irc log from F2F8

Unfortunately, we failed to have RRSAgent properly logging the IRC
channel during parts of F2F8.  My IRC client (xchat) logs #rif to disk,
though, and scribe.perl can read its format like it reads RRSAgent's
format, so I don't think we have a real problem in producing the
minutes.  For completeness, though, I wanted to archive that IRC log
from my machine, so here it is.

       -- Sandro


**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Mon Nov  5 08:45:03 2007

Nov 05 08:45:03 -->	You are now talking on #rif
Nov 05 08:45:04 ---	Topic for #rif is 30 Oct telecon agenda
Nov 05 08:45:04 ---	Topic for #rif set by ChrisW at Tue Oct 30 10:44:29 2007
Nov 05 08:49:20 -->	Harold (harold.bol@ has joined #rif
Nov 05 08:49:43 -->	PaulVincent (3f772cda@ has joined #RIF
Nov 05 08:49:53 <PaulVincent>	scribenick PaulVincent
Nov 05 08:51:33 <PaulVincent>	Christian: will decide today on breakout topics eg implementation...
Nov 05 08:52:43 <PaulVincent>	Chris: session on Extensibility
Nov 05 08:52:52 <PaulVincent>	scribenick: PaulVincent
Nov 05 08:53:02 -->	bmoore3 (a8e682f8@ has joined #rif
Nov 05 08:53:45 <PaulVincent>	Reviewing Sandro's Extensibility_Design_Choices doc
Nov 05 08:54:09 -->	StellaMitchell (3f772c85@ has joined #rif
Nov 05 08:54:49 <PaulVincent>
Nov 05 08:57:18 -->	GaryHallmark (Gary@ has joined #rif
Nov 05 08:57:28 <PaulVincent>	Definitions: what is a RIF Document?
Nov 05 08:57:57 <PaulVincent>	Paul: does this imply all data in a RIF doc?
Nov 05 08:57:59 <PaulVincent>	o: no
Nov 05 08:58:04 <PaulVincent>	Sandro: no
Nov 05 08:58:22 <PaulVincent>	Jos: RIF doc may not be XML?
Nov 05 09:00:59 <PaulVincent>	Sandro: that is the current intent: RIF is an XML doc
Nov 05 09:01:52 -->	bob (3f772c74@ has joined #rif
Nov 05 09:03:04 <PaulVincent>	Christian: RIF may not contain data for use in rules
Nov 05 09:04:14 <PaulVincent>	Christian: withdraws comment
Nov 05 09:06:38 <sandro>	PROPOSED: accept definition of RIF Document as in
Nov 05 09:06:40 <PaulVincent>	Chris: proposes RIF Document definition is set once here as normative
Nov 05 09:07:27 <PaulVincent>	Christian: if this is a final definition then need more defining eg on data containment
Nov 05 09:08:02 <PaulVincent>	Axel: object to definition on root element as RIF:Document
Nov 05 09:08:11 <Harold>	What about: In general, RIF documents are expected to convey machine-processible rules, facts for use with rules, and metadata about rules.
Nov 05 09:08:13 <sandro>	PROPOSAL WITHDRAWN
Nov 05 09:08:29 <sandro>	Chris: defn okay -- nothing but nit picking complaints
Nov 05 09:08:42 <PaulVincent>	Chris: retracts enforcement of never-adjust-this definition
Nov 05 09:09:01 <sandro>	Sandro: I do intend "RIF Document" to imply they are all XML documents
Nov 05 09:09:25 <sandro>	Chris: The other issue was data, facts, and making it lower priority (ie at end of list with weasel words)
Nov 05 09:10:33 <PaulVincent>	Harold: would prefer facts rather than data (in RIF doc definition) as knowledge = rules + facts
Nov 05 09:11:35 <sandro>	Sandro: Are "RIF Consumer" and "RIF Producer"  good?
Nov 05 09:11:58 <sandro>	everyone happy
Nov 05 09:13:35 <sandro>	re RIF Dialect -- Axel -- Dialect may have more than XML.
Nov 05 09:14:07 <PaulVincent>	Axel: objects to RIF Dialect being an XML language 
Nov 05 09:15:11 <AxelPolleres>	On I proposed the following notion...
Nov 05 09:15:46 <AxelPolleres>	(which is probably also not the last word, but some things might be worthwhile):
Nov 05 09:15:47 <--	bmoore3 has quit (Quit: CGI:IRC (EOF))
Nov 05 09:15:47 <AxelPolleres>	# a dialect MUST restricts/define which parts of the abstract model you are allowed to use in its instance rulesets and how.
Nov 05 09:15:47 <AxelPolleres>	# a dialect MUST assign a semantics to this restricted part (model-theoretic, proof-theoretic, operational in that order of preference)
Nov 05 09:15:47 <AxelPolleres>	# a dialect MAY assign "roundtrippable" own syntaxes (for instance, BLD defines a represenation syntax as well as an XML syntax) and even define the semantics in terms of one of those special syntaxes (for instance BLD's semantics is defined in terms of its representation syntax).
Nov 05 09:16:54 <sandro>	Bob: II usually assumes you can write syntactically valid programs without them being meaningful.
Nov 05 09:17:19 <sandro>	Sandro: I specifically mean to rule that out.
Nov 05 09:17:32 <Harold>	 What about: A RIF Dialect is a specification of a (usually infinite) set of RIF Documents.
Nov 05 09:17:51 <AxelPolleres>	what is missing is probably: # MUST defne an XML Language for RIF Documents
Nov 05 09:18:38 <sandro>	Bob: Then syntax must be clear as going MORE DETAILED than in Schema.
Nov 05 09:18:47 <sandro>	Gary: cf Signatures....
Nov 05 09:18:58 <PaulVincent>	Christian: dialect is more than a schema
Nov 05 09:19:38 <PaulVincent>	Christian: dialect has a normative specification outside of the schema
Nov 05 09:19:56 <sandro>	Axel reads what he put on IRC.
Nov 05 09:20:38 <PaulVincent>	Axel: suggests bullet list for definition
Nov 05 09:20:49 <sandro>	Sandro: Let' leave dialect not well defined and move on.
Nov 05 09:21:21 <PaulVincent>	Chris: move onto definition of Language Conflict
Nov 05 09:23:40 <PaulVincent>	Harold: can only have inclusion hierarchy: multiple semantics is an issue
Nov 05 09:24:26 <PaulVincent>	Christian: need to define language conflict to know what we need to avoid
Nov 05 09:25:01 <sandro>	MK: the def of Lang Conflct doesn't need to go into Spec -- that's for us.
Nov 05 09:25:47 <PaulVincent>	Sandro: this may be a concept for dialog designers
Nov 05 09:25:59 <PaulVincent>	Michael: we should design to avoid this
Nov 05 09:26:42 <sandro>	csma: We seem to agree what is a language conflict, and that we don't want them.
Nov 05 09:26:48 <PaulVincent>	Chris: RIF Extension
Nov 05 09:27:30 <sandro>	Axel: Superset in the sense that every document in the extended dialect is a document in the base dialect.
Nov 05 09:27:59 <sandro>	Jos: superset is too restrictive.
Nov 05 09:28:06 <sandro>	csma: but that's what an extension.
Nov 05 09:28:21 <PaulVincent>	Jos: removing from "where"  to avoid "superset" will be more general
Nov 05 09:29:01 -->	mdean (mdean@ has joined #rif
Nov 05 09:29:21 <PaulVincent>	Chris: RIF Profile is the complement of RIF Extension
Nov 05 09:29:47 <PaulVincent>	Sandro: Profile is a general term for a standard subset
Nov 05 09:30:17 <PaulVincent>	Jos: this is already a design choice (Extension and Profile)
Nov 05 09:31:12 <sandro>	Jos: These definitions reflect reflect some design choices -- they preclude naming dialects
Nov 05 09:31:15 <sandro>	Sandro: true
Nov 05 09:31:22 <PaulVincent>	Jos: removing subset/superset makes extension=profile
Nov 05 09:32:48 <PaulVincent>	Christian: can extend definition to be extension = dialect that covers more rule types than the parent (etc)
Nov 05 09:33:11 <sandro>	Sandro: rif change, modification, delta, .....   
Nov 05 09:33:29 <PaulVincent>	Chris: ... but extension could also modify definition of ruleset etc
Nov 05 09:34:06 <PaulVincent>	Christian: RIF extension can also process the parent's rules
Nov 05 09:34:39 <sandro>	csma: we need to keep in mind that "RIF Extension" as written here is a specifc kind of thing, and there is a more general notion.
Nov 05 09:34:46 <PaulVincent>	Chris: need another term for a delta / derivative that is not an extension / profile
Nov 05 09:35:25 -->	MichaelKifer (kifer@ has joined #rif
Nov 05 09:35:54 <sandro>	"RIF Functionality Extension" vs "RIF Pure Syntactic Superset Extension"
Nov 05 09:37:04 <PaulVincent>	Sandro: RIF syntactic extension and functional extension?
Nov 05 09:37:55 <PaulVincent>	Michael: Also consider an "invisible extension" ... so we need to define the extensions more specifically
Nov 05 09:38:32 <PaulVincent>	Jos: invisible extensions that are just syntactic then this is not a RIF extension
Nov 05 09:38:34 <sandro>	Jos: this definition means "invisible extension" is not an extension.
Nov 05 09:38:37 <sandro>	Sandro: true.
Nov 05 09:38:54 <sandro>	Chris: Maybe metadata doesn't count as part of the syntax....?
Nov 05 09:39:54 <PaulVincent>	Chris: need to define a more general notion of RIF extension
Nov 05 09:40:07 <PaulVincent>	Chris: Backward and Forward Compatibility
Nov 05 09:41:12 <sandro>	growning == growing
Nov 05 09:42:16 <sandro>	Chris: I understand BC, but it sounds like there is wiggle room around metadata, eg language identifier....
Nov 05 09:44:14 <PaulVincent>	Sandro: example: IE identifies itself as Mozilla as this was meant to be metadata but is now used as an executable interpretation...
Nov 05 09:44:59 <AxelPolleres>	I personally don't really like dialect identifiers... so far, any convincing argument for them?
Nov 05 09:45:31 <PaulVincent>	Sandro: Metadata compatibility is important (Chris: some noncompatible metadata changes may not prevent executable backward compatibility)
Nov 05 09:48:31 <PaulVincent>	Christian: "future or unknown languages" term means?
Nov 05 09:49:08 <PaulVincent>	Sandro: this is simply a problem definition, not a solution
Nov 05 09:49:47 <AxelPolleres>	What I wanted to say is that Fwd-compatibility, if desired, already *fixes* the fallback mechanism in some sense.
Nov 05 09:50:01 <PaulVincent>	Chris: Fallback 
Nov 05 09:50:28 <PaulVincent>	Sandro: allows for graceful behavior - predictable degradation
Nov 05 09:51:21 <PaulVincent>	Jos: why should fallback imply convergence eg rather than ignore some aspect
Nov 05 09:51:57 <AxelPolleres>	examples for Fallback: 
Nov 05 09:51:57 <AxelPolleres>	 - refuse ruleset
Nov 05 09:51:57 <AxelPolleres>	 - ignore rules
Nov 05 09:51:57 <AxelPolleres>	 - ignore rule parts
Nov 05 09:52:02 <PaulVincent>	Michael: this is an issue, not a solution
Nov 05 09:53:20 <PaulVincent>	Axel: is "ignore" a transformation?
