Admin

<rifbot> Tracking ISSUEs and ACTIONs from http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/

<sandro> most excellent, ChrisW. :-)

<sandro> rifbot, help

<rifbot> See http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/ for help (use the IRC bot link)

<sandro> Basic rifbot format: ACTION: <user> to <title> - due <when>

<sandro> or just: ACTION: <user> to <title>

<ChrisW> got it

<sandro> and <when> can be eg "1 week" "2 months" "2006-09-14"

<sandro> let's hope we don't burn out the database hardware again this week. :-)

<ChrisW> i have the help page up

<ChrisW> scribenick: pfps

<ChrisW> Scribe: Peter Patel-Schneider

csma: next meeting is next week
... minutes from 5 september are approved

<ChrisW> Sept 5 minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Sep/att-0009/05-rif-minutes.html

csma: agenda addenda: approve minutes for F2F3, update for F2F4

<ChrisW> f2f3 minutes: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F3

csma: approve F2F3 minutes (on wiki, linked from this meeting agenda)
... no opposition, so approved! (belatedly)

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: approved Sept 5 telecon minutes

csma: F2F4 update

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: approved f2f3 minutes

<csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F4

pfps: registration for F2F4 is open (currently in a temporary location, will be moved into W3C space)
... please register soon, even though there is no price change
... registration for ISWC changes in price on 15 September!

<ChrisW> ACTION: ppatelsc2 to update registration wiki page to mention price differential for iswc [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/12-rif-minutes.html#action06]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-103 - Update registration wiki page to mention price differential for iswc [on Peter F. Patel-Schneider - due 2006-09-19].

hassan: registration form does not mention country

pfps: I expect that the registration organization will do the right thing

Liason

csma: nothing to report

Use Cases and Requirements

csma: actions 58, 96 continued
... restart task force on phase 1 compatability with RDF and OWL?

chrisWelty: to consider using RDF as data format for RIF and the part of OWL that is positive Horn as part of phase 1

csma: isn't this covered by "coverage" requirement

chrisWelty: because RDF and OWL are W3C standards they might deserve special attention

csma: make this part of the questionaire?

chrisWelty: the question is "what part of RDF / OWL fits into RIF (phase 1)?"
... we need some people to make a "proposal" here

csma: volunteers? two people to draft a proposal for what part of OWL should be in RIF phase 1
... no volunteers - this might mean that nothing of OWL is in pase 1

DaveReynolds: OWL only (is RDF separate)?

csma: two different questions

pfps: how long can this be open?

chrisWelty: this telecon ONLY

<DaveReynolds> where was this on the agenda?

<DavidHirtle> (good question)

csma: volunteers for how RDF fits into phase 1

DaveReynolds: what is the timescale

ChrisWelty: next draft is supposed to go out by 8 October, but otherwise no rush

csma: so the deadline for the next working draft is 26 September

DaveReynolds: thinking ... may volunteer later
... how much (verbiage) would be needed?

<DavidHirtle> wording on OWL: "RIF must cover OWL knowledge bases as data where compatible with Phase 1 semantics."

ChrisWelty: things are currently quite simple, certainly they need to be updated to be in sync with other parts of UCR

csma: other actions continued

<Francois> Sorry, I must leave. bye.

csma: issue 5 done

<DaveReynolds> Try: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/products/10

<csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/9

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: CLose issue 9

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: close issue 9

csma: no objection, so closed

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: CLose issue 10

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: close issue 10

<csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/5

Allen: email has been sent on Issue 5

<ChrisW> Allen's email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Sep/0014.html

<PaulaP> yes

<PaulaP> ok

Paula: I don't understand what is needed to improve 2.2

<ChrisW> ACTION: Dreynold2 to clarify with pauly what to do to improve 2.2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/12-rif-minutes.html#action07]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-104 - Clarify with pauly what to do to improve 2.2 [on Dave Reynolds - due 2006-09-19].

Allen: implemented suggestion for 2.3

csma: therefore item 3 is done

<ChrisW> item 3 or 2?

pfps: csma: therefore item 2 (not 3) is done

Allen: item 3 - agree with comments on tagging - but nothing done yet

<johnhall> yes

<ChrisW> ACTION: jhall2 to work with Frank to merge use cases 4 and 5 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/12-rif-minutes.html#action08]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-105 - Work with Frank to merge use cases 4 and 5 [on John Hall - due 2006-09-19].

Allen: item 4 - agree with suggestion but some editing needed (by Frank)

<ChrisW> ACTION: fmccabe to modify use case 5 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/12-rif-minutes.html#action09]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-106 - Modify use case 5 [on Francis McCabe - due 2006-09-19].

