See also: IRC log
<FrancoisBry> zakim ??P25 is me
<FrancoisBry> zakim please mute me
<pfps> but can you sing along? :-)
<sandro> FrancoisBry, you'll need to say "Zakim, Francois is me".
<FrancoisBry> zakim Francois is me
<sandro> You need the comma, FrancoisBry.
<AlexKozlenkov> AlexKozlenkov joined
<AlexKozlenkov> AlexKozlenkov joined
<AlexKozlenkov> yes I am
<AlexKozlenkov> yes I am
<Donald_Chapin> zakim P43 is me
<AlexKozlenkov> AlexKozlenkov zakim joined
<scribe> Scribe: Mike Dean
<scribe> ScribeNick: mdean
<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Apr/att-0112/01-part
RESOLUTION: accept minutes
<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Apr/att-0120/18-rif-minutes.html
includes revisions based on comments
RESOLUTION: accepted
<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/
now have an action tracker - will now be used for tracking actions
pfps: bug in action tracker:
actions can have no topics
... e.g. action ID 1
... precludes actions by topic
Leora: still working on actions 1 and 2
<sandro> ack +87362aaaa
Leora: questions on FOL
ChrisW: defer discussion to later in agenda
Sandro: actions 3, 4, 6 continued
<LeoraMorgenstern> mdean, not questions on FOL, questions on what we'd like in the draft proposal for FOL
csma: action 9 and 10 continued
ChrisW: any amendments to
agenda?
... no
Sandro: tomorrow is deadline for signing up for bus from airport
<PaulaP> no news
<sandro> REMINDER: TOMORROW IS THE DEADLINE FOR SIGNING UP FOR THE AIRPORT BUS
ChrisW: poll is now closed
<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/38457/f2f4dates/results
<sandro> 5-6 October, McLean, Virginia, US - MITRE Proposal 5 1 5 4 4 2
<sandro> 16-17 October, McLean, Virginia, US - MITRE Proposal 4 4 3 1 7 2
<sandro> 2-3 November, McLean, Virginia, US - MITRE Proposal 2 4 4 3 7 1
<sandro> 4-5 November, Athens, Georgia, US - At ISWC 1 4 6 10
ChrisW: 10 prefer ISWC colocation, 6 second highest - nobody objects - looks like clear favorite
csma: do not have clear local organizer
<PaulaP> how about funding?
pfps: volunteered to handle local
arrangements
... or at least contact and interface with conference
center
ChrisW: this will require each
attendee to register and pay registration fee
... will accept credit cards
ACTION (pfps): set up page with information
ChrisW: email from Daniel Schwabe regarding arrangements for iswc
pfps: aware of at least 2 options for accepting credit cards
ChrisW: tutorials start on the
5th - workshops still not decided (1 day only)
... conference dates are correct - tutorials on Nov 5, not Nov
4
RESOLUTION: f2f4 at ISWC
<AlexKozlenkov> how much is the registration fee?
<PaulaP> +1
ChrisW: thanks to mitre folks for nice proposal - will consider for future meetings
<sandro> +1 thanks for MITRE for their offier!
<AxelPolleres> +1 (for csma and me ;-) )
ChrisW: status of SPARQL?
Sandro: up in the air - Semantic Web Activity reorg hasn't happened yet
<JosDeRoo> it is PR
<josb> candidate
Sandro: SPARQL may be at CR for a while
<josb> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/
ChrisW: XQuery/XPath?
... CL in ISO equivalent of Last Call
... PRR?
csma: recent meeting
Paul: csma should have good presentation at F2F - hope to have update for F2F
<Donald_Chapin> Nothing new
ChrisW: SBVR?
... ODM?
<JosDeRoo> re SPARQL http://www.w3.org/News/2006#x20060406a
ChrisW: presentation at OMG meeting - in OMG equivalent of Last Call
ChrisW: Leora questions on actions
Leora: what do we mean by
FOL?
... specify requirements not syntax
... but some syntax needed for examples
... Question 2: should we just use Common Logic?
ChrisW: question previously
raised by Michael
... CL is fine
... may add or subtract features as necessary
<josb> how is CL the standard for RDF?
Leora: will start with CL
Sandro: some concerns about differences between CL and FOL from Peter?
pfps: don't know
<Zakim> sandro, you wanted to say Any FOL, and not CL
pfps: RDF is based on non-standard FOL that shares some features with underlying semantics of CL
<sandro> Peter: RDF is based on a non-standard view of FOL, which it shares with CL
ChrisW: no standard FOL other
than CL
... CL designed to be very flexible, and allows fragments
<FrancoisBry> +q
ChrisW: start with CL, get refinement from WG - can narrow if needed
josb: what is motivation for
using CL?
... why diverge from textbook definitions
... can substitute symbols as needed for web
pfps: CL is not yet an ISO standard
Leora: can use vanilla FOL and CL and then pick
Sandro: pick vanilla FOL that works with some theorem prover
Frank: disagree that you can't
define FOL without syntax
... enumerate features
... versions of CL have been in standards process for almost a
decade
... why do we need to define FOL if it's not on our
roadmap?
<sandro> (Note syntax for TPTP which is a sort of de-facto FOL interchange format, tptp.org
<josb> Some textbooks which define FOL:
ChrisW: stop discussion - group can respond to Leora's action
Leora: describe critical success
factor
... confused by new document from Paula
... what is CSF for FOL?
csma: earlier discussion about whether FOL is CSF or requirement
<PaulaP> here FOL is a requirement
csma: if requirement, need to identify CSF on which it depends
ChrisW: a little vague - needs to be clarified
<ChrisW> q>
PaulaP: got it
ChrisW: published Friday, not extensive time to review
Frank: interesting list, but
didn't meet Frank's requirements
... most of list is technical requirements about product
... for CSF, consider whether you addressing builder of spec or
users
... too much internal, not enough external
... wrote own CSFs
... goal: wide scale adoption
... CSF: relevant to users
... not FOL or whatever
<ChrisW> Frank's list: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Goals%2C_Critical_Success_Factors_and_Requirements
Frank: may have
subrequirements
... e.g. support for production rules
<FrancoisBry> Is the difference between 'critical sucess factor' and 'requirement' worth being discussed at length?
