Re: [RIF] Draft minutes for August 29 2006 meeting

Hi Alex,

Please could you fill in the attendees section (present, regrets).

Thanks,
Dave

Alex Kozlenkov wrote:
> Guys,
> 
> Please find first draft of August 29th RIF meeting minutes. I am off to 
> holidays until September 18^th so it may be needed for someone to clean 
> this up further before it is approved.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alex Kozlenkov
> 
> Betfair Ltd.
> 
> W3C <http://www.w3.org/>
> 
> 
>   *- DRAFT -*
> 
> 
>   *SV_MEETING_TITLE*
> 
> 
>     *29 Aug 2006*
> 
> See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-irc>
> 
> 
>     *Attendees*
> 
> /Present /
> 
> /Regrets /
> 
> /Chair /
> 
> /SV_MEETING_CHAIR /
> 
> /Scribe /
> 
> /AlexKozlenkov /
> 
> 
>     *Contents*
> 
>     * Topics <http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#agenda#agenda>
>     * Summary of Action Items
>       <http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#ActionSummary#ActionSummary>
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> <*/csma/*> hello
> 
> <*/ChrisW/*> <ChrisW> tells alex how to scribe
> 
> <*/csma/*> scribenick: AlexKozlenkov
> 
> <*/ChrisW/*> next meeting next Tuesday
> 
> <*/ChrisW/*> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Aug/0021.html
> 
> <*/ChrisW/*> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Aug/0021.html
> 
> <*/ChrisW/*> the 8/8 meeting posted after SAid's amendments
> 
> <*/ChrisW/*> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Aug/0025.html
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* no objections to accept 8/8 minutes
> 
> */<AxelPolleres> /* Wiki page for clarifying negation
> 
> <*/csma/*> ok, I do it
> 
> <*/ChrisW/*> **ACTION:** axel to make a wiki page for negation [recorded 
> in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action01]
> 
> <*/AxelPolleres/*> it was entered without colon, thus not recognized.
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* last week serious IRC problems
> ... accepted August 22 minutes
> ... liason activities--no outstanding actions
> ... PRR to be discussed this week?
> 
> */<csma> /* Fair Isaac have nominated somebody to represent here
> ... should be registered but I cannot see him
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* still need a PRR liason
> 
> */<AlexKozlenkov> /* JBoss guys to join RIF, possible liason for PRR
> 
> */Donald:/* successful Beijing meeting on SBVR
> ... ISO SBVR process successfully continued
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* to discuss use cases now
> 
> */allen:/* improve consistency
> ... issues 9 and 10 addressed
> ... could be changed back easily
> ... the look of the boxes not really a problem, not able to duplicate 
> issue 11
> ... could not see display problems
> ... working draft is OK in any browsers
> 
> */sandro:/* the official one is fixed
> 
> */allen:/* item 7 a more substantial one
> ... do this as a group, a separate teleconference perhaps
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* we need to discuss issue 7
> ... issue 9 and 10 are done
> ... issue 11, we must keep track
> 
> */sandro:/* if nobody objects, the issue will be closed
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* editing and formatting 9 and 10, next week will be closed 
> after people have a chance to comment
> ... issue 11
> ... sandro, leave as an open issue
> 
> */sandro:/* sure
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* move it to a persistent action?
> 
> */sandro:/* not sure
> 
> */deborah:/* agree with that
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* editors are working on the wikipage and the process is 
> painful for generating a working draft
> ... we should remeber as a group that a new draft is generated
> 
> */sandro:/* everybody looks at the draft before it is published
> ... small changes can be made directly
> 
> <*/csma/*> Sandro has already an action on that (action ID 58)
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* close issue 11
> 
> <*/scribe/*> **ACTION:** deborah close issue 11 [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action02]
> 
> <*/csma/*> **ACTION:** Deborah to close action item 11 (to be moved to 
> action 58) [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action03]
> 
> can we remove that?
> 
> <*/ChrisW/*> issue 7 is a review by Sven Groppe
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* issue 7
> 
> <*/ChrisW/*> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/7
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* summarizing his views
> ... stylistic changes that I do not agree with
> 
> suggestion 1: start with the discussion of RIF and enumerate requiremens 
> rather than UC
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* anyone agrees with this?
