See also: IRC log
Chris: Telecon starts. Next telecon next week.
In 2 weeks, on July 4th, the telecon would take place during holidays in the US. Should we have telecon that week or not?
Schedule of f2f is to release use cases. We should not decide on this when too many members of WG absent.
People not there at July 4 telecon should express by Friday June 30th reservations.
Depending on reservations or not, we'll have a telecon of July 4th.
Chris: OK with plans concerning releasing the use case documents?
Christian de Sainte Marie: If you have reservations, please express them before the release!
Chris: Objections to this plan?
EvanW: Will Chris send an email on this subject?
<csma> ACTION: Chris to send email requesting people who will not be able to attend July 4th to state any objection June 30th at the latest [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/20-rif-minutes.html#action01]
<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006May/att-0242/rif-minutes-2006-05-23.html
Chris: Next item: May 23rd minutes accepted?
Christian: The minutes of the last f2f have also to be considered.
Chris: Objections to May 23rd minutes?
<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jun/att-0010/30-rif-minutes.html
Chris: No objections. Minutes of last week accepted.
The chairs work on minutes of last f2f. They will come in a couple of days.
<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/open
Chris: Most of the actions are on the action tracker. They will be reviewed today.
New items for today's agenda? None.
Update to f2f 3: very successful, look most requirements, all resolutions, and decisions have been nicely put in a single
document.
The break between phase 1 and 2 helped.
Let us turn to f2f 4.
<AxelPolleres> remark on todays agenda, I miss: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/products/5
pfps: credit card and registrations for f2f 4 are OK.
The document on f2f requirements had problem with access permission.
Christian: The access problem on that page seems to be for all.
<csma> http://www.w3.org/2006/03/hostnetworkrequirements
<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jun/0118.html
Sandro: I will report on this problem to responsible W3C technical support team.
Chris: An active liaison with SPARQL would be important.
<ChrisW> WE need a new liason for PRR since Paul Vincent has left the RIF WG.
Christian: New liaison to MISMO instead of Paul Vincent needed.
<ChrisW> MISMO=Mortgage .PRR
Christian: Concerning the liaison with MISMO: They Started a business rule interchange WG.
<ChrisW> ACORD=Insurance
<ChrisW> xBRL=Business Rules
Christian: The ACCORD people are not in RIF but they approached ILOG to ask whether
working with them on an XML format for exchanging business rules could be possible.
.hey have not joined RIF but should still be interested.
There are these 3 organizations but there should be many more.
Christian: Some of them are now interested in a rule layer on top of XML, OWL etc.
We could we have liaisons with at least some of them.
<johnhall> ORIGO is the UK equivalent of ACORD. It is a W3C member and may also be interested.
Chris: Is looking for people acting as liaisons enough? Is more needed?
Christian: Are there RIF members in contact with some such organizations?
<AxelPolleres> I think ChrisW made a good point here: What is the "current style of liaison"? Can we define this?
Christian: First question: Who is in contact with such organizations?
<johnhall> Said and I have several contacts - I will send an email.
Chris: Nobody seems to be in contact with such organizations.
<johnhall> yes
Francois: I suggest to work out a list of these organizations.
<johnhall> I'll do a summary of the orgs. See which you are interested in.
<csma> ACTION: JohnH to send an email to chairs listing vertical orgs contacts [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/20-rif-minutes.html#action02]
Chris: Christian's work on producer-consumers is continued.
What about the action to collect comments on new publications? Axel, no comments have been sent.
Axel: I suggest to leave the subject for the moment.
Harold: It would be good to give a name to this new abstract use case.
Axel: It is called "alternative publication use case".
Harold: I suggest "inferring meta-data from explicit data".
Chris: I think, this action should be continued. What about Allen's action? Is Allen here?
<Deborah_Nichols> Allen sent regrets
Chris: David, you take an Action with Axel and Harold to integrate use cases?
David: OK.
<AxelPolleres> OK!
<csma> ACTION: David to work with Axel to integrate Publication UC [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/20-rif-minutes.html#action03]
Chris: Christian has an action of tracking the OMG activity.
Christian: I have forgotten it, ie this action is continued.
Chris: Dave had action to add pointers to the use case documents to the requirements. Clearly, it should be continued.
Gary's action should also be continued. What about Jos' action?
<AxelPolleres> Jos sent regrets!
Chris: Jos' action seems to be done.
<PaulaP> I think this is done
Chris: Paula had an action to capture proposals for a rewording of the formal semantics. It has been done.
<PaulaP> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Critical_Factors_Analysis/Exchange_of_Rules
<Harold> Dave Reynolds, could we also refer to your SKOS and RDFS Publication concrete UC from the new abstract one?
