See also: IRC log
< ChrisW > did everyone just get bumped?
I just connected.
< ChrisW > stan, are you all set?
Yes.
< ChrisW > scribenick: StanDevitt
TOPIC: Approval of Minutes of Last Meeting
< ChrisW > minutes of last meeting: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006May/att-0013/2006-05-02-rif-minutes.html
Minutes accepted - no objections.
TOPIC: Agenda Amendments
There were no additions to the Agenda
TOPIC: Update on F2F3 in Montenegro
Discussion: Some concerns about Hotel confirmation problems.
< PaulaP > no news
Paula thinks they are just a bit slow.
< DavidHirtle > This happened to me also, but I got in touch with them today by phone
Local organizers are aware of it.
< scribe > ACTION: All attendees for F2F3 check their reservations [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/09-rif-minutes.html#action01 ]
TOPIC: Update on F2F4
No update on colocation with IWC at this time.
TOPIC: SPARQL
SPARQL has a new chair
SPARQL went to a Candidate Recommendation on April 7.
< sandro > :-( :-( (Jos de Roo having less time to spend on W3C and open-source work)
Jos Deroo does not have the time to attend SPARQL and RIF at this time so cannot take on the Liason activity.
Searching for representative to coordinate with SPARQL.
< sandro > Sandro: I believe DAWG uses UTC because of some Australians who are no longer in the group.
< scribe > ACTION: Jos DeRoo will identify someone. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/09-rif-minutes.html#action02 ]
TOPIC: XQUERY, XPATH
No reps present for XQUERY, XPath
< Hassan > Who is scribing today?
< sandro > Hassan, StanDevitt is scribing.
TOPIC: SBVR (OMG)
< johnhall > SBVR - still on schedule, issues close in July.
TOPIC: ODM
no news from ODM
< JosDeRoo > ChrisW: Re DAWG: The formal overlap is: Enrico Franconi, Dan Connolly, Sergio Tessaris, Jos De Roo, Sven Groppe, and Bijan Parsia.
TOPIC: Review actions
< LeoraMorgenstern > I emailed two things just a few minutes ago. I have laryngitis so it's hard for me to speak.
< LeoraMorgenstern > They are just text and not in the wiki. Is email good enough?
< sandro > I think e-mail is good enough for now. If we need them in the wiki, anyone can put them there.
NOTE: LEORA has completed her two ACTIONS.
NOTE: ACTIONS 9 10 and 12 still open. The rest are closed.
NOTE: Action on Frank is still active from Friday.
TOPIC: Discuss GCR strawman by Frank.
< ChrisW > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Goals%2C_Critical_Success_Factors_and_Requirements
TOPIC: Frank's version of document
< sandro > Question: A small group has a conscensus on these goals. What does the larger group think? This is an informal poll.
Request for a discussion for why these three goals (Exchange of rules, Widescale adoption, and Consistency with W3C specs) are important from Sandro.
Discussion led by Sandro:
Why are these important - there is a trade off. What makes interchange easy versus wide deployment. This trade off is a common problem in W3C specs development. By making these 3 goals top level goals the trade-offs are more obvious.
< DavidHirtle > I think they look good.
David Reynolds: too passive a way of phrasing it. Should be more a goal of enabling semantic web ...
Sandro: thinks this semantic web goal is a 4th goal. There may be more. There is no conscencus on a 4th goal yet .
< sandro > Goal: 1: Rule Interchange, 2: Widespead Adoption, 3: Consistency with W3C Specs,
< sandro > Possible Goal 4: Consistency with W3C / Semantic Web Vision ?
Dave not opposed to finding a 4th goal out of this.
SUBTOPIC: first goal
any objections ? NONE
SUBTOPIC: second goal
< sandro > second goal: Wide Scale Adoption - any comments - objections?
none
objections as a goal?
comment: seems like a different sort of goal - higher level
Isn't this goal common to all W3C work?
answer: by Sandro similar to the first goals in that they are sort of obvious but needs stating.
The criteria for a good goal is that if you ignore it - you fail
Peter: If wide scale adoption is a goal shouldnt the actions be publicity?
scribe comment:
no action yet to be decided in the discussion
... not the only goal.
Peter: question - what is activity of the group - as determined by goals. There is a concern if the goal leads to the wrong activity.
< Allen > How about "widescale adoptabilITY"
< Hassan > Isn't Wide Scale Adoption a CSF (Critical Success Factor) rather than a goal?
A proposal arising out of discussion: rephrase as something along the lines of "design something that can be adopted widely."
risk: With the original goal as proposed, the Working group will not be finished till we achieve wide adoption.
Requirement must be met. Goals need not.
A goal is not measurable? Requirements are.
There is a distinction between where you want to be and what you need to do to get there.
Allan:
Changing it to something that indicates the intention of building something that can serve the role of widescale adoption is preferred.
< sandro > "Design for Widespread Adoption" ?
Agrees with Peter's point that there is a difference.
< sandro > Allen, are you arguing for the goal being " Design for Widespread Adoption " ?
< Allen > Sandro, that sounds better
A success factor is not a goal.
examples of goals - simplicity ... etc.
sandro: thinks the terminolgy is being used differently by Frank McCabe and Hassan
< DaveReynolds > +1 to Sandro, in this methodology this is a goal
< Zakim > sandro, you wanted to argue that we need to do more than design for W.A.
< Sandro > Why the goal needs to be wide spread adoption is because there will be activities outside of the design that will be important and should be included. This may be activities by our companies. We all would feel a sense of failure if it is not wide spread.
sandro: Does the rewording as "design for" work better for everyone?