> ... I'd rather keep the document as is
> 
> */sandro:/* let him have a look at the last draft
> 
> */<csma> /* he prefers to have UC linked to Requirements
> 
> */<Hassan>/* it would not hurt to have a summary before each UC
> ... requirements are now present
> ... if we add links to requirements from UC, this would answer Sven's 
> concerns
> 
> *<ChrisW>* eventually, we will have these links
> 
> <*/Hassan/*> +1
> 
> */<csma> /* do not need to have examples of translation
> ... UC should make it clear that a translation is needed
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* current UC's do that?
> 
> */<csma> /* not all
> ... use cases should not be about only about the use of rules but more 
> focused on interchange
> 
> */<AxelPolleres> /* we could go back to UC's and add concrete languages?
> ... it could be solved in this way
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* 1st f2f decided that specific languages will not be mentioned
> 
> */hassan:/* debated before, agree that the languages not required
> 
> <*/csma/*> +1 to Hassan not to have concrete language
> 
> */<AxelPolleres> /* mention an example?
> ... if we do not want this, so be it
> ... finally, it would be nice to have UC and requirements to be connected
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* this is the work to be done
> 
> */<AxelPolleres> /* still give example languages where this use case can 
> apply concretly (without referring to the concrete syntax) of languages
> 
> <*/csma/*> Is that clear that RIF is itself a rule language?
> 
> <*/Hassan/*> Good question, Chris!
> 
> */allen:/* on interchange, interchange between RIF and language is also 
> an interchange
> ... RIF<->language is also an interchange
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* the interchange should be specific, the wholistic view is 
> not enough
> 
> <*/AxelPolleres/*> actually, the original use caes were a lot more 
> specific, we abstracted them on purpose.
> 
> */<csma> /* to be more specific, I tried to extract the processing from 
> UC and failed
> ... that is a problem with UC non-specificity
> 
> <*/AxelPolleres/*> so, I suggest let's stick with it. However, it is 
> true that we need more concrete examples later on (when it comes to 
> implementations, etc.)
> 
> <*/Harold/*> Allen, you perhaps meant the term 'interchange' might 
> already be used for one-way translation from some existing language (eg. 
> Prolog) into the RIF (without translation out, maybe running it in RIF 
> instead)?
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* can christian make a more concrete statement about 
> particular UC's
> 
> */<csma> /* it looks that the processing model is missing
> 
> <*/Allen/*> Harold, I meant that the term could be used to cover that 
> case too
> 
> <*/ChrisW/*> **ACTION:** csma to post an example of processing model in 
> use cases [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action04]
> 
> <*/csma/*> **ACTION:** csma to post an example of an UC not being clear 
> enough about the processing model [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action05]
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* another item from Sven's review: annotation of UC's to 
> phase 1 or 2
> ... any comments on that?
> ... point 6 of review is now clear
> ... point 7: only exchange of the facts or rules for UC 1.1
> ... negotiating cross-rule contracts across platforms
> ... is it clear in the UC whether the rules or facts are interchanged
> ... seems reasonable
> ... it needs to be answered
> ... allen will have a look
> 
> */<csma>/* about point 6, which way it has been clarified?
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* RIF is about interchange
> ... the UCR document is now better, so it has been clarified in the 
> abstract of the 2nd WD
> 
> <*/Zakim/*> csma, you wanted to ask which way point 6 was clarified
> 
> <*/Harold/*> Do we regard facts as special rules (having 
> 'empty-conjunction' = 'true' bodies)? Or, do we treat (ground) facts 
> specially (eg. to access databases)?
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* point 8: reorganize the document for separating UC and 
> requirements, it will become clearer
> 
> */deborah:/* add that to the issue description
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* there will overlap between UC and requirements but the 
> separation will be more clear
> 
> <*/csma/*> **ACTION:** Deborah to summarise the discussion to issue 7 
> description [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action06]
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* rule extensions to OWL, will be done when requirements are 
> linked
> ... add conclusions
> ... references to resources for real-worlkd examples
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* concrete languages or test cases
> ... test cases, we will have that, rule systems, no
> 
> <*/AxelPolleres/*> +1 to express as response the intention to add 
> concrete testcases to each use case later on.
