Christian: main topic is first release of UCR document
... will be a short meeting; ChrisW is not there

Minutes of last meeting

Christian: objections?

<PaulaP> +1

Christian: no objections

<AxelPolleres> +1

RESOLUTION: Minutes of March 7th meeting are accepted

Christian: minutes of F2F meeting are not there yet
... they will be out shortly

Agenda amendments

<AxelPolleres> +1

<PaulaP> +1

csma: liason to be done after discussion of UCR document [no objections]

F2F meeting

csma: F2F3: result of straw poll: majority for 8-9 June

csma: propose to have F2F3 in Budva on June 8-9

<sandro> +1

+1

<PaulaP> +1

<igor> +1

<MarkusK> +1

<Donald_Chapin> =1

<Darko> +1

RESOLUTION: F2F3 will be in Budva, June 8-9

csma: F2F4: action on pfps to find sponsor
... he did not find anyone (see email)
... suggestion from pfps for people going to iswc could sponsor meeting
... action on Ed to propose solution related to business rules forum (is at same time as iswc in Washington)

Ed: there is meeting space available on 10-11, following brf (business rules forum)
... 10th is holiday in US (minor annoyance to US-based people)
... seconds observation that co-location with iswc would probably be better in terms of getting rif to move forward

csma: when does iswc end?

pfps: ruleml is 9-10; owl workshop is 10-11

csma: 10-11 is conflict with these events; thus these dates are not an option
... if connected with brf, it should be scheduled before

<MarkusK> For the protocol: we are talking about November.

<edbark> I will tell Terry Moriarty (BRF) that we will not use the space on 10-11

csma encourages participants in the WG to sponsor F2F meetings, and especially the F2F4 in November

UC&R document

csma: we want to have a vote on releasing first public working draft
... working group decision on this publication needs to be recorded
... a complete consensus for the first working draft is not necessary, but is desirable

csma proposes to discuss the objections which people may have

csma: we will vote on the results of this discussion, including amendments which might come up during the discussion

<sandro> brief discussions to see if there is consensus on each item; if not, the UC gets postponed to WD2

pfps: wants to discuss title and abstract

csma: this can be discussed as well

<AxelPolleres> didn't see it either

csma: if we don't have a consensus on the title, we will keep it, like for the abstract and not for the use cases; we will skip them if there is no consensus

<LeoraMorgenstern> +1 with pfps

pfps: there are no requirements, although this is mentioned in the title and abstract

<PaulV> PaulV apologizes for being late...

<AxelPolleres> +1 with solution 1 from pfps

pfps: either we put a stub (TODO) or we change the title and abstract to reflect the fact that there are no requirements

<edbark> +1 to stub

Sandro: title can be changed in the middle of the process, but it would probably be better to have a stub

<josb> +1 to stub

<DavidHirtle> +1 to stub

<igor> +1 to stub

<GiorgosStoilos> +1 to stub

csma: +1 to stub

<Allen> +1 to stub

<PaulaP> +1

RESOLUTION: there will be a stub in the UC&R document which marks that requirements will follow in a later version

<scribe> ACTION: editors of the UCR document to write a stub which marks that requirements will follow in a later version [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/14-rif-minutes.html#action01]

<edbark> not just "later draft", "next draft"

csma: let's more to use cases
... should we have an introductory paragraph to the use cases?

Allen: I sent this to the email list

csma: would like this to include a comment about the nearly 50 use cases which are now summarized into the 8 more abstract use cases

Axel: why are there no references to the original use cases?

<sandro> +1 add reference to use cases on WIki

<PaulaP> +1

csma: would we have this in the final document (the recommendation)?
... what would be the purpose of this?

<igor> +1 for Wiki refs

Axel: thinks it might be interesting for some people

csma: to move discussion to later draft

<sandro> link to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Use_Cases ? or where on WIki?

Harold: thinks that the final document could contain a link to the wiki page on UCR

<MarkusK> Linking to wiki pages yields a versioning problem

<MarkusK> Wikis are not stable.

sandro: link to wiki will not stay in public draft

<AxelPolleres> you can link to specific versions in the wiki

csma: links seem too complex and confusing to the reader

<DavidHirtle> it could be as simple as making "fifty use cases" link back to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Use%20Cases I'd think

<scribe> ACTION: chair to include the discussion on this issue (links to wiki in public drafts) in the agenda for the next telecon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/14-rif-minutes.html#action02]

Allen: what does it mean to reference original use cases, because they are not discussed or agreed upon in the group

<MarkusK> [wiki version] This requires you to have 50 complicated urls, right?

csma: Use case 1.1
... no registered objections

<DavidHirtle> @MarkusK, no - just the link above

csma: to discuss Axel, Dave and Paula's comments

<AxelPolleres> I would rewrite

<AxelPolleres> "widget" to "ordered good" or "purchase order item"

<FrankMcCabe> talking about widget is traditional

csma: Axel's comment: 'widget' seems sloppy

Allen: what do you want to have instead?

csma: seems easy to have something more serious

<AxelPolleres> ok

Allen: change 'widget' to 'item'

<LeoraMorgenstern> grammar issues: you'll need to have "some items," "the items," e.g,

RESOLUTION: in use case 1.1, 'widget' will be replaced with 'item'

<LeoraMorgenstern> rather than just a string substitution of "item" for "widget"

<DavidHirtle> minor comment, Allen: "food stuff" --> "foodstuff"

Axel: did not object to publishing it now, but it should be discussed what the discussion is between 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5

<sandro> DavidHirtle, (I find "foodstuff" clumsy and wonder if "beverage" wouldn't be better.)

