See also: IRC log
ChrisW: Resolution: minutes from
2-21 telecon are accepted.
ChrisW: [Initiated discussion to make sure all scribes at F2F have been accurately recorded]
<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/ScribesList
<Allen> I scribed for an hour at the F2F
<msintek> yes I did
<Allen> yes
ChrisW: minutes from F2F still being stitched together.
<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Feb/0218.html
ChrisW: Regarding next F2F, vote is needed to decide between June 8-9 and June 9-10. Problem is that June 10 is the date of a workshop that is of interest to RIF people.
ChrisW: Vote on phone? Or have straw poll?
Sandro: has set up poll to vote on this. Proposes giving people a few more days to vote.
<MarkusK> +1
<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/38457/f2f3dates/
ChrisW: Vote on straw poll (one vote per organization) will end Thursday at midnight.
<igor> URL of the F2F poll?
<sandro> straw poll is at: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/38457/f2f3dates/
<josb> Paul, I assigned the caller to your name
Sandro: action to set up straw poll is done.
<csma> ACTION: Sandro to organize WBS vote on f2f meeting [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action01]
<csma> ACTION: AxelP to set up logistics F2F page. see http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F3 [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action02]
<csma> ACTION: Peter P-S to make proposal on Wiki for F2F at ISWC, Athens, Nov 2006. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Mar/0044.html [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action03]
<Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask who is offering to pay for F2F4
<csma> ACTION: PFPS to try to find somebody to sponsor the F2F4 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action04]
ChrisW, Sandro, and Peter (P-S): [discussion of sponsorship of next F2F]
<sandro> PFPS: $25 per person per day *NOT* *INCLUDING* lunch
<PaulaP> DERI and REWERSE are for the F2F3
ChrisW: IBM not able to sponsor, certainly not entirely:
PFPS: neither can Free University of Bolzano
ChrisW: but IBM can probably do partial support
<AxelPolleres> I just wanted to say what paula already wrote on the irc
<AxelPolleres> ... in collaboration with KWeb
<josb> ... and ESSI
<sandro> http://www.businessrulesforum.com/
<Allen> I can look into mitre possiblilities
PFPS, ChrisW: [Some discussion of 4th F2F --- perhaps have in Washington, D.C.?]
<sandro> edbark: In DC I think we (NIST) can sponsor
<johnhall> Ron Ross of Business Rules Forum is in San Jose with Donald and me this week
(deleted)
<csma> ACTION: EdB to propose solution for F2F4 in relation with BRF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action05]
PFPS: Nothing much to discuss with regard to liaison
<PaulV> PRR - no update
<csma> ACTION: Dieter to review the Requirements http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Requirements [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action06]
<josb> I'm not sure whether it makes sense to review this document now, after all the discussions
<AxelPolleres> +1 from my side
<csma> ACTION: Axel to review the Requirements http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Requirements. see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Feb/0178.html [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action07]
<PaulaP> I don't think there is a need for commenting the requirements anymore
<csma> ACTION: JosDB to review the Requirements http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Requirements. see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Feb/0197.html [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action08]
<csma> ACTION: Chris Welty will come up with another example narrative for a RichKR use case . action deprecated by f2f resolution on section [DROPPED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action09]
<csma> ACTION: Dieter to review the Requirements http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Requirements [DROPPED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action10]
<csma> ACTION: Chris Welty will come up with another example narrative for a RichKR use case . action deprecated by f2f resolution on section [DROPPED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action11]
<csma> ACTION: csma will incite data access discussion on mailing list [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action12]
<csma> ACTION: Allen to respond to "Third Party" comments. see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Feb/0247.html [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action13]
<csma> ACTION: Chris to respond to RichKR comments (completed by IanH). [see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Feb/0215.html] [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action14]
<csma> ACTION: Christian to respond to "Publication" comments. action deprecated by f2f resolution on section [DROPPED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action15]
<csma> ACTION: Ed to synthesize comments on Coverage by Friday and propose ways to answer the comments. see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Feb/0250.html [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action16]
<PaulV> Action - not done!
<PaulV> Action - continued - will do tonight
<csma> ACTION: ?FrankMcCabe to respond to "Information Integration" comments. action deprecated by f2f resolution on section [DROPPED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action17]
<IanH> Yes
<csma> ACTION: Leora to respond to "Decision Support" comments. see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Feb/0251.html [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action18]
<csma> ACTION: paula to clarify list of requirements taking comments into account. see RIFUCR - List of Classified Requirements (with Duplicate Elimination) [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action19]
<csma> ACTION: Paula to respond to "Policy-Based..." comments. see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Feb/0242.html [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action20]
<csma> ACTION: PaulV to respond to "Cross-Platform..." comments. action deprecated by f2f resolution [DROPPED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action21]
<csma> ACTION: Said to respond to Human rules comments. Action deprecated by f2f resulution [DROPPED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action22]
<csma> ACTION: Said to rspond to "Third Party" comments. Action completed by AllenG. [DROPPED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action23]
<csma> ACTION: PaulV to modify UC 2.3, new title ("Negotiating e-Busines Contracts across Rule Platforms") and different description. [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action24]
<csma> Action on UC&R editors to change title of 2.4 to Disclosing and Negotiating Buyer and Seller Policies and Preferences in eCommerce Transactions. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Mar/0024.html [DONE]
<csma> ACTION: PFPS to ask Ian to make changes to use case RichKR ( remove uncle example and replace with brain anatomy example; make title be Interchanging rule extensions to OWL - A Brain Anatomy Research Example). see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Mar/0044.html [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action25]
<csma> ACTION: ?FranckMcCabe to remove data integration from 2.1, retitle (Access to Business Rules of Supply Chain Partners), and revise, ensuring that there are rules there. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Mar/0031.html [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action26]
<csma> ACTION: Sandro to add new use case about data integration (title: "Vocabularly Mapping for Data Integration"). [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action27]
<csma> ACTION: Allan as editor of UCR to remove 2.6. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Mar/0024.html [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action28]
<csma> ACTION: Chris to tell Leora to make changes to 2.2 (change title to Ruleset integration for Medical Decision Support, drop e-learning, concentrate on prescription part (and extend slightly). [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action29]
<csma> ACTION: John, Don, Said - Retitle UC "Managing Inter-Organizational Business Policies and Practices" and rewrite. [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action30]
<csma> ACTION: Christian to create new Wiki page for requirements [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action31]
<csma> ACTION: Chris to start email discussion about what issues are "fuzzy" wrt phase 1 & 2 [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action32]
<PaulV> Can someone point a link to the minutes/actions? Can't see on WIKI...
