1. Admin

csma: will next meeting be quorate due to www2006? Who will be able to attend?
Yes from sandro, josb, EvanWallace, igor, AlexPolleres, aharth, PaulP, DavidHirtle, JeffP, PaulaV
No from Hassan, Uli, PhillpeB, Donald_Chapin, DaveReynolds, MoZ, Allen, mdean

csma: will go ahead with telecon

csma: wait until next meeting to accept minutes from last telecon

2. F2F Meetings

Paula: reminder to register for f2f, form open until June 3

<AxelPolleres> Remark: please register f2f3 the sooner the better, we need an estimate how many persons come.

No update on f2f4

3. Liaison

<scribe> ACTION: JosDeRoo to Identify someone to do the liasion with DAWG [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/16-rif-minutes.html#action01]

<Donald_Chapin> SBVR - nothing new

csma: Proposed WG on web service policy has a draft charter

csma:action all review web service policy WG charter, for next meeting

Axel: can't place action on whole group to review the WS policy charter

<sandro> +1 action items must be on one person

discussion clarifies that the deadline for comments is May 26

csma: re: WS policy charter review, post comments to list if can't be at next telecon

4. Use Cases and Requirements

cmsa actions 9 and 10 are continued

PaulaP: new draft refining Frank's proposal with some of Paula's CSF added, in progress
... plan to do more

action 12 on FrankMcCabe is continued

csma: propose adding use case specifically to cover matchng XML documents

<AxelPolleres> When is the next version due?

Allen: could add to list of use cases rather than add to the 8 summary ones?
... take it from the public comment http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006May/0152.html ?

DavidHirtle: this is an important issue for RIF so clearer statement that RIF works with XML (e.g. in section 1.1) might help

Paula: already have a use case on working with XML data, is it not enough?

<DavidHirtle> here's the link to the XML use case: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Rule-Based_Combined_Access_to_XML_and_RDF_Data

<DavidHirtle> (also included in my email yesterday)

csma: question to GaryHallmark, does his use case fit the commenter's or Paula's?

GaryHallmark: the commenter is primarily suggesting integrity rules
... this is very much on target for his users

GaryHallmark: current use cases are "thin" in covering this requirement

<scribe> ACTION: GaryHallmark to draft XML use case based on one submitted by reviewer and own use cases [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/16-rif-minutes.html#action02]

Sandro: suggests showing draft use case text to the reviewer

csma: anyone have comments on the second review input (Sven Groppe)?
... he seems to be registered as a WG participant and so could review the next draft!

<josb> Sven Groppe is not actively involved in the WG

csma: no date fixed for next draft

Sandro: reminder that members of group should not comment on the public list, but bring comments to the group directly and participate in the WG

SubTopic: Discuss new CSF/Requirements

First discussion: name for SH Prolog

csma: there was a proposal to just talk about ordered horn clauses

Sandro: suggested not to waste more telecon time on this issue]

Next discussion: soundness

Sandro: conclusion that soundness means that inference procedures obey the semantics of the language
... seems to be no disagreement now
... will keep progressing this if something more is needed

Paula: suggest wait for new list of requirements and see if this one is covered

Next discussion: FOL

Next topic: Frank's GCR document

Paula: has modified the document
... worked out some new CSFs but not yet put them in document
... still a draft, hope to have something for discussion and feedback about next week
... aim for draft ready for f2f3 meeting

<JosDeRoo> the diff seems to be http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Goals%2C_Critical_Success_Factors_and_Requirements?action=diff&rev2=5&rev1=4

Allen: suggested modified text for first goal, not yet posted to whole group
... would like to use notion of rule language families to help to structure the description

<scribe> ACTION: Allen to post his proposal to the mail list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/16-rif-minutes.html#action03]

5. RIFRAF

action 15 on AxelPolleres [CONTINUED] extend to cover WRL as well

action 16 on Hassan [DONE]

action 18 on pfps [DONE]

action 17 on Paula [CONTINUED]

csma: to Hassan, would it be interesting to apply RIFRAF to a pure constraint rule language?