Nov 05 09:54:25 <AxelPolleres>	note there is also "semantic  fallbacks" probably. (think of strict vs. loose language layering (in Jos' sense))
Nov 05 09:54:30 <PaulVincent>	Chris: impact
Nov 05 09:54:36 <sandro>	Jos: switching from "transformation" to "mapping" helps.
Nov 05 09:55:26 <Harold>	Issue: If the receiver just omits what they can't understand, the sender won't know how much was understood. So, the receiver need to inform the sender about what they omitted.
Nov 05 09:56:35 <AdrianP>	Define default semantics as a fallback mechanism
Nov 05 09:56:58 <PaulVincent>	Sandro: a single dialect extension may have multiple fallbacks with multiple impacts
Nov 05 09:57:06 <AxelPolleres>	Examples of impact might be:
Nov 05 09:57:06 <AxelPolleres>	 - soundness lost
Nov 05 09:57:06 <AxelPolleres>	 - completeness lost
Nov 05 09:57:06 <AxelPolleres>	...
Nov 05 09:58:33 <PaulVincent>	Gary: Example - bad element tree being pruned: ie could remove part or all of a rule
Nov 05 09:58:57 <AxelPolleres>	sounds kind of like "cautious" and "brave" fallbacks.
Nov 05 09:59:05 <sandro>	Gary: prune at AND and you get false negatives; prune at RULE and you get fewer results --- user needs to choose.
Nov 05 09:59:33 <PaulVincent>	Chris: highlights of extensions
Nov 05 10:00:32 <PaulVincent>	Chris: user extensions vs official extensions
Nov 05 10:01:36 <PaulVincent>	Christian: user extensions for own fancy features via an extension framework - this is a strong motivation for adoption of extensibility
Nov 05 10:02:01 <sandro>	csma: Big Goal: to allow users to deploy extensiion which eventually turn into official extensions.
Nov 05 10:02:13 <--	GaryHallmark has quit (Ping timeout)
Nov 05 10:03:49 <PaulVincent>	Christian: examples may be vendor extensions, which can then be brought into an official extension
Nov 05 10:03:56 <AxelPolleres>	Do we want to go down to how a certificate for endorsement of a dialect needs to look like?
Nov 05 10:04:06 <Harold>	How to avoid that a vendor comes up with their fancy 'user' extension to differentiate themselves from other vendors.
Nov 05 10:04:13 <PaulVincent>	Christian: will say 2nd example after the break...
Nov 05 10:04:18 <PaulVincent>	BREAK to 10.35
Nov 05 10:05:56 <--	ChrisW has quit (Quit: ChrisW)
Nov 05 10:06:01 -->	ChrisW (cawelty@ has joined #rif
Nov 05 10:27:26 -->	GaryHallmark (Gary@ has joined #rif
Nov 05 10:31:08 <Harold>	... We could encourage vendors to collaborate on joint 'usergroup' extensions, so chances would go up for their extensions to become official.
Nov 05 10:31:41 <ChrisW>	Scribe: MichaelKifer
Nov 05 10:33:18 <MichaelKifer>	discussion of invisible extensions
Nov 05 10:33:43 <MichaelKifer>	csma: clarify the diff betw invisible extensions and language conflicts
Nov 05 10:34:41 <MichaelKifer>	sandro: invisible extension is a "harmless" language conflict
Nov 05 10:35:31 <sandro>	*might* sometimes be harmless.
Nov 05 10:36:30 <sandro>	Jos: better example of invisible extension is RDF and OWL-Full.   Same syntax, very very different semantics.
Nov 05 10:36:44 <sandro>	Sandro: Yes, but....    some caveats maybe.
Nov 05 10:38:30 <MichaelKifer>	mk: dont want language conflicts, but the notion of invisible extension is useful for specifying fallbacks and impact factors.
Nov 05 10:38:50 <MichaelKifer>	sandro,csma: want to avoid invisible extensions
Nov 05 10:39:05 <MichaelKifer> well as language conflicts
Nov 05 10:40:01 <sandro>	Chris: There is an intuitive notion of Invisible Extension that makes it different from Language Conflicts in general....
Nov 05 10:40:10 <sandro>	Sandro: Yes
Nov 05 10:42:05 <AxelPolleres>	How, "Strictly semantically layered extension" and "loosely layered semantically layered" semantics.
Nov 05 10:43:51 <AxelPolleres>	s/How/How about/
Nov 05 10:44:15 <MichaelKifer>	examples of invisible extensions: OWL-DL->OWL-Full, Well-formed, stable negation vs stratified negation
Nov 05 10:44:22 <ChrisW>	seemed like general agreement that invisible extensions and language conflicts are the same and undesirable
Nov 05 10:44:28 <Harold>	Since XML can express things with elements or attributes, we should use one element, e.g. Naf, with an attribute, e.g. flavor, which could distinguish stable, well-founded, etc.
Nov 05 10:44:45 <sandro>	Sandro: An "invisible extension" would be "naf" and you have to say out of band which kind of NAF it is.
Nov 05 10:45:41 <Harold>	So, <Naf flavor="stable"> vs. <Naf flavor="well-founded">
Nov 05 10:45:47 <AxelPolleres>	ChrisW, they are NOT the same: invisible extensions are a special case of conflict!
Nov 05 10:46:04 <Harold>	where one could be picked as the default.
Nov 05 10:46:46 <josb>	"An invisible extension defines a dialect which is a superset of the base dialect, but which defines a different semantics for documents in the base dialect."
Nov 05 10:53:19 <MichaelKifer>	sandro: motivating example for user-defined extension
Nov 05 10:54:32 <MichaelKifer>	sandro: what's the mechanism for granting permissions to define a dialect?
Nov 05 10:54:46 <MichaelKifer>	what namespace?
Nov 05 10:55:10 <MichaelKifer>	Harold: namespace change is not a problem
Nov 05 10:55:28 <Harold>	because it also occurs for RIF's own versions.
Nov 05 10:57:09 <MichaelKifer>	csma: if u want to become a standard, use RIF namespace.
Nov 05 10:57:32 <MichaelKifer>	sandro: may not know if something will become a standard at the beginning
Nov 05 10:59:06 <MichaelKifer>	sandro: another way is to rewrite vendor NS into a RIF NS automatically
Nov 05 10:59:52 <Harold>	Developers of user dialects should be strongly encouraged to reuse as many as possible of existing (official) standards when they look for a basis to define their own extension dialects.
Nov 05 11:00:45 <MichaelKifer>	sandro: how can we ensure that different groups developing different dialects dont step on each other
Nov 05 11:00:49 <AxelPolleres>	+1 we need some "principle of maximum reuse"
Nov 05 11:00:56 <MichaelKifer>	s/dont/don't/
Nov 05 11:03:41 <MichaelKifer>	csma: pro for having a central authority: there is some quality control
Nov 05 11:04:32 <Harold>	Re 2.1.2: What about a much less expensive light-weight control.
Nov 05 11:05:36 <MichaelKifer>	sandro: W3C doesn't want to be a central authority for every possible extension.  This position has led OASIS to take over some of the extensions.
Nov 05 11:05:49 <MichaelKifer>	... of XML
Nov 05 11:08:04 <MichaelKifer>	csms: create a RIF Consortium 
Nov 05 11:09:04 <MichaelKifer>	sandro: central repository of namespaces has a problem in case of IP and patent enforcement attempts
Nov 05 11:09:54 <MichaelKifer>	s/csms/csna/
Nov 05 11:10:08 <MichaelKifer>	s/csna/csma/
Nov 05 11:10:48 <Harold>	Maybe, by analogy to Incubator Groups, W3C needs a notion of 'Outcubator Groups' which maintain further development of specs after a WG ended.
Nov 05 11:12:27 <sandro>	csma: we'll have to decide soon whether BLD and PRD use the same namespace
Nov 05 11:13:15 <AxelPolleres>	solution: common abstract model, common namespaces for overlapping constructs :-)
Nov 05 11:13:42 <MichaelKifer>	csma: how do we manage overlap between dialects? for ex: BLD and PRD are not extensions of each other, but they share the condition sublanguage. What namespace for that sublanguage?
Nov 05 11:15:04 <sandro>	sandro: if we think of BLD lists as an extension, is there some reason to put them in a different namespace.
Nov 05 11:15:26 <MichaelKifer>	gary: maybe just use the same namespace for everything?
Nov 05 11:15:35 <MichaelKifer>	sandro: +1
Nov 05 11:15:55 <MichaelKifer>	csma: but how do we achieve this at the technical level?
Nov 05 11:17:49 <MichaelKifer>	axel: another way is to split off things like the condition language
Nov 05 11:17:51 <Harold>	The namespace should contain at least A new namespace could be created for BLD would then become an extension of Conditions by Horn rules.
Nov 05 11:18:33 <sandro>	PROPOSED: RIF-WG will only use its one namespace, but to allow user extension to use other namespaces.
Nov 05 11:18:46 <AxelPolleres>	s/to split off things like the condition language/to split off abstract model and dialects, e.g. CONDITION is an abstract model construct, it is not specific to a dialect/
Nov 05 11:19:36 <MichaelKifer>	csma: what if the same document is in both dialects (eg, a subset of PRD and BLD)? Then u don't want the same constructs (eg negation) to be in different namespaces.
Nov 05 11:19:38 <sandro>	PROPOSED: All official extensions will use the main RIF namespace, but we will support user extensions using other namespaces.
Nov 05 11:19:41 <AxelPolleres>	Well, we would be getting close to a Core here again, harold, don' we?
Nov 05 11:20:09 -->	csma (csma@ has joined #RIF
Nov 05 11:20:49 <sandro>	PROPOSED: All official extensions will use the main RIF namespace, but we will support user extensions using other namespaces.
Nov 05 11:21:38 <sandro>	PROPOSED: All official extensions will use the main RIF namespace, and we will support user extensions using other namespaces.
Nov 05 11:22:16 <sandro>	PROPOSED: All official (ie standard) dialects will use the main RIF namespace.   We will support user extensions using other namespaces.
Nov 05 11:22:28 <sandro>	Harold: what about subspaces?
Nov 05 11:22:47 <sandro>	Sandro: No, really the same namespace string.
Nov 05 11:23:43 <AxelPolleres>	This fits very well with the common abstract model idea... btw., I like it.
Nov 05 11:24:02 <sandro>	RESOLVED: All official (ie standard) dialects will use the main RIF namespace.   We will support user extensions using other namespaces.
Nov 05 11:24:40 <sandro>	csma: if this leads to serious design difficulties, we may to re-open this, of course.
Nov 05 11:25:07 <MichaelKifer>	csma: this resolution may cause design difficulties. if this occurs then we'll dissolve or modify the resolution
Nov 05 11:26:20 <sandro>	Do we ever allow invisible extensions?    => not really resolved yet
Nov 05 11:27:04 <MichaelKifer>	csma/sandro: issue: do we allow invisible extensions?