Peter = yes
Hassan = yes
< PaulaP > I can do that
< johnhall > I like it as it is. If we don't achieve wide-scale adoption, we will in the broader sense have failed
< sandro > (design for) widespread adoption
Sandro: not entirely happy with rewording ...
< sandro > semi-resolved: " (design for) widespread adoption " ?
SUBTOPIC: Second goal discussion - Wide Scale Adoption
request for comments - no response.
< sandro > looking at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Goals%2C_Critical_Success_Factors_and_Requirements
Critical Success factor: soundess
Exchange of rules: coverage?
The Coverage is okay in general, but needs flushing out.
Second item (Soundness) needs a better title - too much of a technical meaning.
observation that Frank had commented that we need to be careful to avoid confusion.
Chris - mentions goal of semantic aware exchange in this sense too.
Allen is not happy with the wording of Soundness. Suggests something like Meaning preserving.
< Hassan > I prefer "Meaning Preserving" as well (like Allen mentioned) rather than "Soundness"
< comment: > Discussion about a new action to help with wording but there is some preference to finish related actions first ...
Allen comments that there is still a lot of disussion and is a broad topic. Does it still mean what it did when Sandro proposed the term?
There is a lot here that are all points under discussion.
Sandro feels these are not the critical factors but not sure yet what they are.
Ian: We need to understand the problem before saying it solved.
Axel: Extensibility is not in this list? Why?
< Hassan > +1 on extensibility (indeed)
Is it hidden under coverage? probably not.
< sandro > ChrisW -- does it make a lot of sense to have this discussion without Frank?
comment: (by ChrisW) extensibility is somewhere in Paula's document - but a good point.
< ChrisW > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Apr/0068.html
introduction: a lot of discussion on email
Chris is not clear where people stand on this as a syntax for condition rules?
Peter: What is the syntax? Is it more than a syntax of functional in the general functional style first order logic? If not, why is it causing a problem?
comments from authors?
< DavidHirtle > (not many are here)
< AxelPolleres > Alex is.
< Hassan > Jeff Giorgos and Alex are listed as present
note: authors are not well represented (or not active) on the call.
< GiorgosStoilos > GiorgosStamou was an author
< Hassan > I already wrote my position ...
< sandro > maybe you should speak to it, Hassan.....
< sandro > I wont be able to evaluate this proposal without trying to implement it
< sandro > Hassan: what's interesting is that it relies on RIFRAF
comments: We need to work on the language structure. The technology of getting to a linear syntax is standard technology.
QUESTION: Is owl sufficient?
< AxelPolleres > -1 on OWL sufficient to describe conditions, but not sure whether I understand this question right?!?
< Francois > Sorry, I must leave now... See/hear you later...
< sandro > Ciao, Francois.
ChrisW: suggests leaving this discussion till the authors are present.
< sandro > AxelPolleres, I wasn't suggesting OWL for describing conditions -- but for describing RIFRAF.
< AxelPolleres > thnx for clarification.
ChrisW: proposal to go back to the success factors. There are still to success factors two discuss.
< AxelPolleres > +1
< Hassan > +1 on waiting for the authors, but we need to bite the bullet of RIFRAF at one point!
< ChrisW > RIFRAF: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Rulesystem_Arrangement_Framework
ChrisW asks for suggestions for actions to prepare for next week.
Hassan suggests an ACTION to take a ILOG and LIFE and looking at RIFRAF and trying to see how they match.
< scribe > ACTION: Hassan will finish this comparison exercise [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/09-rif-minutes.html#action03 ] (see action 4)
EDITORIAL NOTE: action item 3 is superceded by action item 4.
< sandro > ACTION: Hassan analyse how RIFRAF applies to J-Rules, to help us evaluate RIFRAF. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/09-rif-minutes.html#action04 ]
Everyone should try out the concept in the language they have in mind. keep in mind - can I represent my constructs using this proposal?
< sandro > The exercise is to see if the RIFRAF represents all the properties of rulesystems that people in this WG care about.
We want more people and more languages to do this review?
< PaulaP > We have Xcerpt and XChange
< sandro > ACTION: Paula to try to apply RIFRAF to Xcerpt and XChange [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/09-rif-minutes.html#action05 ]
Someone to do this for SWRL?
< sandro > Peter: why would anyone want to do this?
< sandro > Chris offers a beer
< AxelPolleres > Probably the authors of the Exensible design doc.can exemplify by FLORA-2, WSML, SWSL-Rules, etc. I myself could do something on the DLV language, which is essentially datalog with various useful extensions such as aggregates, external predicates, etc. if this would be of interest.
< sandro > Chris: I would be good to know if RIFRAF is adequate to the task of figuring out if RIF will cover rule languages.
< sandro > ACTION: Peter, apply RIFRAF to SWRL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/09-rif-minutes.html#action06 ]
< Hassan > What about a beer for me??? :-)
< sandro > Chris: Beer for Hassan, too.
< AxelPolleres > ack
Other volunteers?
Axel comments that the authors will probably be doing this against the languages they represent.
< sandro > ACTION: Axel, apply RIFRAF to DLV [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/09-rif-minutes.html#action07 ]
Still needs to check.
Other volunteers?
< sandro > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/DLV
< sandro > +1 end early
ChrisW: return to CSF or end early?
Paula: leave it for next call as we need to merge documents, and incorporate discussions?
< sandro > Paula: let's wait, since Frank and I have work to do on the CSF document first.
Other business?
none
< sandro > +1 adjourn
Adjourn