Re: Minute of telecon of 20 March 2007

The example rules (attached in email) for MISMO where done by me in the 
JBoss Rules format, but it should be easy for anyone to follow, it's 
simple propositional logic. I'm hoping to hear back from Said Tabet on a 
RuleML translation, as I'm going to hook up a limited RuleML driver for 
JBoss Rules for the purposes of a RuleML/Mismo demo, I can do the same 
for RIF, if someone can show me the XML that will work in a production 
rule system . I have advised them against using a vendor rule format, 
including jboss rules, and instead to use RuleML or Clips, both of which 
will eventually have a migration path to RIF.

Mark
Francois Bry (Bry-Haußer) wrote:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> W3C <http://www.w3.org/>
>
>
>   - DRAFT -
>
>
>   RIF Telecon 20 Mar 07
>
>
>     20 Mar 2007
>
> Agenda 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Mar/0050.html>
>
> See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-rif-irc>
>
>
>     Attendees
>
> Present
>     Francois, agiurca, Harold, Hassan_Ait-Kaci, IgorMozetic, ChrisW,
>     Sandro, csma, Deborah_Nichols, Dave_Reynolds, josb,
>     StellaMitchell, PaulaP, Leora_Morgenstern, Mike_Dean,
>     Gary_Hallmark, pfps, Philippe_Bonnard, Michael_Kifer
> Regrets
>     AllenGinsberg, PaulVincent, DavidHirtle, MichaelSintek
> Chair
>     Christian de Sainte-Marie
> Scribe
>     Francois Bry
>
>
>     Contents
>
>     * Topics <#agenda>
>          1. Liaison <#item01>
>          2. Technical Design <#item02>
>          3. AOB <#item03>
>     * Summary of Action Items <#ActionSummary>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  
>
>  
>
> <ChrisW> Scribe: Francois Bry
>
> Christian: Review actions. No admin action?
> ... Approve minutes of last week telecon. Objections?
> ... No objections. Minutes approved.
>
> <ChrisW> RESOLUTION: Accept minutes of 3/13 telecon
>
> Christian: of March 13 telecon. Minutes of F2F 5 approved? Objections? 
> None.
>
> <ChrisW> RESOLUTION: Approved F2F5 minutes
>
> Christian: Minutes of F2F 5 approved.
> ... Amendments to the agenda? None.
> ... First topic F2F 6. Looking at the answers to the questionnaire. 
> Only one way where all can attend, that is June 2nd-3rd (ie week end) 
> in Innsbruck.
> ... comments? None.
>
> <ChrisW> *ACTION:* jdebruij to confirm availability of F2F meeting 
> facilities in Innsbruck [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-rif-minutes.html#action03]
>
> <rifbot> Created ACTION-267 - Confirm availability of F2F meeting 
> facilities in Innsbruck [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2007-03-27].
>
> Christian: Who offers to host F2F 7 late Aug to early Oct? Preferences 
> Sept in North America.
> ... No deadline for offers yet but F2F 7 should be finalize before F2F 
> 6 (June 2-3).
>
> Chris: Plenary will be fist week of November. Does not fit well with 
> RIF F2F.
>
> <sandro> W3C Tech Plenary 2007 (Member Only, sorry) 
> <http://www.w3.org/2005/08/10-bigcal.html>
>
>
>       Liaison
>
> Christian: Next topic Liaisons.
> ... Reports on liaisons? None.
> ... Related to liaison. The MISMO WG have an example of 
> proof-of-concept interchange of rules.
> ... Does someone want to translate their rules in RIF?
>
> Harold: I might be interested in doing it.
>
> Christian: I'll ask for getting this example and putting it on the RIF 
> Wiki.
>
> <ChrisW> *ACTION:* Christian to check with MISMO that their proof of 
> concept example can be published to RIF [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-rif-minutes.html#action04]
>
> <rifbot> Created ACTION-268 - Check with MISMO that their proof of 
> concept example can be published to RIF [on Christian de Sainte Marie 
> - due 2007-03-27].