Nov 05 11:27:15 <MichaelKifer>	mk: unclear what "allow" means
Nov 05 11:27:27 <sandro>	How do you know when extensions are compatible?    => no idea yet.
Nov 05 11:27:47 <MichaelKifer>	issue: how do we know if extensions are compatible?
Nov 05 11:27:56 <MichaelKifer>	csma: probably we don't care
Nov 05 11:30:03 <sandro>	"Do people ever need"  ....       component library,    mk: difficult for 6months times.            =>   No criticial impact here now.
Nov 05 11:30:42 <Harold>	An extension should always start from the largest base dialect(s) that will be semantically contained in the newly defined dialect.
Nov 05 11:31:28 <MichaelKifer>	issue: should we allow flags at the document root to modify the meaning of syntactic constructs (eg, to say whether negation is a WFS-NAF or ASP-NAF or ...)
Nov 05 11:31:48 <MichaelKifer>	sandro: table this for the moment
Nov 05 11:31:58 <AxelPolleres>	I think further, we could probably not get anything more than a "principle of maximum reuse" and something like defining BLD and PRD as core in the following sense. Proposal:
Nov 05 11:32:18 <AxelPolleres>	Other dialects should reuse BLD and PRD wherever possible. Other dialects MUST agree with the semantics of BLD and PRD on the parts (of the abstract model) they share with BLD and PRD.
Nov 05 11:33:01 <Harold>	Starting from the 'largest'  base dialect(s) will exclude starting from the 'null' dialect except when defining a totally different language (unrelated to the rest of RIF).
Nov 05 11:35:11 <MichaelKifer>	csma: is it possible to tell when ASP and WFS agree?
Nov 05 11:35:21 <sandro>	Merging:   wfnaf in one file and smnaf in the other, and you merge them.....     document-level flags wont allow that.
Nov 05 11:35:47 <MichaelKifer>	mk: no. it's undecidable, but some sufficient conditions (stratification at the predicate level) exsist
Nov 05 11:35:50 <AxelPolleres>	-1 to document level flg for the moment, not convinced yet. the smsnaf vs wfsnaf issue could be solved with different identifiers for the different nafs.
Nov 05 11:36:44 <Harold>	'Document-level flags' correspond to the XML attributes I mentioned earlier: Eg. a 'flavor' attribute for Naf, which distinguishes well-founded, ... semantics.
Nov 05 11:36:59 <AdrianP>	csma: document publication plan
Nov 05 11:37:35 <AdrianP>	csma: how many documents; which ones; why, what dependencies, etc
Nov 05 11:38:20 <sandro>	mk: 1.  arch with fallback + extesnibility stuff       2.   two for logic
Nov 05 11:38:24 <AdrianP>	michael: ideally architecture document (fallback, extensibility), logical framework, production rule framework
Nov 05 11:39:23 <AdrianP>	michael: Framwork for BLD and PRD
Nov 05 11:40:15 <Harold>
Nov 05 11:41:03 <Harold>	shuffled material from BLD.
Nov 05 11:41:19 <AdrianP>	michael: seperate documents, e.g. ARC document, CORE framework, BLD
Nov 05 11:41:27 <--	csma has quit (Ping timeout)
Nov 05 11:41:33 <Harold>	s/ARC/ARCH/
Nov 05 11:41:49 <sandro>	csma: rule of thumb -- different audiences == different documents.
Nov 05 11:42:07 <AdrianP>	Michael: we would have very large documents otherwise
Nov 05 11:43:25 <AdrianP>	Michael: signature, semantics etc are currently in BLD and should be moved
Nov 05 11:44:06 <AdrianP>	csma: compatibility of dialects with OWL, RDF, compatibility of PRD to XML schema
Nov 05 11:44:21 <AdrianP>	csma: shall this described in an extra document?
Nov 05 11:45:04 <AdrianP>	chris: + different framework for PRD?
Nov 05 11:45:37 <--	mdean has quit (Connection reset by peer)
Nov 05 11:46:39 <AdrianP>	chrisw: Arch could be split into different documents?
Nov 05 11:47:05 <AdrianP>	michael: CORE is postponed after PRD
Nov 05 11:48:35 <AdrianP>	csma: do we need a core for different dialects
Nov 05 11:49:34 <AdrianP>	chris: interchange and overlap covered by Extensibility document?
Nov 05 11:50:42 <AdrianP>	axel: principle of extensibility needs to be written in Extensibility document
Nov 05 11:50:57 <AxelPolleres>	As proposed earlier:
Nov 05 11:51:00 <AxelPolleres>	" Other dialects should reuse BLD and PRD wherever possible. Other dialects MUST agree with the semantics of BLD and PRD on the parts (of the abstract model) they share with BLD and PRD."
Nov 05 11:51:38 <AdrianP>	sandro: as a user you are interested in the core (overlap)
Nov 05 11:52:05 <AdrianP>	sandro: this overlap should be extracted and written down
Nov 05 11:53:12 <AdrianP>	chris: Is Core is an instantiation of guidance how to interchange two dialects
Nov 05 11:53:53 <AdrianP>	csma: Instead of have a Core could it be a profile of PRD and BLD?
Nov 05 11:54:09 <AdrianP>	csma: Instead of having a Core could it be a profile of PRD and BLD?
Nov 05 11:54:30 <Harold>	The 'Core' overlap (based on the Condition Language) of BLD and PRD consists of the Pure Production Rules we had discussed early on and its extensions (e.g., by Naf, Bagof, ...).
Nov 05 11:54:32 <AdrianP>	Sandro: intersections of dialects should be documented
Nov 05 11:54:32 <AxelPolleres>	chrisW said: Extensibility should define how to specify interchange between two non-subsuming dialects. (Q: Do you mean by defining fallbacks? in that case agreed.)
Nov 05 11:55:05 <sandro>	If there is a useful overlap, then it should be documented.
Nov 05 11:55:06 <AdrianP>	Jos: Extensibility talks about extension of XML syntax
Nov 05 11:55:25 <AdrianP>	Jos: Framework talks about semantic extensions
Nov 05 11:57:14 <AdrianP>	Axel: Framework currently defines general notions of semantics, signatures
Nov 05 11:58:10 <AdrianP>	Jos: purpose of framework?
Nov 05 11:58:31 <--	bob has quit (Quit: CGI:IRC (EOF))
Nov 05 11:58:33 -->	bmoore3 (3f772c74@ has joined #rif
Nov 05 11:59:14 <AdrianP>	csma: example: PRD reused conditions of BLD, i.e. PRD points to BLD
Nov 05 11:59:36 <AdrianP>	csma: so it might make sense to take it out of BLD
Nov 05 12:00:34 <AdrianP>	jos: e.g. signature are not used
Nov 05 12:00:57 <AdrianP>	michael: signatures set the framework for extensions
Nov 05 12:01:45 <AdrianP>	michael: Framework creates the general framework how to create dialects by specialising
Nov 05 12:03:23 <AdrianP>	michael: Framework can evolve
Nov 05 12:03:47 <AdrianP>	michael: Framework is about logical extensibility
Nov 05 12:04:58 <AxelPolleres>	Suggestion for what the "Framework" is:
Nov 05 12:04:58 <AxelPolleres>	1. Each RIF dialect MUST define a semantics (model-theoretic, proof-theoretic, operational in that order of preference). 
Nov 05 12:04:58 <AxelPolleres>	2. Principle of maximum reuse: Other dialects should reuse RIF endorsed dialects (currently BLD and PRD) wherever possible.
Nov 05 12:04:58 <AxelPolleres>	3. Other dialects MUST agree with the semantics of RIF endorsed dialects (currently BLD and PRD) on the parts (of the abstract model) they share with BLD and PRD.
Nov 05 12:06:15 <AdrianP>	sandro: fallback mechanism is standard for RIF
Nov 05 12:06:50 <AdrianP>	chris: Extensibility and Framework need to be understand by dilact designer
Nov 05 12:07:14 <sandro>	every fallback "programming language" has to be implement in every RIF consumer. 
Nov 05 12:07:29 <AxelPolleres>	"The RIF Semantics Framework provides means to define semantics for logical dialects and BLD is an example which uses this Semantics Framework. This does not preclude dialects to define their own semantics in a different way. However, reusing the Semantics Framework may ease the task of proving that a dialect fulfills (3.) above."
Nov 05 12:08:32 <--	IgorMozetic has quit (Quit: CGI:IRC (EOF))
Nov 05 13:31:32 ---	Disconnected (Remote host closed socket).
**** ENDING LOGGING AT Mon Nov  5 13:31:32 2007

**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Mon Nov  5 13:31:43 2007

Nov 05 13:31:43 -->	You are now talking on #rif
Nov 05 13:32:01 ---	Topic for #rif is 30 Oct telecon agenda
Nov 05 13:32:01 ---	Topic for #rif set by ChrisW at Tue Oct 30 10:44:29 2007
Nov 05 13:32:22 ---	You have left channel #rif
**** ENDING LOGGING AT Mon Nov  5 13:32:22 2007

**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Mon Nov  5 13:33:03 2007

Nov 05 13:33:03 -->	You are now talking on #rif
Nov 05 13:33:03 ---	Topic for #rif is 30 Oct telecon agenda
Nov 05 13:33:04 ---	Topic for #rif set by ChrisW at Tue Oct 30 10:44:29 2007
Nov 05 13:33:10 -->	bmoore3 (3f772c74@ has joined #rif
Nov 05 13:33:35 -->	GaryHallmark (Gary@ has joined #rif
Nov 05 13:33:45 -->	StellaMitchell (3f772c85@ has joined #rif
Nov 05 13:34:02 <GaryHallmark>	Scribe: GaryHallmark
Nov 05 13:34:14 <GaryHallmark>	ScribeNick: GaryHallmark
Nov 05 13:35:00 -->	MichaelKifer (kifer@ has joined #rif
Nov 05 13:35:24 <GaryHallmark>	zakim, next agendum
Nov 05 13:35:24 <Zakim>	agendum 7. "PRD" taken up [from ChrisW]
Nov 05 13:35:46 <GaryHallmark>	zakim, move to item 6
Nov 05 13:35:46 <Zakim>	agendum 6. "Arch" taken up [from ChrisW]
Nov 05 13:35:51 -->	IgorMozetic (3f772c9b@ has joined #rif
Nov 05 13:35:58 -->	mdean (mdean@ has joined #rif
Nov 05 13:36:09 <GaryHallmark>	zakim, move to item 5
Nov 05 13:36:09 <Zakim>	agendum 5. "SWC" taken up [from ChrisW]
Nov 05 13:36:27 <GaryHallmark>	zakim, move to item 4
Nov 05 13:36:27 <Zakim>	agendum 4. "BLD" taken up [from ChrisW]
Nov 05 13:37:22 <GaryHallmark>	not sure about the agenda item, but we are discussing public comments
Nov 05 13:38:17 <GaryHallmark>	dicussing comments from Peter Patel-Schneider
Nov 05 13:41:01 <GaryHallmark>	why 3 different kinds of atomic formulae?
