenario.
   csma: put more expressive KR into the rule language/engine classification
   Allen: Suggests to add a category "Rich Knowledge Representation features". 
   Sandro: what FrancoisBry is saying sounds more like Requirements.
           Use cases should be more marketing, i.e. WHY RIF is to be used.

   ACTION: Ian writes up a new category "Rich Knowledge Representation features" in the use cases.

   csma asks to assign people for each category in 
   http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/General_Use_Case_Categories 
   to check the use cases and naming and generate abstract use cases:

   ACTION: Francis McCabe to take over use case categoty "Information Integration"
   ACTION: ChrisWelty to find somebody for taking over use case category "Decision Support" 
   ACTION: csma to take over use case category "Interoperability Across Rule Engines and Tools"
   ACTION: Paula to take over use case category "Policy-based transaction authorization and access control"
   ACTION: Said to take over use case category "Regulation/Constraint Compliance Monitoring"
   ACTION: DaveReynolds to take over use case category "Publication"
   ACTION: Allen to take over use case category "Third Party Rule-Interchange-Enabling Service Providers"

   Allen: some use cases still unclassified/incomplete.
   David: All shall feel free to add more information to use cases.
   Chris: Allen and David shall check use cases which are not template-compliant.

   ACTION: Allen and David to check use cases for template-compliance and list incomplete use cases on the mailinglist.

   Allen: Deadline for updating use cases 48 hrs from now


4. OWL & RDF Compatibility

   Sandro: not much change on the wiki recently.
   ChrisW: let's talk about email-thread: Relationship to SPARQL. 
   ... Do we commit to be compatible with SPARQL? Does this give us RDF compatibility?
   csma: what then about OWL?
   Jos: depends on what we mean by "compatibility".
   Jeremy: SPARQL is primarily about RDF graph not about RDF semantics
   Ian: SPARQL proposes query language and language for expressing conditions.
   chris,jeremy,daveReynolds: disagree with Ian and stress importance of RDF semantics.

   csma: continue this discussion on the mailinglist.

5. Classification

   ACTION: benjamin to start a wiki page with initial list of systems [CONTINUED]
   ACTION: Harold to add fine classification [DONE]
   ACTION: chris to clarify desiderata for list of classifications [CONTINUED] 
   ACTION: chris to provide classifications draft Jan 31 [CONTINUED]

   Harold: somehow resolved Banjamin's action already with respect to languages, but not systems.
   Jos: Is the classification about rule languages or implementations?
   Chris: current classification by harold does not cover implemented systems.
   ... people should add their implemented systems on the wiki.

   ACTION: csma to open a wiki page for collecting implemented systems. 

   Hassan: dont't know where in the classification to add implemented languages which 
   ... spread over harolds classification.
   Harold: in response to Hassan's question about Life in the current  RAF classification:
   ... Life could be classified roughly as a Hybrid Slotted Horn Logic using the 
   ... following mappings:
     Feature Logic -> Horn Logic with Slotted Atoms
     Inheritance -> RDFS or OWL-Lite Inheritance within the 'type/contstraint/DL' part of Hybrid Rules
     Functions -> Interpreted (User-defined) Function Symbols

   csma: please continue discussion on the mailinglist.

6. AOB

   csma: no issues
   ... All shall check action items and discuss on the list!!!