ADMIN

 <ChrisW> 19 Sept minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Oct/att-0016/19-rif-minutes.html

<ChrisW> 9/26 minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Oct/att-0009/26-Sept-rif-minutes-c.html

Approved 9/19 telecon minutes

Approved 9/26 telecon minutes

<ChrisW> 10/3 minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Oct/att-0011/03-rif-minutes.html

Approved 10/3 telecon minutes

F2F

Christian invetigation of f2f6 co-location with WWW07 in Bampf, kept open for now

Hassan - all hotels for f2f4/ISWC are booked up

pfps - Holiday Inn should be OK, just Geogia Center full

Chris to Sandro: any responses on f2f6 and 7?

Correction 5 & 6

No responses other than Jos

Christian: encourages volunteers to organize f2f5 and f2f6

Harold: RuleML workshop early registration price will be kept open for WG members

Christian: what about people who have already paid?

Said: will sort something about that

<Allen> I also paid full price

Christian: draft f2f4 agenda before end of next week

Liason

<johnhall> Nothing on SBVR

UCR

ACTION-131 continued

Sandro: use syntax ACTION-nn in emails and irc and they will be cross referenced automatically on the tracker

ACTION-132 - done and updated write up but awaiting feedback, action continued

ACTION-133 - done

ACTION-105 - continued

ACTION-106 - same action as 105

Frank: use cases 4 & 5 were different,new draft of 4 is futher distinguished
... now satisfied that the two use cases are clearly distinct and the "merge" action should be dropped

Christian: once new draft is published let anyone who disagrees speak up
... propose to close ISSUE-3 base on Frank's proposal

<csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Sep/0067.html

No objection, ISSUE-3 closed

Christian: minutes covering compliance model accepted

Frank: has re-established link between compliance requirement and interoperability CSF

Resolved: ISSUE-4 closed

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Goals

ISSUE-6, only outstanding part is 2 which just depends on ACTION-125

Christian: ACTION-125 was closed before as result of ChrisW email but Frank had response to the email ...

Chris: tried to keep requirements succinct and differentiated

Frank: implementability isn't just from the point of view of the engineer, also customer deployment costs
... so it's stronger then just "no research"

Chris: doesn't disagree but kept succinct for uniformity with other requirements
... not a bad idea to add expanded text ... somewhere

Resolved: ISSUE-6 closed

Christian: propose to close ISSUE-7.3 since we have actions to do such linking between UC and Requirements

Keep open until these links have been completed.

<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Sep/0066.html

Resolved: ISSUE-13 closed

Looking at ISSUE-5.3 which relates to UC 2.4 and 2.5 ...

Frank: 2.5 now recast to trading business rules, very different to supply chain scenario

Christian: close actions and issues together when new text is posted
... now look at ISSUE-22 - coverage ...

<ChrisW> csma's message on coverage: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Oct/0000.html

Christian: email discussion on this with proposal to have standalone formal specification

Allen: proposed informal definition seems reasonable

No objections to this

Formal definition will be in the technical spec

<scribe> ACTION: Allen propose text for the informal definition of covers [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/10-rif-minutes.html#action01]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-143 - Propose text for the informal definition of covers [on Allen Ginsberg - due 2006-10-17].

Christian: keep ISSUE-22 open until text is agreed
... ISSUE-12 not forgotten, want to come back to this with sufficient time to discuss properly, will have email follow up on this

Linking UC and requirements ...

UC2, UC3, UC7 done

Look at each UC in turn to see if any objections ...

UC1: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Discussion_of_UC1_-_Negociating_eBusiness_Contracts_Across_Rule_Platforms

Christian: also have specific sections in UC1 on processing model and benefits of RIF
... do we replicate this structure across the others?
... is an abstraction and discussion of the processing model useful for each use case? or a section analysing the processing model for each?
... thinks there should be a section in UCR discussing the processing models

Frank: processing models may be of interest but a significant burden to do this, significant overlap in processing models

Chris: useful to have but models too similar to replicate discussion in each section, exercise of clarifying may be illuminating

Christian: so maybe don't put the text in each but have a separate section on processing models and how they map to the UCs

Call for volunteers?

<scribe> ACTION: Christian draft UCR section on processing models [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/10-rif-minutes.html#action03]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-144 - Draft UCR section on processing models [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2006-10-17].

<Harold> Chris and Gary, for the telecon last week, I did the linking of Gary's UC9: BPEL Orchestration of Rule-Based Web Services. The wiki's "Info" diffs don't show further changes. Gary, are you fine with those links or could you just modify them from your BPEL point of view?

Christian: should the benefits of RIF be pulled out in a specific sub-section of each UC?

Chris: they do mostly cover the topic, even if not pulled out

Allen: perhaps a separate section again?

<scribe> ACTION: Allen investigate whether RIF benefits can be extracted into a separate section or whether additional input from UC authors would be needed [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/10-rif-minutes.html#action04]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-145 - Investigate whether RIF benefits can be extracted into a separate section or whether additional input from UC authors would be needed [on Allen Ginsberg - due 2006-10-17].

Allen: need to agree which requirements are universal (semantic precision, implementability?) and need not be mentioned in each UC

Christian: do need to include semantic precision to justify why a syntax-only RIF is not sufficient
... but implementability could go in the motivated-by-charter category

No objections to UC1 pending modification

Now looking at UC2 ...