Nov 05 13:41:17 <GaryHallmark>	this will be addressed my semantic web compatibility doc
Nov 05 13:41:25 -->	AdrianP (3f772cac@ has joined #RIF
Nov 05 13:41:58 <GaryHallmark>	why is new treatment of data values needed?
Nov 05 13:42:15 <GaryHallmark>	josb: why different from rdf and owl
Nov 05 13:43:04 <GaryHallmark>	... difference is rdf/owl use data maps, but rif has fixed list
Nov 05 13:43:47 <GaryHallmark>	... rif does not use data mapping
Nov 05 13:45:11 <GaryHallmark>	michael: leaving data types open could be dangerous for rif
Nov 05 13:47:29 <GaryHallmark>	only 1 or 2 attendees claim to understand this distinction
Nov 05 13:48:39 <GaryHallmark>	chrisw: should this be an issue - fixed v. open data types
Nov 05 13:51:08 <GaryHallmark>	michael: how can RIF semantics handle open data types negotiated out of band?
Nov 05 13:51:52 <GaryHallmark>	josb: entailment checking would use out of band info, too
Nov 05 13:52:04 -->	PaulVincent (3f772cda@ has joined #RIF
Nov 05 13:52:47 -->	AxelPolleres (AxelPoller@ has joined #rif
Nov 05 13:52:48 <GaryHallmark>	chrisw: need an action to determine difference in type handling and justify if there is a difference
Nov 05 13:54:33 <GaryHallmark>	action: josb to summarize differnce in treatment of data values between rdf/owl and rif
Nov 05 13:54:33 *	rifbot noticed an ACTION. Trying to create it.
Nov 05 13:54:33 <rifbot>	Sorry, couldn't find user - josb
Nov 05 13:55:03 <sandro>	ACTION: Jos to explain in writing the difference in 'treatment of data types' mentioned in PFPS's comment
Nov 05 13:55:03 *	rifbot noticed an ACTION. Trying to create it.
Nov 05 13:55:03 <rifbot>	Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Jos
Nov 05 13:55:03 <rifbot>	Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jderoo, jdebruij)
Nov 05 13:55:14 <sandro>	ACTION: jdebruij to explain in writing the difference in 'treatment of data types' mentioned in PFPS's comment
Nov 05 13:55:14 *	rifbot noticed an ACTION. Trying to create it.
Nov 05 13:55:14 <rifbot>	Created ACTION-362 - Explain in writing the difference in \'treatment of data types\' mentioned in PFPS\'s comment [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2007-11-12].
Nov 05 13:57:03 <GaryHallmark>	why is there a symbol space for IRI identifiers?
Nov 05 13:57:31 <sandro>	MK; to increase uniformity.
Nov 05 13:58:36 -->	josb (chatzilla@ has joined #rif
Nov 05 13:58:53 <sandro>	ACTION: kifer to make a wiki page for replying to PFPS and start drafting reply, including explain why the symbol space for IRIs.
Nov 05 13:58:53 *	rifbot noticed an ACTION. Trying to create it.
Nov 05 13:58:53 <rifbot>	Created ACTION-363 - Make a wiki page for replying to PFPS and start drafting reply, including explain why the symbol space for IRIs. [on Michael Kifer - due 2007-11-12].
Nov 05 13:59:44 <GaryHallmark>	treatment of slotted formulae is "unusual"
Nov 05 13:59:58 <GaryHallmark>	chrisw: ask Peter if it is a problem
Nov 05 14:01:19 <GaryHallmark>	condition language is very complex
Nov 05 14:01:56 <GaryHallmark>	josb: 3 frame formulas, slotted predicates, etc.
Nov 05 14:02:01 <GaryHallmark>	harold: rich!
Nov 05 14:02:06 <sandro>	Harold: it's not "complex", it's "rich"
Nov 05 14:02:27 <GaryHallmark>	sandro: could be simpler
Nov 05 14:03:47 <GaryHallmark>	chrisw: some of these comments don't need a response
Nov 05 14:04:45 <GaryHallmark>	why worry about interpretations where IP is not a subset of IR?
Nov 05 14:04:46 <sandro>	"Why worry about interp...."
Nov 05 14:05:29 <sandro>	ACTION: Jos to respond to '"Why worry about interpretations where IP is not a subset of IR", explaing how keeping the option of RDF Entailment open.
Nov 05 14:05:29 *	rifbot noticed an ACTION. Trying to create it.
Nov 05 14:05:29 <rifbot>	Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Jos
Nov 05 14:05:29 <rifbot>	Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jderoo, jdebruij)
Nov 05 14:05:42 <sandro>	ACTION: jdebruij to respond to '"Why worry about interpretations where IP is not a subset of IR", explaing how keeping the option of RDF Entailment open.
Nov 05 14:05:42 *	rifbot noticed an ACTION. Trying to create it.
Nov 05 14:05:42 <rifbot>	Created ACTION-364 - Respond to \'\"Why worry about interpretations where IP is not a subset of IR\", explaing how keeping the option of RDF Entailment open. [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2007-11-12].
Nov 05 14:06:05 <sandro>	Jos: you can no longer have ill-types literals in RIF.
Nov 05 14:07:02 -->	caribou (cbournez@ has joined #rif
Nov 05 14:08:24 <sandro>	ACTION: jdebruij to draft reply to PFPS about il-typed-literals and make sure Chris likes it
Nov 05 14:08:24 *	rifbot noticed an ACTION. Trying to create it.
Nov 05 14:08:24 <rifbot>	Created ACTION-365 - Draft reply to PFPS about il-typed-literals and make sure Chris likes it [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2007-11-12].
Nov 05 14:09:00 <GaryHallmark>	josb: latest draft ties rdf:type and rdfs:subClassOf to # and ##
Nov 05 14:10:11 <GaryHallmark>	no actions on RIF-OWL compatibility
Nov 05 14:14:01 <GaryHallmark>	why are xsd:date, boolean, float excluded but xsd:int are required?  Why is xsd:integer the only derived datatype?
Nov 05 14:14:51 <GaryHallmark>	csma: not really done on purpose
Nov 05 14:16:35 <GaryHallmark>	what is the arity of #Imadethisup
Nov 05 14:18:59 <GaryHallmark>	discuss implementation plans
Nov 05 14:19:05 <GaryHallmark>	who plans to implement bld?
Nov 05 14:19:42 <GaryHallmark>	axel: will not implement function symbols
Nov 05 14:19:58 <sandro>	Kifer, Adrian, Harold, Igor, Axel--partial, Sandro 
Nov 05 14:21:05 <sandro>	kifer: in and out translators for XML, ... I don't know, toward end of 2008.       If only presentation syntax then flora-2 already implements all of this.
Nov 05 14:21:19 -->	csma (csma@ has joined #rif
Nov 05 14:22:20 <sandro>	sandro: i certainly plan to implement translators between XML and presentation syntax, ....    but PS isn't real.
Nov 05 14:22:51 <sandro>	kifer: I doubt anyone can really implement equality.
Nov 05 14:23:08 <sandro>	csma: implementation means that you can produce and consume RIF BLD documents.
Nov 05 14:23:36 <sandro>	kifer: some substitutions are very expensive to do.
Nov 05 14:24:18 -->	Harold (harold.bol@ has joined #rif
Nov 05 14:24:58 <GaryHallmark>	sandro: python translator for N3 and prolog
Nov 05 14:25:57 <AxelPolleres>	axel: I would implement what can be handled by our engine, ie. datalog, w/o equality, but I could use RDF as data and would try to look into NAF extensions based on that.
Nov 05 14:27:12 <GaryHallmark>	adrian: translate to prova
Nov 05 14:27:12 <sandro>	adrian: translate to/from prover  (an iso prolog language)
Nov 05 14:27:21 <sandro>	s/prover/prova/
Nov 05 14:27:25 <sandro>	?
Nov 05 14:27:51 <sandro>	2-3 months
Nov 05 14:28:15 <sandro>	prova == prolog + java
Nov 05 14:28:59 <sandro>	adirian: I'd use XSLT
Nov 05 14:29:09 <sandro>	Harold: OO-jDREW
Nov 05 14:29:37 <sandro>	Harold: I'd also use XSLT
Nov 05 14:29:59 <sandro>	Harold: estimate completeion end of 1Q08
Nov 05 14:30:40 <GaryHallmark>	adrian: would wait for stable bld spec
Nov 05 14:30:47 <sandro>	Mike: Did SWRL to BLD, XSLT.
Nov 05 14:30:52 <mdean>
Nov 05 14:32:25 <mdean>	next step:  validate output against just-published XSD
Nov 05 14:32:29 <sandro>	Igor: we're mostly interested in producing RIF rules, from our machine learning systems.   we need builtins, lists, NAF, ... first.
Nov 05 14:33:14 <GaryHallmark>	igor: leverage another rif consumer to execute what we produce
Nov 05 14:33:14 <sandro>	Igor: we'd want to use consumer, based on Flora or Prolog.      It should take a couple months, after BLD is really fixed -- not at this stage.
Nov 05 14:33:52 <sandro>	Axel: I want a hook in the language for referring to RDF data sets....      I want something quick based on the presentation syntax.
Nov 05 14:35:00 <sandro>	Axel: ~2 months, when we have RDF reference mechanism.
Nov 05 14:35:57 <sandro>	Chris: implementor's breakout tomorrow....
Nov 05 14:37:39 <sandro>	PaulVincent, Gary, Stella, Bob === waiting for PRD
Nov 05 14:37:51 <sandro>	Jos - academic, at the moment.
Nov 05 14:38:01 <sandro>	ilog == prd as well.
Nov 05 14:42:33 <Harold>	14:30 - 15:30: RIF-PRD strawman
Nov 05 14:43:05 -->	ChrisW (cawelty@ has joined #rif
Nov 05 14:43:09 <Harold>	csma:
Nov 05 14:43:36 <Harold>	... walk-thru explaining assumptions etc.
Nov 05 14:45:23 <Harold>	... Formal description based on Claude Kirchner et al.'s rewriting approach.
Nov 05 14:46:21 <Harold>	(from project MANIFICIO)
Nov 05 14:46:40 <Harold>	MichaelK: You have semantics in two places, one not used.
Nov 05 14:46:51 <Harold>	csma: maybe one to be removed.
Nov 05 14:47:10 <Harold>	Gary: Hard to discuss semantics before haveing any syntax.
Nov 05 14:47:23 <Harold>	csma: Occacionally useful.
Nov 05 14:48:03 <Harold>	Gary: OK, on the level of deciding model-theor., operational, etc. semantics.
Nov 05 14:48:24 <Harold>	csma: Removed pattern language section.
Nov 05 14:48:44 <Harold>	... Reuses condition language.
Nov 05 14:49:04 <Harold>	Jos: Thought you dont support function symbols?
Nov 05 14:49:52 <Harold>	... Actions in the 'head' (then-part) of rules. But action lang. extends condition language.
Nov 05 14:50:11 <Harold>	csma: Two actions: Add/Remove a fact.
Nov 05 14:51:03 <Harold>	csma: Not an extension of Condition language, but new lang. on top of it.