> 
> */<Hassan>/* eventually, we are converging to the XML dialect that will 
> be an intersection of a few languages
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* it is needed but not in the UC
> ... the test cases is a separate document
> ... we start off with UC and requirements and that is how RIF is progressing
> 
> <*/AxelPolleres/*> well, we should of course back-check whether the 
> testcases cover the use cases and vice-versa, right?
> 
> */<csma>/* should we leave one week for the group to consider an issue?
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* some issues could be shorter or longer
> 
> */<csma>/* OK
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* that finishes Allen's issues
> ... heartbeat requirements fot the next WD
> ... October 10, the next WD
> 
> <*/Hassan/*> +1 with csma
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* a new draft of UCR not a problem?
> 
> */allen:/* does not seem as big job
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* the major part is associating UC and requirements
> 
> */allen:/* is the link supposed to be complete?
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* every UC should motivate a requirement
> ... is the opposite true?
> 
> <*/csma/*> For the record, what I said that Hassan supported is that we 
> should have the 1st WD of the tech spec as our objective for the next 
> heartbeat
> 
> */sandro:/* it would be good
> 
> */<ChrisW?>/* you wanted to muse about adding results of RIFRAF survey
> 
> */sandro:/* use of XML, one example
> ... add results of RIFRAF questionnaire to the next UCR document
> ... just a suggestion
> 
> */csma:/* the feedback will be useful but in UCR?
> 
> */hassan:/* UCR is separate
> ... the classification work and technical design will use these results
> 
> <*/Harold/*> Sandro, I was disconnected from my Skype access to the W3C 
> bridge, and the conference code seems no longer to be valid.
> 
> */<csma>/* answers should not be in the UCR document
> 
> <*/sandro/*> That's odd, Harold. Can you do the Admin Assistance code?
> 
> <*/Harold/*> Also *0 did not get me someone.
> 
> */hassan:/* agree
> 
> <*/sandro/*> Ah.
> 
> */csma:/* the feedback will be useful, however, so it will be useful to 
> publish that separately
> ... where?
> 
> <*/Harold/*> I used this.
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* RIFRAF will be separate
> 
> <*/sandro/*> Very odd, Harold -- it just worked for me on a second line.
> 
> <*/Harold/*> OK, I'll try again.
> 
> */hassan:/* produce an ontology of the RIFRAF
> 
> */sandro:/* a non-normative result, not part of the standard
> 
> <*/Harold/*> Sandro, it works again, thanks!
> 
> */csma:/* the answers should not be normative, not even a result
> ... requirements is the main thing
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* the extensibility mechanism will be linked to that 
> classification
> 
> */csma:/* got your point
> 
> */sandro:/* the results of the classification may be part of the 
> rectrack, it is easier to remove than add
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* certainly if we are publishing, we need editors for RIFRAF
> 
> <*/ChrisW/*> **ACTION:** on chairs to think aboutr RIFRAF editor 
> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action07]
> 
> <*/AxelPolleres/*> Depending that you concretize the role of the RIFRAF 
> document more... I could be a volunteer.
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* sandro agree that a separate RIFRAF doc is required
> 
> */csma:/* linking UC with requirements should be an issue
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* what happend
> ... what happend
> 
> */allen:/* no consistency across UC's
> 
> <*/csma/*> **ACTION:** allen to post the previous work on links between 
> reqs and UC [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action08]
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* allen any other issues in UCR?