>
> Christian: MISMO: Mortgage Industry Standard ...
>
> Chris: A new incubator activity ask RIF to look at what they are doing 
> on incertainty reasoning.
>
> <ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/urw3/
>
> Christian: JeffPan and Giorgos should be interested.
>
> <agiurca> both of them are there
>
> Christian: More on liaison? No.
>
>
>       Technical Design
>
> Christian:   Let us move to next topic technical design..
> ... actions have been worked out or are continued.
> ... The frozen version for RIF core has been published on Friday.
> ... We decided we cannot stop it any longer. Can be reviewed up till 
> the end of the week. We'll vote on it next Tuesday.
> ... Two reactions, one from Dave. Comments?
>
> Dave: Small editorial things. Two issues: syntax of sorts and examples 
> all in the non-sorted syntax.
> ... I suggest to explain that in a caveat.
>
> Christian: This has already been decided.
>
> Michael: there was a proposal to start with sorts but leaving examples 
> without sorts for not delaying.
> ... Regarding syntax of sorts. This has not been discussed at the F2F.
>
> <Harold> Dave's caveat wording for his i1) is fine with me.
>
> Christian: Dave's is proposal to add a caveat about the unsorted examples.
> ... Objections to doing this?
>
> Michael: Maybe should we say something in the sorted part that future 
> version will give examples with sorts.
>
> Dave: My proposal is to add something before Example 3.
>
> Christian: Or after introduction of multisorted logic.
>
> Chris: Close to an example is preferable.
>
> <csma> The examples of BNF and XML rule syntax given here use the 
> unsorted version of the condition syntax and fail to illustrate the 
> use of URIs for constants. This will be addressed in a future working 
> draft.
>
> Christian: Objections to adding Dave's caveat before Example 3?
>
> <ChrisW> RESOLVED: Add " "The examples of BNF and XML rule syntax 
> given here use the unsorted
>
> <ChrisW> version of the condition syntax and fail to illustrate the 
> use of URIs
>
> <ChrisW> for constants. This will be addressed in a future working draft."
>
> <ChrisW> to the CORE WD
>
> Christian: No objections? None. Issue resolved, caveat will be added.
>
> Chris: Harold and Michael, do you take the action?
>
> Harold: I take it.
>
> Michael: We could easily add sorts in Example 3.
>
> Christian: This could convey a wrong message on how sorts are to be.
>
> Michael: But we already decided on this.
>
> <ChrisW> *ACTION:* Harold to add DaveR's caveat text to CORE [recorded 
> in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-rif-minutes.html#action05]
>
> <rifbot> Created ACTION-269 - Add DaveR\'s caveat text to CORE [on 
> Harold Boley - due 2007-03-27].
>
> Chris: Let us keep the example as it is for now.
> ... let us have this caveat added.
>
> Christian: Regarding Dave's second comment (syntax for primitive 
> sort). What do we do?
>
> <agiurca> the usual way is to keep concepts which are already known
>
> Francois: Dave's syntax proposal is standard and rather nice. Why not 
> take it?
>
> Dave: It seems to be a small syntactic thing. Benefice would be to 
> have it look like in other SW languages.
>
> Michael: You mean N3 syntax?
>
> Hassan: I agree with Francois. This might conflict with namespaces.
> ... The notation in the WD is contrive and ugly.
>
> Dave: in N3 there are quotes. Integer unquoted is like in our draft, a 
> shortcut.
>
> Michael: If there is consensus to change this syntax, I'll change it.
>
> Hassan: I'll prefer the simpler and most naturakl and most known. 
> value column sort or something like that.
>
> <sandro> Very considerate of them, Harold. :-)
>
> <josb> because it is standard!
>
> <agiurca> Why we don't use the textual syntax as for example 
> "lexicalValue"^^"sort"
>
> <agiurca> +1 josb
>
> Chris: Only two choices: keeping how it is now or choose the notation 
> of another formalism.
>
> <sandro> The single-hat was used for something else in N3.