Nov 05 14:51:15 <Harold>	... OK, but only first draft.
Nov 05 14:51:50 <Harold>	... Copied from BLD: 1.3.2 (Why is it a Web lang., ...)
Nov 05 14:52:37 <Harold>	... Diff from BLD: Structural diagrams and XML for syntax. No presentation syntax.
Nov 05 14:52:50 <Harold>	Gary: Why none?
Nov 05 14:53:00 <Harold>	csma: Not needed.
Nov 05 14:53:10 <Harold>	MichaelK: But it's on the first page.
Nov 05 14:53:49 <Harold>	Gary: PR vendors will want to see a presentation syntax. To discuss what a given snippet means.
Nov 05 14:53:51 <--	mdean has quit (Ping timeout)
Nov 05 14:53:57 <Harold>	csmaL Starting from the botton.
Nov 05 14:54:27 <Harold>	Jos: Another use of pres. syn.: didactic, introductory reasons.
Nov 05 14:55:04 <Harold>	csma: Audience for PRD more developers than academics, so more interested in XML.
Nov 05 14:55:41 <Harold>	... E.g. Mark Proctor said: "... just give me the XML syntax involved..."
Nov 05 14:56:09 <Harold>	... Took BNF syntax principles from WSDL.
Nov 05 14:57:32 <Harold>	... E.g. defined_element contains BNF (comment?)
Nov 05 14:58:26 <Harold>	... Condition lang. with a few modifications: simplifications such as removing some things.
Nov 05 14:59:52 <Harold>	... Classification only uses Membership. Frame only with one object, one slot (deal with the rest in the semantics).
Nov 05 15:00:10 <Harold>	Gary: ALso see it as too general in BLD?
Nov 05 15:00:16 <Harold>	csma: Yes.
Nov 05 15:01:04 <Harold>	Gary: Let's resist temptation to try in PRD to fix issues of BLD.
Nov 05 15:01:29 <Harold>	csma:  TERM
Nov 05 15:02:50 <Harold>	Gary: If you get rid of Uniterm then you dont have nested functions, which are not present in production rule systems.
Nov 05 15:03:45 <Harold>	Sandro: For calls you dont want to distinguish if they are builtins or user-defined.
Nov 05 15:04:17 <AxelPolleres>	If we don't syntactically distinguish built-ins, I am a bit worried about extensibility, honestly. 
Nov 05 15:04:31 <Harold>	MichaelK: builtins in both head and body?
Nov 05 15:04:54 <AxelPolleres>	Why should a thing in one dialect be a logical function and in the other a builtin??? THat would be the result of not syntactivally distinguishing them, or no?
Nov 05 15:05:10 <Harold>	csma: Yes, but no problem since there are no function symbols.
Nov 05 15:05:25 <sandro>	Not in one dialect vs another --- one *implementation* vs another.     
Nov 05 15:05:28 <AxelPolleres>	same with interpreted functions.
Nov 05 15:05:42 <Harold>	... Tried to be compliant with PRR.
Nov 05 15:05:50 <sandro>	Like, append/3 can be a built in or a library function.
Nov 05 15:06:01 <AxelPolleres>	or a logical function :-)
Nov 05 15:06:13 <sandro>	library function == logical function, as I meant it.
Nov 05 15:06:26 <Harold>	... This community is more development oriented. That's why added more than absolutely necessary.
Nov 05 15:07:10 <AxelPolleres>	ok, so, how to distinguish? each dialect needs to specify which are built-in (ie. fixed interpretation) and which are logical (ie. variable interpretation) functions/predicates?
Nov 05 15:07:22 <Harold>	... NonMonNot is neutral with respect to earlier discussion about negation.
Nov 05 15:07:44 <AxelPolleres>	and obviously the symbol spaces eed to be disjoint for those.
Nov 05 15:07:52 <AxelPolleres>	s/eed/need/
Nov 05 15:08:17 <Harold>	... TERM like in BLD -- could become a substitution group.
Nov 05 15:09:00 <Harold>	... Const copied BLD part about symb. spaces.
Nov 05 15:09:23 <sandro>	In dialect1 append/3 is not built in, so if you want it, you must somehow cause its definitional as a logic function to be loaded.   in dialect2, append/3 is built in.        [I'm not saying this is absolutely the best way to do it, but it has some advantages.]
Nov 05 15:09:32 <Harold>	... Keep 'type=" ... IRI ..."
Nov 05 15:09:55 <AxelPolleres>	"NonMonNot is neutral with respect to earlier discussion about negation." ... If we would have had (general) NAF in the condition language, would you have reused it?
Nov 05 15:10:20 <sandro>	actually, this probably violates No-Language-Conflicts....
Nov 05 15:10:33 <sandro>	this == my side conversation here about append/3.
Nov 05 15:10:54 <AxelPolleres>	yes, that is what worries me, sandro.
Nov 05 15:11:08 <Harold>	...  Even inlined examples need no pres. syntax: <Const type="SYMSPACE">LITERAL</Const>.
Nov 05 15:11:26 <sandro>	Yeah, I think you're right, Axel.
Nov 05 15:11:27 <Harold>	... Different communities -- different ways to write rules.
Nov 05 15:12:04 <Harold>	Gary: Dont think this at all. Only want to see 'deltas' w.r.t. BLD, not need to learn pres. syn. from scratch.
Nov 05 15:12:47 <Harold>	csma: I thought people from ILOG, ORACLE, etc. will directly start to read PRD (dont need to read BLD documents).
Nov 05 15:12:50 <AxelPolleres>	As for the nonmonnegation... I, from an abstractModel point of view, ask myself is NAF a subclass of NonMonNegation or the other way around, or are they completely unrelated?
Nov 05 15:13:32 <AxelPolleres>	(conceptually, they are obviously related...)
Nov 05 15:13:36 <Harold>	Paul: Potential use case: could use logic or production rule approach.
Nov 05 15:13:46 <--	GaryHallmark has quit (Ping timeout)
Nov 05 15:14:25 <Harold>	Gary: Perahps it was a historical accident that business users chose prod. rules, not logic rules.
Nov 05 15:15:39 <Harold>	csma: Gary, I agree that BLD and PRD docs should LOOK the same.
Nov 05 15:16:37 <Harold>	... Would argue BLD should be restructured like this, by components (not as a whole), would make it easier for developers.
Nov 05 15:17:11 <Harold>	Gary: Better to be common than to be slightly better: Lets not try to do BLD changes in PRD.
Nov 05 15:18:09 -->	GaryHallmark (Gary@ has joined #rif
Nov 05 15:18:11 <Harold>	csma: If it makes sense as now in PRD, then the BLD team will take it over, otherwise not.
Nov 05 15:18:29 <Harold>	... Point is NOT to compete between BLD and PRD.
Nov 05 15:19:00 <Harold>	... Only the presentation/structure of the PRD document seems to be useful.
Nov 05 15:20:09 <Harold>	Jos: Concern that a lot of material of this PRD draft is a repetition of what's already in BLD. But it should only be in ONE place.
Nov 05 15:20:18 <Harold>	csma: Yes.
Nov 05 15:20:47 <Harold>	Jos: I thought we dont want to have negation in Phase 1. Now it's in PRD.
Nov 05 15:21:17 <Harold>	Sandro: OK for exploratory purposes.
Nov 05 15:22:20 <Harold>	Gary: Until we dont have such extensions of the Condition lang. we should ask them to add them, not invent them in PRD. Rather PRD should move on to formalizing Actions.
Nov 05 15:23:16 <Harold>	Sandro/Axel: Which kind of negation is appropriate for production rules.
Nov 05 15:24:38 <AxelPolleres>	sandro, we don't hae subclassing in XML, but we do have it in RDFS :-)
Nov 05 15:24:50 <Harold>	Harold: Granularity of reuse better when there are sublanguages of the Condition lang.
Nov 05 15:24:58 <sandro>	csma: I really want a common component library, and maybe a common core.   BLD and PRD should draw from those, but not have to be exactly the same.
Nov 05 15:25:28 <Harold>	csma: Library of constructs may be advantageous.
Nov 05 15:25:39 <AxelPolleres>	I think, which I said already some times admittedly: s/ common Core
Nov 05 15:25:57 <AxelPolleres>	 /common abstract model/ 
Nov 05 15:26:06 <Harold>	AdrianP: Many Reactive lang. have such a library.
Nov 05 15:26:51 <AxelPolleres>	that would keep the "component library" somewhat "dialect independent"
Nov 05 15:27:29 <Harold>	csma: Uniterm: We cannot say informally only in the spec that the arg order matters.
Nov 05 15:28:35 -->	RRSAgent (rrs-loggee@ has joined #rif
Nov 05 15:28:35 <RRSAgent>	logging to
Nov 05 15:28:46 <Harold>	... Semantics of Uniterm: mapping function.
Nov 05 15:29:09 <Harold>	Axel: No semantic difference between builtins and user-defined functions.
Nov 05 15:29:28 <Harold>	csma: Currently, not distinguished in BLD.
Nov 05 15:29:38 <sandro>	AxelPolleres, while we have subclassing in RDFS, do you think we can mandate that RIF Consumers do complete RDFS reasoning before extracting the RIF semantics structures?     That seems like a fairly hard sell to Gary.  :-)
Nov 05 15:29:44 <ChrisW>	Chair: Christian de Sainte-Marie & Chris Welty
Nov 05 15:29:44 <Harold>	... in PRD we have fixed interpretation functions.
Nov 05 15:29:50 <ChrisW>	Scribe: Harold
Nov 05 15:30:14 <ChrisW>	Meeting: RIF Face to Face Nov 5 2007
Nov 05 15:30:16 <Harold>	Gary: Plus: all args of builtins must be ground.
Nov 05 15:30:26 <Harold>	csma: Yes, that was in the patterns.
Nov 05 15:30:29 <ChrisW>	zakim, list attendees
Nov 05 15:30:29 <Zakim>	sorry, ChrisW, I don't know what conference this is
Nov 05 15:30:56 <AxelPolleres>	For Gary, nothing changes, I don't say that the XML syntax for PR needs to accept <smsnaf> in place of <naf>
Nov 05 15:31:02 <Harold>	Gary: So we have no universal semantics that tells us for every expression if it's true or false.
Nov 05 15:31:26 <Harold>	... Would be nice to have a more general semantics for both.
Nov 05 15:31:57 <AxelPolleres>	but a stratified datalog dialect should maybe accept sms-rulesets, as long as they are stratified.
Nov 05 15:32:19 <ChrisW>	Present: PaulVincent, MichaelKifer, AdrianPaschke, HaroldBoley, GaryHallmark, StellaMitchell, MikeDean, IgorMozetic, BobMoore, josDeBruijn, AxelPolleres, sandroHawke, ChrisWelty, Christian de Sainte-Marie
Nov 05 15:32:30 <ChrisW>	rrsagent, make minutes
Nov 05 15:32:30 <RRSAgent>	I have made the request to generate ChrisW
Nov 05 15:32:33 <AxelPolleres>	At least by subclassing , you can define some trivial fallbacks.
Nov 05 15:32:42 <Harold>	csma: That this is not (only) a model-theoretic semantics is even clearer for the And: works also for operat. semantics. 