> 
> */<allen>/* no
> 
> <*/Zakim/*> csma, you wanted to propose a path to UCR WD3
> 
> */csma:/* we should first agree on all short term issues
> ... for draft 3, we need to assign priorities
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* for example, one week to submit the issues in the current WD
> 
> <*/csma/*> **ACTION:** chrsi to send email to inform everybody of 
> process toward UCR WD3 [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action09]
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* within two weeks, the group agrees which issues will be 
> addressed with the WD3
> ... outstanding items
> ... for RIFRAF, outstanding actions
> 
> */frank:/* simplify the questionnaire
> 
> */hassan:/* the idea is to use a tree to open a branch
> ... in this case, one does not answer the lower level questions
> 
> */frank:/* does the W3C questionnaire technology allow this
> 
> */<AxelPolleres> /* no it is not possible
> 
> */<Hassan> /*The logical form could be followed so that semantic 
> distance could be computed
> 
> <*/Harold/*> Frank and Hassan, could we have cross-references between 
> RDF(S) and OWL compatibility on one hand and certain kinds of 
> (order-sorted) type systems on the other hand?
> 
> */hassan:/* coould post the way it could be organized
> 
> <*/csma/*> **ACTION:** work with Frank to augment type discriminators 
> proposal (ID 88) **[DONE]** [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action10]
> 
> */hassan:/* we will talk about it next week
> 
> */frank:/* the questionnaire needs more structure
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* Frank and Hassan could work on types, to make it more 
> hierarchical
> 
> <*/csma/*> **ACTION:** franck and hassan to work on a hierarchy of 
> type-related discriminators [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action11]
> 
> */hassan:/* I started with types but it should be possible for all 
> discriminators
> 
> <*/AxelPolleres/*> we have to formalize which answers exclude each other 
> and then find an oprimally ordered BDD :-) then we have the ontology! :-)))
> 
> <*/sandro/*> sandro: does it make sense to do this in OWL now, or soon? 
> is it obvious to anyone how to do that?
> 
> <*/FrankMcCabe/*> That would be an interesting test case for OWL
> 
> <*/csma/*> **ACTION:** record questionnaire answers for JBoss and XUL in 
> an email (action 89) **[CONTINUED]** [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action12]
> 
> <*/csma/*> **ACTION:** sync questionaire questions back to RAF wiki page 
> (action 90) **[DONE]** [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action13]
> 
> <*/csma/*> **ACTION:** include Paula's questions to questionnaire 
> (action 91) **[CONTINUED]** [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action14]
> 
> */<ChrisW>/* action review is completed
> ... next week start talking about technical design
> 
> <*/sandro/*> +1 adjourn
> 
> <*/csma/*> +1
> 
> <*/PaulaP/*> bye
> 
> adjourn now
> 
> <*/JeffP/*> bye
> 
> 
>     *Summary of Action Items*
> 
> **[NEW]** **ACTION:** allen to post the previous work on links between 
> reqs and UC [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action08]
> **[NEW]** **ACTION:** axel to make a wiki page for negation [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action01]
> **[NEW]** **ACTION:** chrsi to send email to inform everybody of process 
> toward UCR WD3 [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action09]
> **[NEW]** **ACTION:** csma to post an example of an UC not being clear 
> enough about the processing model [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action05]
> **[NEW]** **ACTION:** csma to post an example of processing model in use 
> cases [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action04]
> **[NEW]** **ACTION:** deboragh close issue 11 [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action02]
> **[NEW]** **ACTION:** Deborah to close action item 11 (to be moved to 
> action 58) [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action03]
> **[NEW]** **ACTION:** Deborah to summarise the discussion to issue 7 
> description [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action06]
> **[NEW]** **ACTION:** franck and hassan to work on a hierarchy of 
> type-related discriminators [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action11]
> **[NEW]** **ACTION:** on chairs to think aboutr RIFRAF editor [recorded 
> in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action07]
>  
> **[PENDING]** **ACTION:** include Paula's questions to questionnaire 
> (action 91) [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action14]
> **[PENDING]** **ACTION:** record questionnaire answers for JBoss and XUL 
> in an email (action 89) [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action12]
>  
> **[DONE]** **ACTION:** sync questionaire questions back to RAF wiki page 
> (action 90) [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action13]
> **[DONE]** **ACTION:** work with Frank to augment type discriminators 
> proposal (ID 88) [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/08/29-rif-minutes.html#action10]
>  
> [End of minutes]
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>  
>

Received on Tuesday, 5 September 2006 15:11:20 UTC