<PaulV> (Referring to F2F)
Sandro: suggests, for future draft, starting afresh for new use cases
ChrisW: this would be second draft candidate use cases
cmsa: this second draft would include new use cases as well as for old use cases that people feel weren't really taken into account
<PaulaP> Francois had also a couple of actions, but I don't see them in the telecon's agenda
<csma> ACTION: UCR editors to create a new Wiki page for collecting 2nd draft UC candidates [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action33]
<AxelPolleres> Do I need to take care to link mine there, or will you, Allen?
ChrisW: reasonable to get next use case draft out tomorrow for vote?
<ChrisW> ^vote^review^
Allen: If no further editing is needed, yes.
Sandro: can then generate a frozen version
cmsa: what about Axel's proposal? Hasn't undergone as much review as the others.
ChrisW: Goal, to release this as new working draft by next telecon (March 14).
<csma> ACTION: UCR editors prepare draft for review by Wednesday night and send email to the list when the draft is ready [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action34]
ChrisW: assumes that review won't be a problem, and vote to accept will go through.
cmsa: What is the process for review? Poll?
ChrisW: No, just read and post comments.
<sandro> (Yes, Frank, Tracker has been set up -- but there are no specific plans to use it for anything yet.)
<Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask about section 1
sandro: discussion about section 1
cmsa: recollection is that section 1 does not seem ready.
sandro: So frozen version should contain just section 2, plus stub on section 1, saying what will go there, eventually
cmsa: proposal to start collecting requirements in an organized way, without having to redo already completed work. Proposal to set up format for requirements, have people enter already proposed requirements in format, have people vote on them (e.g., suggest subsets of requirements).
sandro and ChrisW: [discussion about how much we can pin down the requirements, at this early phase].
<csma> +1 to what ChrisW said
sandro: will have to open up discussion about design in order to more completely pin down the requirements.
<csma> ACTION: Chris to start email discussion about what issues are "fuzzy" wrt phase 1 & 2 [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action35]
<StanDevitt> Are the requirements linked to the relevant use cases?
<csma> ACTION: JeffP, Hassan to review RAF pag [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action36]
<csma> ACTION: Harold to explain technically the basis for interoperation between PR and Horn rules. What pure production rules are - item 2 on slides (slide 5) “Syntactic and semantic extensions of Horn Logic”, points 2.1.1 - 2.1.3 [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action37]
<csma> ACTION: JeffP to propose slight extension to medical decision support UC. [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action38]
<csma> ACTION: csma to send an email to make a distinction between OWL and RIF roles [DROPPED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action39]
<csma> ACTION: Frank to make his point about semantics of production rules on the mailing list. [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/07-rif-minutes.html#action40]
ChrisW: [Initiated discussion about OWL/RDF compatibility.]
sandro: not caught up with the discussion, given all the other work.
ChrisW: it's an important topic, so once we get through the use case work, we should try to be prepared for a discussion next week.
cmsa: discussion between Francois and Bijan --- about requirements for reasoning in the RIF --- is also important.
<Francois> +1
ChrisW, cmsa: these are important for the design of the RIF.
<sandro> +1 Frank -- many of the questions about how RIF carries OWL are more generally about how RIF carries other languages.
<Uli> +1
<Francois> +1
<sandro> Frank: It won't be possible to map OWL to RIF without loss.
cmsa: while not necessarily role of RIF to translate, according to charter, must at least specify in which cases mapping is or is not possible.
FrankMcCabe: [said what he typed below: In essence: There is a difference between mapping and representing; mapping may be impossible, but representing should be possible.]
<sandro> Note on what the charter actually says, see http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/charter#deliverables , "Deliverables: A W3C Recommendation on using this rule interchange format in combination with OWL." etc.
<FrankMcCabe> There is a difference between mapping and representing.
<ChrisW> frank, if you could type your comment into the irc
<FrankMcCabe> I believe mapping will be impossible for all interesting rule languages. However representing is more of a meta-level annotation and should be doable
Ed: There are a bunch of things, such as transitive closure, that rules engines typically can't do. Is this what's meant by lack of compatibility?
IanH: If we have semantic compatibility, may not be necessary to have a mapping.
<MarkusK> +1
IanH: Conversely, if there's no semantic compatibility, will be hard to construct mapping.
<FrankMcCabe> +1
<JeffP> +1
<josb> +1 to Uli's comment
Uli: Idea that ontologies and rules live in the same KB. In this case, mapping not really necessary.
<sandro> (people saying "+1" should probably make sure the IRC log reflects the statement you are agreeing with)
<StanDevitt> +1
<csma> +1
<PaulaP> +1
<josb> I agree with Uli's comment that it should be clear how OWL DL and RIF interoperate, not how to interchange OWL DL using RIF