Nov 05 15:32:47 <sandro>	Attendance note -- observing for the afternoon has been Carine Bournez,     (The RIF meeting is listed on the conference schedule as being open to observers, by accident.)
Nov 05 15:33:10 <AxelPolleres>	i.e. if a dialect supports the conceptual superclass semantically, the default fallback would be replacing the special with the more general one.
Nov 05 15:33:10 <Harold>	MichaelK: You have to be careful where you are talking formally and where informally.
Nov 05 15:33:11 <ChrisW>	rrsagent, make logs public
Nov 05 15:33:11 <RRSAgent>	I have made the request, ChrisW
Nov 05 15:33:45 <Harold>	... We prioritized model-theor., then fall back to operational, then to procedural.
Nov 05 15:34:01 <Harold>	... But this is none of these, it's mixed.
Nov 05 15:34:20 <Harold>	csma: It's formal (although written in English).
Nov 05 15:34:31 <Harold>	... Define when a condition is true.
Nov 05 15:34:44 <Harold>	... then execute the actions.
Nov 05 15:35:09 <Harold>	MichaelK: OK, but it's kind of confusing. Suppose I read this, but wont understand.
Nov 05 15:35:20 <sandro>	AxelPolleres, so the subclass relationships in the abstract model automatically generate some fallback substitutions?     My guess is that's reasonable and somewhat helpful, but I'm not sure.
Nov 05 15:35:20 <Harold>	csma: This is why put sem on top.
Nov 05 15:35:30 <Harold>	... Dont see why this is not formal.
Nov 05 15:35:47 <Harold>	MichaelK: First do syntax, then semantics.
Nov 05 15:36:15 <AxelPolleres>	that would be the idea... also not 100% sure, needs some dialect examples, which I still owe, admitedly.
Nov 05 15:36:19 <Harold>	... E.g. it's not interpreted as a function from to, everything is regarded as matching.
Nov 05 15:36:38 <AxelPolleres>	... but it sounds appealing to try to me
Nov 05 15:36:40 <Harold>	csma: The pattern matching mechanism gives me the function.
Nov 05 15:37:02 <Harold>	Chris: What do you regard as the interpretation function?
Nov 05 15:37:13 <Harold>	csma: A mapping  to a domain element.
Nov 05 15:37:39 <Harold>	... What does pattern matching do? Tells you what's the interpretation!
Nov 05 15:37:56 <Harold>	... Tells you what's and what's not in the interpretation.
Nov 05 15:38:19 <Harold>	... But what I get from discussion: This is confusing. Not the right way to put it in a spec.
Nov 05 15:38:30 <Harold>	... However, the earlier approach also seemed confusing.
Nov 05 15:38:42 <Harold>	... Wanted to keep it as close to BLD as possible.
Nov 05 15:39:03 <Harold>	Harold: Much better than earlier version.
Nov 05 15:39:47 <Harold>	MichaelK: What's wrong: You say here's a program, I determine from a procedure what the meaning is. The wrong way round.
Nov 05 15:40:10 <Harold>	csma: Perhaps misunderstanding.
Nov 05 15:40:18 <Harold>	... Removed pattern section.
Nov 05 15:40:26 <Harold>	... Actions have to be worked on.
Nov 05 15:41:15 <Harold>	... Gary's point is valid that top-level of Rule syntax is different unnecessarily from BLD.
Nov 05 15:41:30 <Harold>	... But this is because BLD is not frozen yet.
Nov 05 15:42:44 <Harold>	... Could perhaps just one CONDITION rather than two. Historical from earlier patterns and the 'else' parts. But it may be good to keept both.
Nov 05 15:42:59 <Harold>	Restart at 4PM.
Nov 05 15:47:15 <--	AxelPolleres has quit (Ping timeout)
Nov 05 15:56:13 <--	GaryHallmark has quit (Ping timeout)
Nov 05 16:08:29 <StellaMitchell>	ScribeNick: StellaMitchell
Nov 05 16:08:43 <StellaMitchell>	zakim, next item
Nov 05 16:08:43 <Zakim>	agendum 7. "PRD" taken up [from ChrisW]
Nov 05 16:09:01 <StellaMitchell>	zakim, show agenda
Nov 05 16:09:01 <Zakim>	I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:
Nov 05 16:09:02 <Zakim>	7. PRD [from ChrisW]
Nov 05 16:09:28 <StellaMitchell>	Topic: Builtins and Metadata
Nov 05 16:10:20 <StellaMitchell>	csma: we didn't consider carefully which xsd datatypes to pick
Nov 05 16:10:41 <StellaMitchell>	Chris:  Yes, we settled on a set during one of our meetings
Nov 05 16:11:24 <StellaMitchell>	Chris:  (projecting list of  xpath functions and operators)
Nov 05 16:11:51 <StellaMitchell>
Nov 05 16:12:26 <StellaMitchell>	jos: will these be predicates or functions in BLD?
Nov 05 16:12:48 <StellaMitchell>	Chris: do we have notion of builtin as external call?  are all predicates, all functions ?
Nov 05 16:13:24 <StellaMitchell>	Harold: telecon with DARPA demo group - we chose a fixed interpretation for builtins
Nov 05 16:13:58 <StellaMitchell>	Harold:  the point is - we have equality in RIF
Nov 05 16:14:47 <StellaMitchell>	mk: if we assume URI's identify functions, we can
Nov 05 16:15:32 <StellaMitchell>	Harold:  mode declaration of functions
Nov 05 16:15:53 <StellaMitchell>	Harold: for now, it would be very nice to have builtins as functions
Nov 05 16:16:09 <StellaMitchell>	axel: for predicates, it is not so clear what is input and output
Nov 05 16:16:27 <sandro>	binding patterns == modes
Nov 05 16:16:42 <sandro>	Harold: non-deterministic builtins
Nov 05 16:16:50 <StellaMitchell>	Harold: (something is) then you would have non-deterministic functions
Nov 05 16:17:18 <StellaMitchell>	Sandro:  trying to clarify between functions and predicates
Nov 05 16:17:57 <StellaMitchell>	Sandro: you might have extension that has more builtins (that the dialect it extends)
Nov 05 16:18:06 <Harold>	Because in RIF we have Equal, we can finally come back to builtins being functions, not (artificially) relations. Advantage: uniform mode declarations.
Nov 05 16:18:38 <StellaMitchell>	.. can lead to a language conflict  (syntax has different meaning)
Nov 05 16:18:59 <StellaMitchell>	Chris: Also, datatype extensibility is an open issue
Nov 05 16:19:03 <sandro>	Sandro: It should be a syntax error to use a builtin that's not in some dialect.
Nov 05 16:19:24 <StellaMitchell>	...I don't think it makes sense to assume the list of builtins is fixed
Nov 05 16:20:08 <StellaMitchell>	Jos:  xpath uses namespaces, but we use curies...
Nov 05 16:20:30 <StellaMitchell>	csma: functions as relations, means uniterms of the atomic kind?
Nov 05 16:20:51 <StellaMitchell>	... so the only uniterm of the term kind are logical functions
Nov 05 16:20:54 -->	AxelPolleres (AxelPoller@ has joined #rif
Nov 05 16:21:02 -->	mdean (mdean@ has joined #rif
Nov 05 16:21:54 <StellaMitchell>	mk: asking about xpath urls, namespaces, what is behind it?
Nov 05 16:22:03 <StellaMitchell>	axel: reads definition from xpath spec
Nov 05 16:22:08 <--	AxelPolleres has quit (Quit: Bye all!)
Nov 05 16:22:29 <StellaMitchell>	Sandro: they are available to users as other symbols
Nov 05 16:22:38 <Harold>	For example, NumericAdd has uniform mode In x In -> Out as used in ?Result = 23 + 17 or <Equal><Var>Result</Var><NumericAdd><Const>23</Const><Const>17</Const></NumericAdd></Equal>.
Nov 05 16:22:50 -->	AxelPolleres (AxelPoller@ has joined #rif
Nov 05 16:23:16 <AxelPolleres>
Nov 05 16:23:26 <--	bmoore3 has quit (Quit: CGI:IRC (EOF))
Nov 05 16:23:47 <StellaMitchell>	Chris: back to questions - builtins as relations or external calls?
Nov 05 16:23:56 <StellaMitchell>	csma: what is the difference?
Nov 05 16:24:30 <StellaMitchell>	sandro: diff between interpreted and logical functions - for interpreted, you have to call some other piece of code to evaluate it
Nov 05 16:25:01 <StellaMitchell>	csma:  ??
Nov 05 16:25:11 <StellaMitchell>	sandro: that wouldn't allow for extensibility
Nov 05 16:25:27 <StellaMitchell>	csma: producer and consumer have out of band agreement on what it is
Nov 05 16:26:22 <StellaMitchell>	csma: function names are iris, so if you can't recognize it, you don't handle that external functions
Nov 05 16:26:35 <StellaMitchell>	sandro: no, in that case it could be a logic function
Nov 05 16:27:04 <StellaMitchell>	csma: I can't think of any concrete case where it would be a problem
Nov 05 16:27:14 <StellaMitchell>	sandro: append - would be reasonable as either
Nov 05 16:27:42 <StellaMitchell>	Chris: what is the status of functions on BLD
Nov 05 16:27:48 <StellaMitchell>	s/on/in/
Nov 05 16:28:02 <StellaMitchell>	Chris: how does a user define a logic function?
Nov 05 16:28:14 <StellaMitchell>	Gary, MK: they just use it
Nov 05 16:28:17 <sandro>	"logic functions that are term constructors"   vs   "evaluable" or "interpretable" functions, ....?
Nov 05 16:28:53 <Harold>	In my example, NumericAdd as a relation would have hetereogeneous mode Out x In x In.
Nov 05 16:28:58 <StellaMitchell>	sandro:   an "eval" function
Nov 05 16:29:20 <sandro>	"external call", "procedural attachment", ...
Nov 05 16:29:25 <StellaMitchell>	sandro: it's a little confusing that an external call is a builtin
Nov 05 16:29:53 <StellaMitchell>	sandro: issue is, if you can tell from the syntax whether it is a builtin or a logical function
Nov 05 16:30:20 <StellaMitchell>	Chris: is anyone opposed to having a special syntax to distinguish 
Nov 05 16:30:30 <Harold>	We already can define functions using ATOMIC Equality facts based on ATOMIC ::= Uniterm | Equal.
Nov 05 16:30:41 <StellaMitchell>	s/distinguish/distinguish?/
Nov 05 16:31:11 <StellaMitchell>	csma: if we want fully stripped xml syntax, we need elment
Nov 05 16:31:49 <StellaMitchell>	mk: builtins are supposed to have a uri, and in semantic web uri already has a meaning, so from that point of view we don't have to say anything
Nov 05 16:32:18 <StellaMitchell>	sandro: gives example showing it is more complicated
Nov 05 16:32:35 <StellaMitchell>	mk: uris are supposed to be self-denoting
Nov 05 16:32:57 <StellaMitchell>	sandro: op:numeric-add is self denoting
Nov 05 16:34:06 <StellaMitchell>	Chris: is it possible to define syntax and that would indicate which it is?