Paula: didn't justify rule language coverage in detail, is this a problem?
... some others have done detailed RIFRAF links, is that needed?

Christian: useful yes, if there is clear requirements from this UC

Paula: delete old links?

Allen: what about the objections that are documented in those links?

pfps: (as raiser of the objections in that case) satistifed the way things are at the moment

Now looking at UC6 ...

Leora: wants to improve further

Now looking at UC8 ...

Christian: mentions "limited number of dialects" but does not justify

<scribe> ACTION: Reynolds add argument to support "limited number of dialects" in UC8 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/10-rif-minutes.html#action07]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-146 - Add argument to support \"limited number of dialects\" in UC8 [on Dave Reynolds - due 2006-10-17].

Now looking at UC9 ...

Christian: re-coverage isn't decidability out of scope of RIF?
... this plus things like Sem3, Prag2 are properties of the rule languages should not be part of RIF, RIF should be able to interchange undecidable rulesets

Harold: it is still a point in the RIFRAF space
... if RIF can make it clear a rulebase is a datalog rule base (for example) then it simplifies knowing ruleset is decideable

Christian: so use case motivates decidable rule language

DaveR: asks for more justification on Syn 5

Harold: suitable for cases of incomplete data, where positional notation would break or need lots of nulls

<AlexKozlenkov> Some news, JBoss's Mark Proctor will be filling out the RIFRAF questionnaire so my action point should be now closed.

<scribe> ACTION: Gary add production rule coverage where it belongs, but at least in UC9 and UC1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/10-rif-minutes.html#action09]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-147 - Add production rule coverage where it belongs, but at least in UC9 and UC1 [on Gary Hallmark - due 2006-10-17].

<Allen> [Gary] Production rule and ECA rule coverage is also in UC 3

RIF-RAF

<Hassan> ACTION: 87 to I (hak) have been and will be traveling and so have been unable to fulfill it yet - so action 87 is continued. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/10-rif-minutes.html#action10]

Alex: ACTION-89 should now be closed because Jboss will fill questionnaire themselves
... will investigate XUL further and might come back to this part, but drop action

Leora: starting organizing RIFRAF ontology task force

Hassan: is the task force open to volunteers?
... would like to contribute

Leora: mail should be open to everyone

ACTION-139 completed

<LeoraMorgenstern> regarding the questionnaire --- yes,

<PaulaP> I'll try to fill it out for XChange

<LeoraMorgenstern> am supposed to fill this out too, but I haven't yet

Christian: will there we more replies to questionnaire?

<johnhall> We intend to have one from SBVR, but people are busy

Alex: should have active companies in field participate

<scribe> ACTION: Gary complete RIFRAF questionnaire for Oracle [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/10-rif-minutes.html#action11]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-148 - Complete RIFRAF questionnaire for Oracle [on Gary Hallmark - due 2006-10-17].

<scribe> ACTION: Paul complete RIFRAF questionnaire [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/10-rif-minutes.html#action12]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-149 - Complete RIFRAF questionnaire [on Paul Vincent - due 2006-10-17].

<scribe> ACTION: Patranjan complete RIFRAF questionnaire for XChange [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/10-rif-minutes.html#action14]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-150 - Complete RIFRAF questionnaire for XChange [on Paula-Lavinia Patranjan - due 2006-10-17].

Gary: hard to talk about production rules in that vocabulary

Chris: perhaps it should wait for the ontology of rule systems?

<PaulVincent> Qu: are we referring to http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/38457/RAFQuestionnaire/ ?

Chris: seems like questionnaire is not yet ready for covering production rules

Christian: keep those actions open!

<ChrisW> PaulV: yes, that is it

Design

Christian: would like more volunteers for trying out implementations

Hassan: have permission to release Jacc, will post shortly

<Francois> sorry, I must leave...

Actions 87, 119, 120, 140, 141, 142 continued

Hassan: if people provide formal BNF for their language then jacc will simplify implementation

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.127  of Date: 2005/08/16 15:12:03  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/registeration/registration/
Succeeded: s/not/now/
Found Scribe: Dave Reynolds
Found ScribeNick: DaveReynolds
Found ScribeNick: DaveReynolds
Default Present: josb, FrankMcCabe, PaulaP, csma, Dave_Reynolds, ChrisW, Harold, pfps, Sandro, igor, DavidHirtle, AlexKozlenkov, MoZ, SaidTabet, Allen_Ginsberg, StellaMitchell, GiorgosStoilos, PaulVincent, Hassan, johnhall, Francois, Mala_Mehrotra, JeffP, LeoraMorgenstern, Gary_Hallmark
Present: josb FrankMcCabe PaulaP csma Dave_Reynolds ChrisW Harold pfps Sandro igor DavidHirtle AlexKozlenkov MoZ SaidTabet Allen_Ginsberg StellaMitchell GiorgosStoilos PaulVincent Hassan johnhall Francois Mala_Mehrotra JeffP LeoraMorgenstern Gary_Hallmark
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Oct/0021.html
Got date from IRC log name: 10 Oct 2006
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2006/10/10-rif-minutes.html

People with action items: 87 add allen argument christian csma davereynolds gary patranjan paul paula reynolds

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.