<scribe> scribeNick: sandro
ChrisW: CSMA and I identified the 4 phase 1 requirements moving to RIFRAF
... RIF should cover RDF
... RIF should express RDF deduction rules
... Equality
... slots
Hassan: I couldn't find slots in RIFRAF
Harold: In Syn5
ChrisW: To meet heartbeat requirement, we want UCR out by end of June
... Appendix in UCR giving RIFRAF more or less as today
... Gary will work with Harold to make descriptions more understandable to wider audience
... They will merge in four new ones
<scribe> ACTION: Gary and Harold to upate RIFRAF for UCR WD2 by June 9
(Gary and Harold will both be here in Przno this next week.)
csma: Text should be clear it's a work-in-progress
ChrisW: Requirements Section
... Should be up for review today
... (Paula and David are off working on it now)
... Review for 2 weeks (until 23 June)
... Publication Use Case is out; review until 15 June
... XML use case feedback must be to Gary by 6pm CET Thursday 15 June
<josb> I assume this is with daylight saving, i.e., local time here?
Yes -- local time in Montenegro
RESOLUTION: deadlines as above
ChrisW: After UCR WD2
... Merge rest of requirements in
... Go over attempts at classification, etc.
can someone paste the URL please?
Dave: (talks about his page)
... People want to know what RIF-WG will do in this area
Dave: RDF Compatibility already on the list, but that's maybe vague
<AxelPolleres> Question for the notes for UCR: Will the proposed restructuring and structural alignment of use cases also be taken into the next version? see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Mar/0186
Dave: All the languages on the list should be interchanged via RIF -- but what will push convergence?
... Identify for users the dialect they'll need.
... One example: human readable syntax --- a sub group could go off and
define a non-normative concete syntax -- without WG support
ChrisW: This seems alligned with the Small Number of Dialects requirement
csma: I'm concerned about the Implications. I don't want to set the expectation that we'll deliver a SWRL
... How about: RIF deliverables will provide guidance in using rule languages for the semantic web
(maybe: Facilitate use of RL on SW?)
csma: i hear you saying Computational Properties (implied)
... But we could say: We'll provide a profile for useful rule languages for the Semantic Web
sandro: Dialect
csma: If you're using a rule language for a semantic web application, we think the appropriate profile is _____
Sandro: I'm not sure what a SWRL is any more, really -- mayube all Rule Languages will evolve into SWRL's over the next few years
csma: possible goal: Help Semantic Web People Intechange Rules
Sandro: selecting a profile/dialect may not be the right way to do that
Hassan: i think the RIF obviates the need for one SWRL
Dave: If you're a user of the Semantic Web coming in --- and you want to know how to Express Rules -- what is your answer? 27 answers now. Are we supposed to bring order to this? Interop is some of that.
Hassan: that makes sense, but... it depends what the user means by "rules" that they want to express.
... There are so many kinds of semantic web applications -- there must be as many kinds of swrl's as well.
sandro: What about this goal, on the board "Help Semantic Web Rule Interchange"
csma: IO think we wont provide such a language, but we can still help.
Paul: Clearly this is a lot of interest to a lot of folks here. Even thought it's somewhat orthogonal to full-RIF, maybe there should be a sub-group of RIF?
ChrisW: If we accept it as a goal, surely some sub group will work on it.
... That "Help..." goal is too watered down to be helpful.
csma: why is the "profile" statement not good? ("RIF should define a profile that we recommend for semantic web rule languages")
Sandro: dialect instead of profile
csma: Okay
<EvanWallace> Profile is how to use a spec, not just a dialect
Dave: Yes -- this is an okay Requirement, as a solution, but it's not a Goal.
Sandro: proposed goal + propsed requirement ?
Hassan: I like "Provide a basis..." but object to there being ONE rule language
... I like Provide a basis for semantic web rule interchange
... But that's obvious
Gary: Try search-replace "Semantic Web" with "Business".
<EvanWallace> SW is a brand owned by W3C, W3C defines these languages
Chris: But this is the Semantic Web activity
csma: If there is (as Dave states) a demand for guidance, it doesn't cost anything to add this goal. ("RIF should define a dialect that we recommend for semantic web rule languages")
<EvanWallace> Prefer "profile" to "dialect"
csma: (new goal phrasing: Provide a basis for S W rule interchange)
EvanWallace, dialect is a term of art in our dictonary
<EvanWallace> Sandro, I see
chrisW: Non consensus - move on
csma: How about goal "provide a bsis for s w r i"
redundant
ChrisW: Any opposed to ("RIF should define a dialect that we recommend for semantic web rule languages")
Yes -- Paula and Hassan
Hassan: this is complete diversion -- we have no place telling people what to pick
ChrisW: Moving on -- we're out of time.
<DavidHirtle> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/WD-DC
<DavidHirtle> the most recent draft
<josb> Hassan: it's a bit like saying that the RDF and OWL working groups had no place to define data and ontology languages for the semweb
David: We made a few assumption -- put stuff under Open issues when necessary
ChrisW: You have two weeks to Review
<josb> the semweb should be about interoperability, so people should use the same languages as much as possible
<scribe> ACTION: csma send e-mail to group saying they have two weeks to make any comments to new UCR editors draft.
<DaveReynolds> there is also a difference between proscribing other options and simply identifying at least one core useful common denominator, it is the differnce between putting a fence around and area and simply identifying a useful bit of high ground w/i it