<scribe> ACTION: Axel to send email on redundancy between use cases 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 and what should be done [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/14-rif-minutes.html#action03]

<Allen> how about "perishable" instead of "food stuff"

<sandro> (yes, perishable is good)

<DavidHirtle> perishable: "Something, especially foodstuff, subject to decay or spoilage"

<DavidHirtle> but I agree, it's better

csma: other objections to use case 1.1?
... no
... use case 1.2
... comment Dave: need for interchange should be made more clear

<PaulaP> I think this is clear enough in this version

Dave: no objection to publishing at this time
... the case for the rules to be exposed is not clear; it even seems that the information should be protected in this case

csma agrees with Dave's comment

csma: let's move on for now
... editors to correct the mentioned typo

Frank: about 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 begin similar: I actually think they are different

<DavidHirtle> (I just fixed the typo Paula pointed out in 1.2)

<PaulaP> ok

<AxelPolleres> The narrative/scenario in 1.1,1.4,1.5 are very similar, the differences should be made clearer or a merged use case should cover all aspects. I will send a mail on that.

<GaryHallmark> can the rules be boxed rather than bulleted for consistency?

Frank: about exchange rules vs. exchanging queries: distinction is made in section on processes

csma: no objection to keeping 1.2 with the typo correction
... Use case 1.3
... all commenters propose last paragraph to be dropped

<DavidHirtle> Gary, they should be boxed in this latest version (in the wiki)

<IanH> Can someone tell me my port number? I joined a couple of minutes ago.

Allen: last paragraph is about SOA; no objection to removing that

<DavidHirtle> Gary, I see you must be talking about 1.2 -- you're right

Frank: would like to keep the paragraph, because we need a connection with web services

<PaulaP> we could have another use case in the next UCR version

<PaulaP> on web services and soa

<FrankMcCabe> +1

Axel: issue of service-level agreements is important, but it is not clear how it relates to this use case; perhaps a new use case is necessary to capture this aspect

csma: no real objections to keep this text, so we'll keep the text for the first public draft

ChrisW joins

csma: Use case 1.4
... comments: that it is similar to 1.1 and 1.5; this is already put into an action for Axel
... other comment by Axel: would like more examples

Frank: could have a look at that
... the original use case had an additional example

Allen: there was a second rule, but it did not seem to refer to anything

<DavidHirtle> if the product is available in the warehouse in sufficient quantity then order quantity can be met

<DavidHirtle> is the rule that was cut out

csma: no objections to keeping the use case as it is
... use case 1.5
... comment about redundancy
... proposal to remove one part; supported by Dave and Paula

<PaulaP> I didn't offer support for removing something from 1.5

Donald: thinks it should be discussed for the second draft, because there is a difference of opinions

<PaulaP> just said that it would be good to have more on rif in the second part

<DavidHirtle> (but you did say it was a bit long)

<PaulaP> no hard objections

<DaveReynolds> no hard objection

<PaulaP> no hard objections

<PaulaP> I accept the section

<PaulaP> no problem

chrisw (w/o chair's hat): objects to the use case as it stands; would like to move it to the "under development section"

<sandro> (I'm trying to figure out if this is the place to use an Issue.)

csma: can you accept the document as a whole with the use case as it is

chrisw (w/o chair's hat): thinks this is not really a use case for RIF

csma: sandro proposes that this can be added as an issue to the issues list

sandro: is not sure whether this is an issue for the issues list, because the issues list seems more for the technical issues, whereas this is a scope issue

edbark: there is a tight deadline, but there are still many comments
... maybe we should have another round of edits before the first public draft

<AxelPolleres> +1 to Edbark, I don't see this objection a harder point than the others, I removed my objections for the undersstanding that this is about getiing something out NOW

csma: W3C says that drafts should be published as early as possible

edbark: nobody will disagree with publishing a really early rough draft
... it is not necessary to go over all the use cases now

<AxelPolleres> +1 again

<csma> ack

<PaulaP> +1 for Ed

Frank: 2 threads in this use case: (1) whether the rules are interpreted by the people and (2) rules about interorganizational business policies

+1 for Ed

Frank: if it's about human execution, agree with chrisw

Donald: is about specification of rules which are interpreted by both people and machines

Allen: we don't want to use RIF for negotiation about what rules look like

csma: chrisw's point is whether a rule is interpreted by a human or a machine(?)
... Frank and chrisw possibly object to use case included in first draft

chrisw: objects to use case as it is

csma: thus use case is moved to section "under development"

Donald: what if we remove paragraph to which chrisw objects from first draft and discuss it later?

chrisw: yes

Frank: objects to first paragraph; should be dropped

<sandro> Discussion is on dropping "EU-Rent UK finds some problems in applying the rules. One is that sometimes it has to give free upgrades to customers. It wants to have one of the rules for insurance tax changed."