Frank: may well have multiple?
CSFs
... try not to pre-guess solutions
... Paula's list nice as requirements, but not CSFs
... want to avoid confusion soundness and completeness
... write from customer's point of view
<Hassan> I agree with Frank that ultimately, RIF's success will depend on its usability
Frank: would add Paula's
requirements to this list, linking to use cases important,
desiderata are also nice
... borrowed some from Paula, but somewhat different style
Paula: wide-scale adoption
implied by expressiveness
... sounds a bit too general
... applicable to all W3C work not just RIF
Frank: good point, but could see
situation where someone has a tantrum saying feature X must
bein RIF
... how does the group semi-rationally decide on including that
feature in RIF?
... strong basis: if too expensive or nobody understands it
<sandro> q>
Frank: motherhood and apple pie,
but useful as background to reinforce future discussions
... [explanation of motherhood and apple pie]
<sandro> "motherhood" and "apple pie" are, idiomatically, things which are so good that no one would ever argue against them.
Frank: cost of implementation is important consideration
<Hassan> Frank's making sense to me ...
Dave: ... [missed it - sorry]
ChrisW: goal 1 identical
<sandro> Dave: Frank's "1.2 Widescale Adoption" includes much of what I said in my e-mail to Paula
ChrisW: expressiveness is way to
achieve widescale adoption
... consistency with W3C specs important goal for RIF
... would like to see more discussion at goal level
csma: Paula's goal equivalent to Dave Reynold's interchanges can be meaning preserving
<ChrisW> DaveR's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Apr/0005
csma: what is perceived difference between Dave's proposal for foundation and Frank's compatibility with W3C standards?
Sandro: pretty similar - perhaps
W3C standards and vision
... include things that other Working Group have hinted
at
... middle ground - may be too nebulous
... comments from group?
Dave: isn't this covered by logic
preserving?
... semantics preserving and conformance covered under rule
exchange
ChrisW: what about extensibility?
<PaulaP> +1 to Chris' comment on conformance
ChrisW: not just about soundness, but anticipating different extensions
Hirtle: perhaps need more goals - OWL had 8
Paula: need concrete goals, CSFs, and requirements
<DavidHirtle> one other thing: "Level of expressiveness" doesn't much sound like a goal, but I'm sure it could be rephrased
Frank: trying to avoid prejudging
the outcome - focus on problem
... somewhat fuzzy, but otherwise get lost in weeds
<FrancoisBry> What are your "right questions", Frank????
csma: covering production rules
is probably too fuzzy
... concrete version would be like concrete syntax for PRR
<DavidHirtle> (for comparison, OWL's goals: http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/#section-goals)
Frank: working with Paula - views
are complementary and can be merged into 1
... hoping to merge
csma: statement requirements in such a way that they are useful for design
<sandro> I wonder if it's time to have Frank and Paula go off and come up with a consensus document between them? Do they have enough guidance from us?
<sandro> (Or do they need a 3rd?)
Hassan: also don't see
contradiction - external usage is important
... reduce search space
... willing to help if needed
Dave: quite a few are
compatible
... but emphasis on simplicity vs. specificity
<Hassan> It will require work
Dave: trivial merge loses criteria for specific expressivity requirements
Frank: buy-in from everybody
needed as we progress
... some requirements may not fit into overall picture
csma: need more complete
picture
... to identify incompatibilities
ChrisW: can Frank and Paula agree
on goals?
... without requirements for now
Sandro: also include requirements that have been discussed
ChrisW: agree first on initial set of goals
ACTION (Frank, Paula): propose goals - within next couple days if possible - for discussion next week
<sandro> Frank/Paula goal recorded as http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/11
<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Apr/0068.html
Chris: design for
extensibility
... out for over a week
csma: like the proposal quite a
lot - authors did a good job
... orthogonal to extensibility mechanism - could be
complemented by it
... staging design
... extensibility should also be discussed
ChrisW: doesn't provide extensibility
Hassan: like grammar-based,
family of languages approach
... achieve extensions by adding new (composible) grammar
rules
Harold: discussion 2 months ago:
modular extensions not appropriate for layers of logic
languages
... different than programming languages
... some ideas for adding negation, etc.
csma: extension mechanism should be added or clarified
<sandro> Harold -- there are two kinds of programming language extensions -- in unix Volume 2 and Volume 3. Volume 3 are just more C code and anyone could do -- they do not add expressive power. Volume 2 require system changes -- they do add expressive power.
<FrancoisBry> Xor is good for bewtter expression and better processing.
Kifer: hint at extensibility mechanism in taxonomy of semantic and syntactic features
<Uli> where would this attribute be attached to?
Hassan: how are we proceeding with this idea?
ChrisW: discussing, silence
generally interpreted as agreement
... discuss via email, will add to agenda next week
... seem to be moving to a menu approach
Kifer: may have initial proposal for a taxonomy in a couple weeks
csma: email lists good for discussion, including counter proposals
<Harold> Sandro -- right, so I guess we meant Volume 2: in logic "system changes" correspond to transit to more expressive logics by adding syntax and semantics.
Hassan: working on new proposal
<PaulV> Bye
adjourned
See Action Tracker
[End of minutes]