Chris: What about PaulVincent's action?
Who replaces PaulVincent?
Christian: Is DaveReynolds on the phone?
<DaveReynolds> Link for action 36: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jun/0091.html
<DaveReynolds> Link for action 29: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jun/0089.html
<DaveReynolds> Link for action updating Use Case 8: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jun/0110.html
Christian: About the extensibility of the semantic markup: What about languages that evolve? That was PaulVincent's question and he got an action to investigate that. I suggest to drop this action. If this is an issue. It will come back again.
Chris: Other actions?
Action on Dave Reynold to rephrase requirement: done.
Action on Sandro to list requirements: continued.
Sandro: In a lot of cases there are different wordings.
Sandro: Does someone want to collaborate with me on this?
<LeoraMorgenstern> Sandro, I would like to help though I'm not an editor.
<ChrisW> Actions 30, 31, 36 are closed
Chris: At the last f2f, we agreed on a deadline. Can we achieve the goal to work
on new use cases?
New use cases have been incorporated.
Two use cases need review.
AlexKoz: We submitted an additional, new use case.
It will be one of 3 new use cases. We are interviewing people.
Thus, the use cases will become more generic.
Chris: the WG has a lot of specific use cases. We try to abstract some commonalities.
New use cases are not likely to make it into the next working draft.
For the next working draft, we had 3 candidate use cases to be re-reviewed. One of them is the XML one.
We missed the deadline.
WE had taken the action to have it ready by last Friday.
Sandro: This use case is ready, there was no feedback.
Chris: The use case on XML has been edited by Gary.
<AxelPolleres> Gary's use case: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Rules_for_a_Credit_Approval_Service
Chris: This Friday was deadline for people to give comments. Next week is the deadline for editors to finalize these use cases. On July 4th, if there is a telecon, we will have a vote to release the document as a working draft.
Christian: The use case is in the initial format (abstract, status, etc.).
<DaveReynolds> Yes, the proposal was to take the narrative section from that page and use that as an abstract use case
Chris: DavidHirtle. You had a change to look at this use case?
DavidHirtle: I read it over. I think all of them need to be made more consistent.
I can look at it.
Chris: Action on Dave (Hirtle)?
Chris: We are still on schedule. 3 revised use cases are significantly different from their former version,
new, or changed.
A major change will be to incorporate the requirements in the draft.
The WG has a bit more than a week to review the document. Next Tuesday the document should be ready and we
should vote on it. Objections?
The W3C requires a WG to publish a document every 3 months. Therefore we should release the document in June.
Christian: The requirement part has been re-worked during the f2f.
Sandro: We need an editor's draft.
<DaveReynolds> +1 to having an editor's draft
Chris: Dave and Sandro, can we get an editor's draft for 27th June?
Sandro: The answer is yes.
Chris: What is to be done is to add the new 3 use cases and to add the requirement part.
Frank: Update of diagram will be done for next week.
<csma> ACTION: David and Sandro to produce editor's draft of UC&R by 27th June [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/20-rif-minutes.html#action04]
<Sandro> Frank needs to see the final requirements by Friday.
<PaulaP> I can work with Frank on the diagram.
<Sandro> my understanding of the output from the meeting: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/temp
Chris: Paula and Frank, could you try to get it for next week?
<PaulaP> +1
<csma> ACTION: Sandro, Paula, David to update Frank on requirements by Friday [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/20-rif-minutes.html#action05]
<csma> ACTION: Frank to produce new GCSFR picture by next Tuesday [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/20-rif-minutes.html#action06]
<csma> ACTION: Chris to schedule editors meeting for UCR schedule and meeting between Paula and Franck on content for updated diagram [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/06/20-rif-minutes.html#action07]
Chris: The plan is to release draft for internal review next week.
Christian: the draft should include RIFRAF.
A number of requirements had been moved for the time after RIFRAF worked out.
There was an action on Gary and Carrol to update RIFRAF for last Friday.
Gary: I did some edits.
<AxelPolleres> i am starving on the queue.... ;-)
<Sandro> Harold, where on the Wiki?
AexelPolleres: Point mentioned during f2f to restructure the use cases. Are there actions on that?
<JeffP> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Rulesystem_Arrangement_Framework ?
Chris: I worry that we are suggesting too many changes for one week.
<AxelPolleres> I proposed it already right after the publication of the first draft.
<AxelPolleres> OK.
Christian: Axel already proposed it during the f2f. We wanted to make it for 2nd draft.
<Sandro> Harold, is there an obsolete text on that page? (it seems like it.) What is the text that's supposed to be published?