Allen: item 5 - done with reference added as well

Frank: I might not agree with comment - doesn't look repetitious - will edit as I think appropriate

DaveReynolds: this is minor - best effort is OK by me

csma: need Deborah for Issue 13
... consider Issue 6
... item 1 - comments?

chrisWelty: there was discussion at F2F3
... compliance - which features to implement; default behaviour - what to do with unimplemented features

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

DaveReynolds: this sounds OK

cmsa: item 2 - comments?

DaveReynolds: current wording doesn't make much of a distinction

csma: standard components may be targetted to something like XML parsing
... volunteers

csma; volunteers?

DaveReynolds: does proposed solution for item 3 need word smithing

<ChrisW> RIF must support an appropriate set of scalar datatypes and associated

<ChrisW> operations as defined in XML Schema part 2 and associated specifications

<DavidHirtle> I think Sandro had input on this issue

csma: will put up proposal for adoption at next telecon

<ChrisW> ACTION: Dreynold2 to post email on rewording of xml datatype requirement [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/12-rif-minutes.html#action10]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-107 - Post email on rewording of xml datatype requirement [on Dave Reynolds - due 2006-09-19].

csma: issue 22 - definition of cover
... there have been several definitions of cover
... action to gather definitions and propose a synthesis

Allen: where are the other definitions?

<ChrisW> ACTION: aginsber to gather definitions of covers and propose a synthesis [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/12-rif-minutes.html#action11]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-108 - Gather definitions of covers and propose a synthesis [on Allen Ginsberg - due 2006-09-19].

csma: minutes of F2F3, email from pfps, one from Sandro - ask WG as well for others

DavidHirtle: definition from Allen as well?

RIF-RAF

<Allen> Have to go, see you next week.

csma: action on hassan

hassan: RIFRAF currently concerns several kinds of rules
... concerns about vocabulary in RIFRAF (head, body, variables, etc.)
... need to worry about things like directionality
... a proposal was made last week, but has not been written up
... thus action is continued
... I need information about PRR (from csma)

csma: will send
... action 89 continued - no Alex
... action 94 continued
... proposal on what to do with questionaire (by email)

hassan: how about having session in F2F4 on questionnaire (and its results)?

<PaulaP> I will try to find time to answer it for XChange

csma: questionnaire should now be fairly complete - but missing actions and types

hassan: agreed - still need features of actions

csma: there are proposals for types what to do?

frank: yes - there is already a merged list of questions - but maybe need to be better organized

csma: can we get the questions?

<csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Aug/0032.html

hassan: propose adding these questions

csma: needs to be added by Axel

frank: I can clean up list of questions

frank: questionnaire is currently modified by cut-and-paste of text

ChrisWelty: better to put this all up on a Wiki page

<ChrisW> ACTION: fmccabe to move types hierarchy to wiki page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/12-rif-minutes.html#action12]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-109 - Move types hierarchy to wiki page [on Francis McCabe - due 2006-09-19].

Technical Design

csma: merged semantics for WD1

Harold: there is a merged version and a further change from Michael Kifer

<csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/A.1_Basis%3A_Positive_Conditions

<ChrisW> pfps: philosophical difference between proposal of mine and "merger"

<ChrisW> ...prefer a single semantics

<ChrisW> ...differences handled by controlled partial adherence to spec

MichaelKifer: currently there is a single semantics

<ChrisW> ACTION: ppatelsc2 to read "merged" semantics proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/12-rif-minutes.html#action13]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-110 - Read \"merged\" semantics proposal [on Peter F. Patel-Schneider - due 2006-09-19].

pfps: this looks potentially viable - will check

Harold: there are some wrinkles needed for constants

csma: how about adding heads?

<ChrisW> ACTION: mkifer to draft extension to existing proposal to include heads [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/12-rif-minutes.html#action14]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-111 - Draft extension to existing proposal to include heads [on Michael Kifer - due 2006-09-19].

MichaelKifer: will be easy

csma: XML syntax?

<ChrisW> action hboley to work on the synax, human readable and xml

<ChrisW> ACTION: hboley to work on the synax, human readable and xml [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/12-rif-minutes.html#action15]

<rifbot> Created ACTION-112 - Work on the synax, human readable and xml [on Harold Boley - due 2006-09-19].

csma: what about data sources?

cmsa: how are variables bound?

<Harold> Usually, in Horn rules, the scope of variables is one clause at a time only.

hassan: propose refinement of variable and scope

csma: wait for Hassan's answer, therefore

<Harold> The notion of scope we had been discussing applied to the scope of clauses within rulebases.

AOB

<ChrisW> +1

<PaulaP> +1

csma: close

<PaulaP> bye