>
> Christian: Second choice is "lexicalValue"^^"sort" for WD 1.
>
> <Hassan> No but ...
>
> <sandro> (The single-hat was used for the same thing "." and "->" are 
> commonly used for in other languages.)
>
> Hassan: There are no reasons for _. It does not make it easier to parse.
>
> <Harold> I don't know why "sort" be in quotes?
>
> Christian: Decision is between _sort"value" or "lexicalValue"^^"sort".
> ... No objections against "lexicalValue"^^"sort".
>
> Hassan: One character should be enough ^ not ^^.
>
> <Hassan> Great! Ubu roi...
>
> Chris: Like in RDF or like in the current draft. No other choice.
>
> Christian: It is _sort"value" or "lexicalValue"^^"sort". Objections 
> against "lexicalValue"^^"sort".
>
> <josb> +1 for ^^
>
> <mdean> +1 for ^^
>
> Christian: No objections. "lexicalValue"^^"sort" chosen. Who 
> implements the modification in WD Core?
>
> Michael: How is the syntax exactly? "lexicalValue"^^"sort" or 
> "lexicalValue"^^sort ?
>
> <Harold> I take the action.
>
> Chris: "lexicalValue"^^sort?
>
> Michael: What should be the syntax for variables?
>
> <Harold> Variables should be "lexicalValue"^^?Varname I think.
>
> <agiurca> In XML syntax variables may be something like xs:NCName
>
> Christian: Action on Harold for changing syntax of sort annotations.
>
> <mdean> N3 does not have sorted variables
>
> <Harold> ?Varname^^sort
>
> <Harold> I meant the latter.
>
> Dave: I propose the N3 syntax for values not for variables.
> ... My sugestion was to align on something already published.
>
> Christian: Harold's proposal ?varname^%^ sort.
>
> <Harold> So we have ?Varname^^sort for sorted variables and 
> "lexicalValue"^^sort for sorted literals.
>
> Michael: this is reasonable to me.
>
> Chris: replace _sortWHATEVER by WHATEVER^^sort.
>
> <ChrisW> *ACTION:* Harold to change _sort syntax to ^^sort syntax 
> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-rif-minutes.html#action06]
>
> <rifbot> Created ACTION-270 - Change _sort syntax to ^^sort syntax [on 
> Harold Boley - due 2007-03-27].
>
> Christian: action on Harold implementing this change.
>
> <sandro> rofl
>
> Christian: An orther sort of comments by Francois.
>
> <sandro> scribenick: sandro
>
> Francois: It was systematic issues in the text, most of which have 
> been resolved.
> ... Not happy with "I", the interpretation function.
> ... the subscript, "e" constant, "e" function, etc.
> ... these are stylistic details.
> ... in the Semantics section
>
> MichaelKifer: There is a function, I<sub>truth</sub> .... Francois 
> wants to call it I<sub>formula</sub>. This is truth evaluation, in 
> every text book
>
> Francois: I don't really agree, but it's okay.
> ... It makes the text harder to understand, but it's not impossible to 
> understand.
>
> CSMA: Stylistic questions like this, we'll have to deal with before 
> the final draft, but let's keep it like this for now.
>
> Francois: Okay
>
> <scribe> scribenick: Francois
>
> Christian: We'll vote on next Tuesday. Mention objections or issues 
> before. I expect the document to be accepted.
>
> Sandro: will the WD1 be published soon after the vote?
>
> Christian: If we vote to publish the text, there should only be minor 
> changes.
>
> Sandro: Formating and the like will be needed. A few days work.
>
> Christian: Then we'll have 2 months for producing a much better WD2.
> ... Let us more to the next topic is issue 30, the RIF URI.
>
> <csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/30
>
> Chris: There has been discussions on this at the last F2F. rif:uri has 
> not been defined. Hence the issue recorded.
> ... We were pretty close to an understanding at F2F, I think.
>
> Christian: Can someone summarize the positions on rif:uri? Jos?
> ... josb are you there?