Paula: Question about requirements: Do I have to edit, restructure? We need a definition of 'covers'.
<AxelPolleres> Remark: I also offered to help on this alignment.
<csma> Axel, agreed that you mentioned that already in March; the point is that this draft is about requirements, not so much about use cases.
Chris: We will be discussed this further in the forthcoming editors telecon.
Chris: Harold, is the RIFRAF part ready to be included in document?
Harold: I think it is, but there is something new on comparing action production rules. This must be checked.
<Sandro> Harold: there is a new table, but it's maybe not ready for the draft yet.
<Sandro> Harold: But the four discriminators are.
Christian: We are not trying to get a complete RIFRAF. It should be presented as 'work in progress'.
Chris: We could only include a section on 'discriminators'.
<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Rulesystem_Arrangement_Framework
Christian: I suggest that Harold extracts the part (of RIFRAF) to be appended to UCR.
Chris: Question on UCR documents?
Sandro: Let us record this plan in IRC. Chris, please, help me:
Chris: This new content of new UCR draft is as follows:
<Sandro> Chris: 2 news uses cases, 1 revised use case, the requirements from F2F, discriminators section of F2F --- that's the new content of WD2 of UCR. The rest will be the same modulo minor editorial changes.
Chris: RIFRAF is the next point of our agenda.
The main content has been discussed at the last f2f. It will go into next working draft.
Syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic discriminators: At the f2f we went over all of them and made sure that everyone
understands the issues, we also moved material, a large number of requirements have been moved into RIFRAF,
eg 'RIF will support comments' has been moved to syntactic discriminators.
Strong negation is another open issue, to be better explained.
<AxelPolleres> strong negation is like classical negation without "law of the excluded middle", not more, not less, actually this is a very simple concept.
<ChrisW> csma: correction, "supporting comments" was not moved, but accepted as a requirement
Christian: Since we moved many requirements to RIFRAF, we would apply the RIFRAF to as many rule languages as we want RIF to cover.
Christian: We will use RIFRAF to see what language go into RIF Pase 1, what into RIF Phase 2, etc.
Christian: Currently we have 5 languages: Ilog, Life, DLV, Xcerpt, Xchange, etc.
<AxelPolleres> DLV
<AxelPolleres> WRL
Christian: We need a lot more rule languages be described so as to identify useful, necessary, etc. features of the RIF.
Christian: Who can work on adding rule languages?
Chris: Not for next Working Draft.
Christian: For the working draft after.
<JosDeRoo> chair's projected slides from F2F3 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jun/0105.html
Chris: We need the WG to look at rule languages and identify what is missing,
people to take actions to update with important elements, identify people responsible for
requirement to move to RIFRAF.
More organization will be needed.
We should take actions next week.
Please go all thru discriminators in RIFRAF, make sure you understand them, identify
new discriminators that matter for you.
Chris: Next item is technical design.
At f2f tech. design has not been deeply discussed.
<JosDeRoo> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/products/9
Chris: Nonetheless, we had a discussions and have taken actions.
<AxelPolleres> done!
Chris: Action on mapping to DLV.
Christian: Actions of this session have not been recorded. There was an action on Hassan t o propose an extension to Harold et al.'s proposal.
Chris: That action is recorded.
Christian: The session on technical design at the f2f meeting was short but interesting.
Where do we go now?
Chris: How do we map from the 'condition language' to Peter's language?
<AxelPolleres> The question was whether, or what of, the condition language can NOT be mapped into Peter's language.
Peter (pfps): I gave a mapping. But not all like it.
Christian: Peter, the 1st action was to map Harold's condition language to yours. What is missing in Harold's proposal for the reverse mapping?
Chris: Peter, do you want to take an action?
<AxelPolleres> The issue was: for instance: some languages/systems can NOT deal with e.g. universal conditions, this should be pointed out.
Chris: I suggest to talk about this later.
Peter: There is a requirement to map between 2 different syntaxes. But requirements
on that mapping are empty.
proposed some requirements for the mapping in general.
Christian:We have to review them, you mean. Those requirements were in your first posting. Could you please summarize them for helping reviewing and discussing them?
Peter: The conditions for my requirements to make sense are not satisfied by the RIFRAF.
Chris: Have you made this clear in an email or elsewhere?
Peter: There is something missing in the RIFRAF. This is semantics. Without semantics, how can you figure out if mappings are good or not.
Chris: You mean 'condition language', not RIFRAF.
Peter. agreed
Francois: But as far as I remember a semantics for Harold et al.'s 'condition language' has been stressed.
Chris: Any other business? Adjourn?
<JeffP> +1
<Sandro> +1 adjourn
Chris: No other business. I suggest to adjourn.