Hassan: yes for a rule-based constraint language like Life, already done

Harold: will respond on Hassan's suggestions, points out that RIFRAF is only intended for phase 1

Hassan: hopes the feedback will prompt a more complete ontology

csma: call for more volunteers to apply RIFRAF to their own rule language

Sandro: suggests waiting, giving time for RIFRAF to be modified before kicking off more

<SaidTabet> Agree with Sandro! good point

JeffP: Looking at Constraint Interchange Format and how that would map to RIFRAF
... CIF comes from the AKT project

Harold: agree that it is best to work more on the schema before coming back to instances

MichaelKifer: tried to put RIFRAF into a pictorial form
... lots of orthogonal features that can be combined in different ways, hard to put into a 2D diagram
... means that not all describable languages correspond to nodes on the diagram, just too many combinations to show
... has had (off list comments) than rule languages of interest to members don't appear in diagram

Hassan: question to MichaelKifer, HiLog is a language it shouldn't be part of an abstract classification

MichaelKifer: no HiLog is not a language
... it's an idea of adding higher order features to first order logic
... could add comment to clarify this
... other terms like NAF and Fuzzy should also be clarified

csma: how does Michael see this classification used in the WG?

MichaelKifer: e.g. could be basis for tags which can be attached to rule set

csma: also useful to check coverage

Hassan: points out references on conceptual scaling (FAC), formal approach to forming such lattices

csma: but it is instance driven, you need a number of examples

5. Technical Design

csma: want to examine what action is needed to follow up on the proposal from Harold et al
... has impression that there is general agreement that the approach is interesting
... Qustion: declarations of variables, quantification, typing - is that part of the condition language?

Harold: layered system, starts from positive conditions, type system supposed to be optional
... some types may be delegated to RDF Schema or OWL

csma: if have logical rules, the conclusion is expressed in the same language as the condition part, at least syntactically

Harold: started specifically with the condition part only
... for horn the atomic clauses in conclusion are indeed the same as in the condition part

csma: Sense that people agree with notion of starting with the condition part, calls for round table check of views

Hassan: proposal with rule condition parts is just one way to express something used in many rule languages

DaveReynolds: happy as starting point, details to work through

Sandro: yes in same way

Evan: no opinion

Andreas: yes, but not with XML syntax

DonaldChapin: would need to consult with SBVR team

Paula: yes, she and REWERSE fully support the proposal

Josb: yes

Allen: yes, a way to describe the things you are talking about in the language

csma: +1 to Allen

DavidHirtle: yes

Harold: yes!

Axel: yes, comments on details

Igor: yes, good start

Uli: yes, contains eveything needed in conditions, good start

<johnhall> yes

moz: yes

JeffP: yes

<Darko> yes

MikeDean: yes

Gary: yes

Deborah: yes

<GiorgosStoilos> yes

JosDeRoo: yes:  The SPARQL Where Clause should be considered (without Filter) as the Condition language here

<AxelPolleres> Refinement for the notes: Jos said, SPARQL *WHERE clause*. IMO, we should also have full sparql queries in rule bodies

MarkusK: yes

Said: yes

Elisa: yes, mentions work on extending ODM to support rules and this subset would be a good candidate starting point for them

pfps: no, can't support it, semantics part is nearly missing (just substitution)
... syntax is not bad, but can't stamp this document as a good start

csma: assume MichaelKifer says yes

csma: suggests trying mappings from existing languages into this proposal

pfps: the document itself is not suff. well defined to do this from just the document

csma: map both ways round and explain how their engine would interpret this condition language

MichaelKifer: respond to pfps, the semantics is an attribute of the rule language not of the condition language
... just defined a notion of satisfaction of conditions

csma: mapping would illuminate "what it would mean to interpret the condition language in their own rule language"

Axel volunteers to do such a mapping for WRL and DLV, check whether conditions allowed in these languages are covered by the proposal

pfps: could provide one for SWRL, in fact several are possible

Hassan: could do one

<scribe> ACTION: pfps to suggest a SWRL mapping [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/16-rif-minutes.html#action04]

<scribe> ACTION: Axel to suggest mapping for WRL and DLV [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/16-rif-minutes.html#action05]

<scribe> ACTION: Hassan to suggest mapping for ILOG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/16-rif-minutes.html#action06]

<scribe> ACTION: Harold to put proposal on the Wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/16-rif-minutes.html#action07]

Sandro: suggests we should have an editor for the doc soonish