Nov 05 16:34:14 <Harold>	We can user-define as an equational fact fatherOf(Mary) = John or <Equal> <Uniterm><Const>fatherOf</Const><Const>Mary</Const></Uniterm> <Const>John</Const> </Equal>.
Nov 05 16:34:18 <StellaMitchell>	mk: no, I don't think so
Nov 05 16:34:47 <StellaMitchell>	sandro: dereference argument and get documentation and links to downloads
Nov 05 16:35:11 <StellaMitchell>	sandro: but from point of view of semantics, it is just an opaque string that denotes a funciton
Nov 05 16:35:37 <StellaMitchell>	Chris: syntax that denotes builtins, and spec says which ones have to be supported
Nov 05 16:35:50 <StellaMitchell>	... and people would be able to add more
Nov 05 16:36:29 <StellaMitchell>	mk: we can't control what is at the URL of fn:compare
Nov 05 16:36:41 -->	GaryHallmark (Gary@ has joined #rif
Nov 05 16:37:25 <StellaMitchell>	sandro: uri goes to the text description
Nov 05 16:38:00 <AxelPolleres>	<Uniterm> vs <Builtinterm>
Nov 05 16:38:01 <StellaMitchell>	Chris: advantage of having an explicity syntax is that it is open - people can add more
Nov 05 16:38:52 <StellaMitchell>	Chris: who thinks we should special syntax to identify builtins?
Nov 05 16:39:11 <StellaMitchell>	(people on both sides, there is disagreement)
Nov 05 16:39:42 <StellaMitchell>	Harold: in lisp there is a uniform way to call user defined functions
Nov 05 16:39:58 <StellaMitchell>	Chris: but in lisp, it is not open
Nov 05 16:40:48 <StellaMitchell>	BobM: ??
Nov 05 16:41:00 <Harold>	s/uniform way to call user defined functions/uniform way to call user defined and builtin functions/
Nov 05 16:41:27 <StellaMitchell>	axel: you are saying builtin terms must always have fixed interpretations
Nov 05 16:41:30 <sandro>	"ExternalUniterm"
Nov 05 16:42:02 <StellaMitchell>	mk: I think we can make it extensible
Nov 05 16:42:47 <StellaMitchell>	Chris: but you are signalling it syntactically, like with defun
Nov 05 16:43:33 <StellaMitchell>	mk:  I would use "require"  (the list of bld functions)
Nov 05 16:44:09 <StellaMitchell>	sandro: that is not extensible
Nov 05 16:44:37 <StellaMitchell>	mk: we only care that a symbol is used consistently
Nov 05 16:44:44 <StellaMitchell>	... if not, things are broken anysay
Nov 05 16:44:52 <StellaMitchell>	s/anysay/anyway/
Nov 05 16:45:10 <StellaMitchell>	sandro: "append" example, where it could be either builtin or logical function
Nov 05 16:45:28 <StellaMitchell>	mk: but it would have different uris for different uses
Nov 05 16:45:57 <StellaMitchell>	axel: what if the builtin is in the head (conclusion)?
Nov 05 16:46:25 <StellaMitchell>	Chris: we can discuss that later, after we resolve this questions
Nov 05 16:47:11 -->	bmoore3 (a8e682f8@ has joined #rif
Nov 05 16:47:54 <StellaMitchell>	Chris: if we syntactically mark builtins, it is very clear how it would work
Nov 05 16:48:30 <StellaMitchell>	Chris: but some people here think it's cleaner to not have to syntactically indicate it
Nov 05 16:49:15 <--	caribou (cbournez@ has left #rif
Nov 05 16:49:23 <StellaMitchell>	Chris: proponents of not syntactially marking can try to come up with a suggestion, maye in a break out tomorrow
Nov 05 16:49:31 <StellaMitchell>	s/maye/maybe
Nov 05 16:50:06 <sandro>	Chris: Result --- default is External Calls In Syntax; people who want something else (including him) need to come up with a proposal.
Nov 05 16:50:09 <StellaMitchell>	....that group will come up with a proposal or agree to the other method
Nov 05 16:50:13 <Harold>	Looking at
Nov 05 16:50:14 <Harold>	              <Uniterm>
Nov 05 16:50:14 <Harold>	                <op><Const type="rif:local">fn:subtract-dateTimes-yielding-dayTimeDuration</Const></op>
Nov 05 16:50:14 <Harold>	                <arg><Var>deliverydate</Var></arg>
Nov 05 16:50:14 <Harold>	                <arg><Var>scheduledate</Var></arg>
Nov 05 16:50:14 <Harold>	                <arg><Var>diffduration</Var></arg>
Nov 05 16:50:15 <Harold>	              </Uniterm>
Nov 05 16:50:24 <StellaMitchell>	Chris: metadata
Nov 05 16:51:04 <StellaMitchell>	Chris:  meta means "after"
Nov 05 16:51:24 <StellaMitchell>	Chris: what metadata do we need?
Nov 05 16:51:50 <Harold>	the "fn:" in fn:subtract-dateTimes-yielding-dayTimeDuration shows that we have an external call here.
Nov 05 16:51:52 <StellaMitchell>	Chris: which syntactic terms can have metadata?
Nov 05 16:52:58 <Harold>	However there are some ways to mark this more explicitly as a builtin call:
Nov 05 16:52:59 <StellaMitchell>	Sandro: and other questions about metadata:  is the metadata fixed for a given dialect?
Nov 05 16:53:12 <StellaMitchell>	Chris: you mean is there a finite set of preset tags?
Nov 05 16:53:14 <StellaMitchell>	sandro: yes
Nov 05 16:53:31 <StellaMitchell>	PaulV:  is it extensible?
Nov 05 16:53:31 <Harold>	* Use <Const type="rif:builtin">
Nov 05 16:53:52 <StellaMitchell>	Sandro: or rather, if you want new metadata, do you need to make an extension?
Nov 05 16:54:13 <StellaMitchell>	Gary: can you always ignore the metadata and get the same result?
Nov 05 16:54:20 <Harold>	* Use <Const type="rif:local" builtin="yes">
Nov 05 16:54:22 <sandro>	s/new metadata/a new metadata item/
Nov 05 16:54:35 <StellaMitchell>	PaulV: what is an example of metadata that cannot be ignored?
Nov 05 16:54:46 <sandro>	csma: is rule priority metadata?
Nov 05 16:54:53 <sandro>	csma: it affects semantics.
Nov 05 16:54:58 <StellaMitchell>	jos: if you refer to a datamodel using metadata, and that datamodel affects the semantics
Nov 05 16:55:25 <StellaMitchell>	Sandro: this is why I advocate having no metadata
Nov 05 16:56:22 <StellaMitchell>	Adrian: example of using RI F document as data
Nov 05 16:56:30 <sandro>	no metadata mechanism --- just more extensions.
Nov 05 16:56:35 <StellaMitchell>	s/RI F/RIF/
Nov 05 16:56:51 <StellaMitchell>	Chris: do we want to talk about a class of metadata that cannot be ignored?
Nov 05 16:57:14 <StellaMitchell>	csma: I think Sandro had a good point.  We don't call it metadata, just data
Nov 05 16:57:33 <Harold>	* Both of the above are much better than using a totally different calling method such as <ExternalUniterm>, because the transition from user-defined to builtin should be kept as simple as possible (see above discussion about lisp and prolog).
Nov 05 16:57:37 <StellaMitchell>	Sandro: I suggested pushing this off until we understand extensibility better
Nov 05 16:58:10 <StellaMitchell>	Chris:  It should not be that you need an extension to add author metadata
Nov 05 16:59:05 <StellaMitchell>	csma: isn't metadata the things that don't have to do with semantics
Nov 05 16:59:10 <StellaMitchell>	mk: dublin core
Nov 05 16:59:23 <StellaMitchell>	PaulV: and that (dublin core) would be a good starting point for RIF
Nov 05 16:59:56 <StellaMitchell>	jos: we shouldn't have a fixed set of metadata - it's just a set of attribute value pairs
Nov 05 17:00:24 <StellaMitchell>	sandro: so properties are iris and values are strings?
Nov 05 17:00:51 <StellaMitchell>	mk: sandro, what did you want?
Nov 05 17:01:04 <StellaMitchell>	sandro: import dublin core wholesale
Nov 05 17:01:25 <Harold>	I think metadata should be non-prescriptive annotations, i.e. not change the normative semantics of a ruleset.
Nov 05 17:01:26 <PaulVincent> 
Nov 05 17:01:33 <StellaMitchell>	mk: how does owl do it?
Nov 05 17:01:52 <StellaMitchell>	jos: they say you can use any metadata you want, as long as it is an annotation property
Nov 05 17:02:41 <StellaMitchell>	Chris: I think that agreeing on specific metadata tags should not be part of dialect defintion - just say how to include metadata
Nov 05 17:03:35 <StellaMitchell>	Chris: who thinks the set of metadata for a dialect is fixed? 
Nov 05 17:03:40 <StellaMitchell>	...strawpoll
Nov 05 17:04:40 <StellaMitchell>	csma: can we have both?  a required set and a way to add more?
Nov 05 17:04:49 <StellaMitchell>	Chris: 3 proposals:
Nov 05 17:04:53 <StellaMitchell>	...1 fixed
Nov 05 17:04:56 <StellaMitchell>	...2 open
Nov 05 17:04:57 <Harold>	Metadata thus act just like comments from the perspective of the normative semantics, although non-semantics-preserving processing such as in AdrianP's author-filtering example will be possible.
Nov 05 17:05:06 <StellaMitchell>	...3 required, plus a way to add more
Nov 05 17:05:11 <StellaMitchell>	fixed:  1
Nov 05 17:06:04 <StellaMitchell>	open:  6
Nov 05 17:06:31 <StellaMitchell>	sandro: I object to passing a resolution now because we having settled on our extensibility mechanism
Nov 05 17:06:44 <sandro>	s/ing set/ not set/
Nov 05 17:06:56 <StellaMitchell>	mixed: 7 (gary voted for open and mixed)
Nov 05 17:07:28 <StellaMitchell>	official count:  fixed: 1,  open:4, mixed: 6
Nov 05 17:08:06 <StellaMitchell>	Chris:  We will put on hold the question of where we can put metadata (which elements to attach it to)
Nov 05 17:08:48 <sandro>	Chris: Non-ignorable metadata is part of a dialect.    I think we have consensus.
Nov 05 17:09:07 <StellaMitchell>	Chris:   non-ignorable metadata is part of a dialect definition
Nov 05 17:09:26 <StellaMitchell>	bobm:  i'd say non-ignorable metadata is not metadata
Nov 05 17:09:33 <sandro>	Sandro: So the question is whether to have an annotation mechanism for ignorable content.
Nov 05 17:10:37 <sandro>	Gary: 'this rule is effective during the month of november' --- is that metadata?
Nov 05 17:11:24 <StellaMitchell>	Chris: the mechanism we are talking about is the annotations that don't affect the semantics
Nov 05 17:11:40 <StellaMitchell>	...( the ignorable metadata)
Nov 05 17:11:51 <Harold>	+1 to bobm
Nov 05 17:12:17 <sandro>	The issue here is whether to provide a syntactic mechanism for including structured annotations which have no effect on the semantics.   And if so, how?