<sandro> or maybe not.

<PaulaP> I don't think the first para should be dropped

Donald: many people think first paragraph should not be dropped

<Allen> we should publish it so we can get comments from outside the rif

Frank: additional comment: should be faced at some point

<PaulaP> but we can accept 1.5 at moment

Allen: if we don't publish it, we don't know what the rest of the world thinks

csma: no hard objections to publishing the use case with the paragraph to which chrisw objects removed

RESOLUTION: include 1.5 in WD1 with the lines ChrisW objected to removed

<scribe> ACTION: editors to remove paragraph to which chrisw objects [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/14-rif-minutes.html#action04]

csma: use case 1.6

<PaulaP> no

csma: any objection to removing last part, after "Bob recently suffered a concussion" of the use case

<LeoraMorgenstern> I think it should be discussed

Allen: do we need a disclaimer?

csma: different issue from removing part of the use case to align the length of the use case with the other use cases

Leora: doesn't see the disclaimer

<PaulaP> I don't have it either

Leora: disclaimer should be reworded (sent in email); we should say it *may* be inaccurate, not that it is inaccurate

<Deborah_Nichols> Disclaimer is in this version: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Ruleset_Integration__for_Medical_Decision_Support

<Allen> Note: in the interest of readability and brevity, the information and rules presented in the following scenario may not precisely capture the current state of medical knowledge and best practices in this field, but may be somewhat simplified.

<DavidHirtle> Paula, regarding your "these rules" comment, would it be fine with you to just remove "these"?

Leora: it would be a pity to remove the part

<DavidHirtle> (I think it's still clear)

<DavidHirtle> i.e. "Decision support systems aid in the process of human decision making, especially decision making that relies on expertise. Reasoning with rules is an important part of this expert decision making."

Leora: prescription example could be made shorter and we could leave the part

<PaulaP> yes for David's question

<DavidHirtle> I'll make the change now

<PaulaP> ok

<DaveReynolds> Yes acceptable as is

RESOLUTION: include use case 1.6 in the WD with the disclaimer added

csma: use case 1.7
... comment Axel: should be extended, especially regarding motivation
... not easy to solve quickly; comment Paula: acronyms MRI and MAE should be defined

<PaulaP> MRI stands for magnetic resonance imaging

<PaulaP> I don't know about MAE

<PaulaP> no objections

RESOLUTION: use case 1.7 to be included with the definitions of MRI and MAE added

csma: use case 1.8
... is more of a placeholder

<AxelPolleres> no

csma: Axel said it should be developed and could help with the development

RESOLUTION: use case 1.8 to be included in WD as is

csma: proposal to publish first public draft of WD
... will call the vote

See the complete Record of the vote.

AGFA: yes

<AxelPolleres> would +1 by each org on icq not be sufficient?

DERI galway: yes

DERI Innsbruck: yes

SRI:

<JosDeRoo> zakim. mute me

<csma> ETRI

ETRI: absent

<sandro> let say "absent" for ETRI

<MarkusK> FZI: yes

FairIsaac: yes

Bolzano: abstain

fujitsu: yes

<MarkusK> DFKI: absent

<IanH> BTW, re 1.7, MAE is Material Anatomical Entity

<DaveReynolds> HP: yes

IBM: yes

iLog: yes

IVML: yes

<igor> JSI: yes

University of Maryland: absent

MITRE: yes

<Allen> MITRE: yes

<edbark> NIST: yes

<Harold> NRC: yes

Nokia: absent

OMG: yes

OntologyWorks: absent

<GaryHallmark> Oracle: yes

<csma> pragati

<sandro> 23 Pragati Synergetic Research Inc.

Pragati: yes

<PaulaP> yes for REWERSE

REWERSE: yes

Sandpiper software: absent

SRI: yes

SUN: absent

University of Aberdeen: yes

University of Manchester: abstain

Ben Grosof: absent

Michael Kifer: yes

Chris Menzel: absent

W3C: yes

RESOLUTION: WG to release WD1

csma: applause for ourselves
... we need to ask for approval from the director to publish the first WD

sandro: comments to the draft will come in on public-rif-comments@w3.org
... everyone in the WG should be in that list
... suggests to give 4 weeks for public comments

csma: review period 2-4 weeks

<sandro> RESOLVED: 4 week comment period