>
> josb: The discussion was to clarify what is meant by URIs. It seems 
> that a URI in RIF is the same as the XML schema data type anyUri. This 
> is not the case. We do not want URI be interpretaed as themselves but 
> instead as individual in some particular domain.
> ... we have to characterize the syntactical class of uri.
>
> Michael: I changed the document. URI can now denote resources on the 
> web. It is not clear whether we need anyUri at all.
> ... the mention is in section multisorted syntax at the end.
>
> Christian: josb what decision do you suggest?
>
> josb: I do n ot understand why we need a sort for URIS.
>
> Michael: Do you mean it should be called "resource" instead of "uri"?
>
> josb: we should have constants interpreted in the usual abstract 
> domain. A sort "resource" might be closer to what we actually want.
>
> <ChrisW> Harold - I found three instances of "sortal" in the frozen draft
>
> Michael: syntactic control is need.
>
> <ChrisW> "sortal" should be changed to "sort"
>
> <Harold> In 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/Positive_Conditions, "Syntax 
> for Primitive Sorts" it says: rif:uri. Constants of this sort have the 
> form _rif:uri"XYZ" where XYZ is a URI as specified in RFC 3986.
>
> Francois: There are two ways. Uris interpreted as "resources" or 
> interpreted freely by any individual in the domain.
>
> Hassan: If you assign a sort to Uris, since uris are used for defining 
> sorts, ehat is the sort of a sort?
>
> Christian: Solution?
>
> Hassan: Uris should denote only resources. They are syntactic object. 
> Uri have a particular syntactic form. Then have to be given a denotation.
> ... If it is a syntactic object, it can only have a meta-sort.
>
> Michael: Sorts are not constant in the domain.
>
> Chris: What would belong to the sort Uri?
>
> <Harold> Jos, at F2F5 we discussed the issue that several syntactic 
> URIs can denote the same individual in the domain. RFC 3986 introduces 
> a normalization algorithm, but I have not yet seen a formal equality 
> theory for URIs (URI forwarding is hard to deal with).
>
> Christian: Can you give an example where we need a constant of sort URI?
>
> Michael: predicate name refer to an object on the web and we use a uri 
> to retrieve it.
>
> <josb> These are signatures, not sorts!
>
> Michael: URIs should be used for identifying names of predicates.
>
> Christian: Part of the probelm seems to be we do not know what uri are 
> to be used for.
>
> josb: interesting thing is that URI have a semantical domain associted 
> with this sort.
> ... uri for identifying names of predicate has nothing to do with sorts.
>
> Michael: two issues: syntax of uri and domain for their interpretation.
>
> josb: What is the point in having this sort?
>
> Michael: for using uris as names of predicated.
>
> josb: no need of a URI sort for this.
>
> Michael: we need to assign signature to them. this does not seem feasible.
> ... we need to group them.
> ... we need a mechanism to assign signature to constants.
>
> josb: why is sort needed for that.
>
> Michael: what other mechanism is suitable?
>
> josb: think of any other kind of mechanism.
>
> Christian: can you propose such a mechanism?
>
> s/propsoe/propose/
>
> Christian: action on josb on that.
>
> <ChrisW> *ACTION:* jdebrui to propose a mechanism that doesn't have a 
> problem with signatures for uris [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-rif-minutes.html#action07]
>
> <rifbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - jdebrui
>
> Hassan: I am confused. Take variables instead of URI. If a syntactic 
> category of variables are capitalized.
>
> <ChrisW> *ACTION:* jdebruij to propose a mechanism that doesn't have a 
> problem with signatures for uris [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-rif-minutes.html#action08]
>
> <rifbot> Created ACTION-271 - Propose a mechanism that doesn\'t have a 
> problem with signatures for uris [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2007-03-27].
>
> Hassan: Ambiguity is built in.
> ... Using URIS for syntactical categories and fdor constants is ambiguous.
>
> Michael: this is not done.
>
> Hassan: p(f, x) if all of p f x can be uri, what is the variable?
>
> <ChrisW> *ACTION:* hassan to propose example of ambiguity [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-rif-minutes.html#action09]
>
> <rifbot> Created ACTION-272 - Propose example of ambiguity [on Hassan 
> Ait-Kaci - due 2007-03-27].
>
> Christian: Dave?
>
> <ChrisW> DaveR: If the question is about using URIs for e.g. predicate 
> names as well as other kinds of constants, then why?
>
> Michael: THis is what the current linear syntax has. I need to think 
> of thne abstract syntax.
>
> Christian: We are not able to resolve the issue right now. I would 
> like the paragraph about RIF mentioning that there is an open issue on 
> the topic.
> ... I do not think it is clear what it means using uris as references 
> to resources.
> ... the reference to "rdfs resources" should be more specific.
>
> <ChrisW> *ACTION:* michael to add reference to URI issue [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-rif-minutes.html#action10]
>
> <rifbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - michael
>
> <rifbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or 
> username (eg. merdmann, mkifer, msintek, uscholdm)
>
> <ChrisW> *ACTION:* mkifer to add reference to URI issue [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-rif-minutes.html#action11]
>
> <rifbot> Created ACTION-273 - Add reference to URI issue [on Michael 
> Kifer - due 2007-03-27].
>
> Michael: I can mention the issue in the doc. I am not sure what can be 
> done for the second request.
>
> Christian: "in a way similar to a wohle doc." is not clear.
>
> Michael: we should only say we'll resolve the issue later.
>
> <Harold> I will do the sortal->sort change (without action item).
>
> Chris: in 2.1.3.2 typos. I can fix it in the wiki if this is ok.
>
> Christian: Second issue not being formally raised by Deborah yet: 
> distinct names for predicate, functions and constants.
>
> Harold: it is a typical misundserstanding between "constant" and 
> individual constants"
> ... the can be "function constant", "predicate constants" as well.
>
> Michael: the issue was whether the sets of individual constants, 
> function symbols and predicate symbols should be pairwise disjoint.
>
> Christian: the wording in the issue uses the word "constant" in a 
> maybe misleading manner.
> ... If the above mentioned sets are pairwise disjoint in RIF CORE, how 
> to to remove it in a RIF dialect.
>
> Michael: no problem, it is a matter of assigning more signature to 
> constants.
>
> <PaulaP> +1
>
>
>       AOB
>
> Christian: AOB? Any other URGENT business? None. Adjourned.
>
>
>     Summary of Action Items
>
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Christian to check with MISMO that their proof of 
> concept example can be published to RIF [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-rif-minutes.html#action04]
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Harold to add DaveR's caveat text to CORE [recorded 
> in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-rif-minutes.html#action05]
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Harold to change _sort syntax to ^^sort syntax 
> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-rif-minutes.html#action06]
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* hassan to propose example of ambiguity [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-rif-minutes.html#action09]
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* jdebrui to propose a mechanism that doesn't have a 
> problem with signatures for uris [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-rif-minutes.html#action07]
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* jdebruij to confirm availability of F2F meeting 
> facilities in Innsbruck [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-rif-minutes.html#action03]
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* jdebruij to propose a mechanism that doesn't have a 
> problem with signatures for uris [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-rif-minutes.html#action08]
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* jos_de to confirm availability of F2F meeting 
> facilities in Innsbruck [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-rif-minutes.html#action02]
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* josb to confirm availability of F2F meeting 
> facilities in Innsbruck [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-rif-minutes.html#action01]
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* michael to add reference to URI issue [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-rif-minutes.html#action10]
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* mkifer to add reference to URI issue [recorded in 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-rif-minutes.html#action11]
>  
> [End of minutes]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl 
> <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm> 
> version 1.128 (CVS log <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/>)
> $Date: 2007/03/20 16:34:32 $
>
> Francois Bry <mailto:bry@tematagi.pms.ifi.lmu.de>
>
> Last modified: Tue Mar 20 18:42:50 CET 2007