Nov 05 17:12:59 <sandro>	(Avoids the term metadata)
Nov 05 17:13:44 <sandro>	general consensus on that issue statement.
Nov 05 17:13:56 <PaulVincent>	Paul: proposes some use cases for metadata eg RIF for execution won't need metadata eg RIF for rules mgmt will find metadata significant
Nov 05 17:14:04 <sandro>	Sandro: I'm not convinced we need this, yet.   I think light-weight extensions might cover these use cases.
Nov 05 17:14:16 <--	GaryHallmark has quit (Ping timeout)
Nov 05 17:14:29 <mdean>	scribe:  Mike Dean
Nov 05 17:14:35 <StellaMitchell>	Chris: we will discuss it more after we settle on the extensibility mechanism
Nov 05 17:14:35 -->	GaryHallmark (Gary@ has joined #rif
Nov 05 17:14:38 <mdean>	scribenick:  mdean
Nov 05 17:14:56 <mdean>	topic:  test cases
Nov 05 17:15:45 <mdean>	action 361:  Stella to update test case wiki page
Nov 05 17:15:45 *	RRSAgent records action 1
Nov 05 17:16:03 <Harold>
Nov 05 17:16:05 <mdean>	didn't mean to record new action
Nov 05 17:17:25 <mdean>	ChrisW:  overview of test cases in WebOnt WG
Nov 05 17:17:47 <mdean>	entailments for each operator
Nov 05 17:17:58 <mdean>	resolution of issues often documented as test case
Nov 05 17:18:30 <Harold>
Nov 05 17:18:47 <mdean>	ChrisW:  RIF could adopt this methodology
Nov 05 17:19:13 <mdean>	Sandro:  consistency tests too?
Nov 05 17:20:32 <sandro>	Agreement -- we need Inconsistency and Consistency tests too.
Nov 05 17:20:42 <mdean>	csma:  have people submit cases where they think there is ambiguity
Nov 05 17:21:08 <mdean>	csma:  what is the form of these tests?
Nov 05 17:22:06 <mdean>	example test case in Stella's email above
Nov 05 17:22:53 <mdean>	structured annotations wrapping OWL documents
Nov 05 17:23:09 <mdean>	premise in one file, conclusions in another
Nov 05 17:23:39 <josb>	owl example:
Nov 05 17:23:53 <mdean>	message uses example URIs - OWL tests were real
Nov 05 17:24:54 <mdean>	Sandro:  likes .hrif for presentation syntax
Nov 05 17:26:14 <mdean>	Sandro:  Jeremy wrote nice software to manage test cases for WebOnt
Nov 05 17:26:29 <mdean>	... recently asked to resurrect this for OWL WG
Nov 05 17:26:37 <mdean>	s/Jeremy/Jeremy Carroll/
Nov 05 17:27:21 <mdean>	... Jeremy and Jos deRoo just did it
Nov 05 17:28:04 <mdean>	Adrian:  need separate query language?
Nov 05 17:28:27 <mdean>	ChrisW:  not needed - just specify in manifest
Nov 05 17:28:54 <mdean>	ChrisW:  can we leverage JUnit?
Nov 05 17:29:15 <mdean>	Sandro:  let's wait for a few weeks on OWL WG
Nov 05 17:29:26 <mdean>	ChrisW:  need time limit
Nov 05 17:29:47 <mdean>	Sandro:  ... unless someone else volunteers
Nov 05 17:30:15 <mdean>	... could still submit a test in natural language in email or Wiki page
Nov 05 17:30:28 <mdean>	josb:  good to link to examples in document
Nov 05 17:30:51 <mdean>	csma:  some tests should also be linked to use cases
Nov 05 17:31:10 <mdean>	Sandro:  group seems to be comfortable mirroring what OWL did
Nov 05 17:31:38 <mdean>	csma:  what about testing implementations?
Nov 05 17:32:08 <mdean>	Sandro:  WebOnt generated table of tests by implementation, showing each was handled by at least 2
Nov 05 17:32:50 <mdean>	csma:  could be a way to test that specification meets requirement, i.e. was implementable
Nov 05 17:33:03 <mdean>	Sandro:  doesn't ring any bells
Nov 05 17:33:19 <mdean>	topic:  compliance/
Nov 05 17:33:24 <mdean>	Sandro:  prefer conformance
Nov 05 17:33:50 <mdean>	csma:  yes/no test or degrees of conformance?
Nov 05 17:34:04 <mdean>	... define profiles/levels
Nov 05 17:34:38 <mdean>	ChrisW:  based on test cases that implementation passed, not a formal thing
Nov 05 17:34:58 <mdean>	josb:  normative OWL test cases section on conformance
Nov 05 17:35:10 <mdean>	... syntax and consistency checkers
Nov 05 17:35:42 <mdean>	parking passes distributed
Nov 05 17:36:28 <Harold>	We need to make entailment ( |- ) relative to the logic we are in. Eg in FOL p(a) :- q(a) |- ~q(a) :- ~p(a), but not so in Horn logic.
Nov 05 17:36:44 <mdean>	breakfast options:  $10 for continental, or $15 full Zephyr buffet to go
Nov 05 17:38:14 <mdean>	Sandro:  strawman conformance test:  phrase as some sort of action:  this software does this ...
Nov 05 17:38:34 <mdean>	csma:  prefer one level of compliance - must implement everything
Nov 05 17:38:55 <mdean>	... then could have compliance for specific extensions
Nov 05 17:39:22 <mdean>	Michael:  most implementations probably won't implement full equality
Nov 05 17:39:40 <mdean>	Michael:  OWL has not been fully implemented either
Nov 05 17:40:25 <mdean>	josb:  Pellet isn't complete with nominals
Nov 05 17:41:03 <mdean>	Sandro:  unfortunate that we don't have complete OWL implementations yet
Nov 05 17:41:35 <mdean>	Michael:  same with SQL, thousands of pages of spec
Nov 05 17:42:14 <mdean>	Michael:  don't exclude something just because it's hard to implement
Nov 05 17:43:09 <mdean>	csma:  compliance is like conformance but not quite :-)
Nov 05 17:43:39 <mdean>	... want to promote adoption, motivate comfortant implementations
Nov 05 17:44:23 <mdean>	Michael:  could be conformance level that doesn't include equality
Nov 05 17:44:41 <mdean>	csma:  could end up with so many dialects and levels that OWL looks simple
Nov 05 17:45:12 <Harold>	The paramodulation calculus is a refutational theorem proving method for
Nov 05 17:45:12 <Harold>	rst-order logic with equality, originally presented in Robinson &Wos (1969)
Nov 05 17:46:01 <sandro>	Chris: Issues 1 - whether to have levels of conformance (vs just boolean) per dialect
Nov 05 17:46:25 <--	GaryHallmark has quit (Connection reset by peer)
Nov 05 17:47:25 <sandro>	Chris: Issues 2 - whether to have lowest conformance level match implementations  (eg full equality).
Nov 05 17:48:36 <mdean>	bob:  many features aren't implemented or implementable with reasonable time
Nov 05 17:48:53 <mdean>	... interoperability is most important
Nov 05 17:49:28 <mdean>	... don't define logic that can't be implemented
Nov 05 17:50:07 -->	GaryHallmark (Gary@ has joined #rif
Nov 05 17:50:42 <sandro>	Chris: 4 square, levels vs expected.     
Nov 05 17:51:53 <mdean>	csma:  boolean might not require equality
Nov 05 17:52:24 <mdean>	profiles not the same as levels
Nov 05 17:53:10 <mdean>	Chris:  boolean per dialect
Nov 05 17:53:21 <--	bmoore3 has quit (Quit: CGI:IRC (EOF))
Nov 05 17:53:35 <mdean>	Michael:  profiles are kinds of dialects
Nov 05 17:53:52 <mdean>	straw poll
Nov 05 17:53:52 <sandro>	Chris: Levels + Expected: 0
Nov 05 17:54:18 <sandro>	Chris: Booleans + Expected: looks like everyone
Nov 05 17:54:32 <sandro>	Chris: Boolean + Not-Expected -- Michael
Nov 05 17:55:17 <sandro>	Michael: There will be useful implementations which don't conform.
Nov 05 17:55:29 <Harold>	The axioms for the equality relation need not be built into RIF (without it's easy to implement), because they can be 'loaded' as another ruleset:
Nov 05 17:55:47 <mdean>	Chris:  does everyone assume profiles?
Nov 05 17:56:20 <mdean>	6 of N-1 thought they were voting for profiles
Nov 05 17:56:27 <sandro>	Voting for profiles: 6,    
Nov 05 17:57:32 <mdean>	Sandro:  voting for compliance being something that's implementable
Nov 05 17:57:51 <mdean>	Chris:  BLD - equality not a profile?
Nov 05 17:58:31 <mdean>	Sandro:  change BLD to not include equality
Nov 05 17:58:41 <mdean>	csma:  current BLD becomes an extension
Nov 05 17:59:04 <sandro>	Sandro,Bob: define BLD as something that's implementable.
Nov 05 17:59:23 <mdean>	+5 for Sandro
Nov 05 17:59:33 <sandro>	5 people agreeing with that view.
Nov 05 18:00:18 <mdean>	csma:  same for PRD
Nov 05 18:00:32 <mdean>	... extensions could be harder to implement
Nov 05 18:00:44 <mdean>	Sandro:  profile vs. extension is marketing difference
Nov 05 18:00:49 <mdean>	csma:  important for adoption
Nov 05 18:01:14 <mdean>	Sandro:  same for equality and negation
Nov 05 18:01:38 <mdean>	Chris:  plenty of SQL operators are partially implemented
Nov 05 18:02:18 <mdean>	Chris:  nobody needs the full implementation
Nov 05 18:02:24 <mdean>	csma:  must jump start implementations
Nov 05 18:03:05 <mdean>	Chris:  not ready for resolution, but consensus that we want boolean tests for conformance with some disagreement over what to test
Nov 05 18:03:18 <mdean>	Michael:  could also use test cases
Nov 05 18:03:30 <mdean>	Chris:  industry likely to do this, publish their test case results
Nov 05 18:04:09 <mdean>	Sandro:  BLD querying system vs implementation
Nov 05 18:04:54 <mdean>	Chris:  do we need issue regarding equality?
Nov 05 18:05:33 <mdean>	Chris:  always boils down to test cases
Nov 05 18:06:21 <sandro>	group of five who wants BLD changed to remove quality, so that it's practical to implement it fully
Nov 05 18:06:32 <mdean>	ACTION (csma):  open issue on equality
Nov 05 18:07:12 <mdean>	Google says dinner is 1.1 miles away
Nov 05 18:07:14 <--	IgorMozetic has quit (Quit: CGI:IRC (EOF))
Nov 05 18:07:16 <mdean>	reservation at 7pm
Nov 05 18:07:30 <mdean>	walkers meet in lobby at 6:30
Nov 05 18:07:51 <mdean>	otherwise contact Sandro
Nov 05 18:07:55 <sandro>	ACTION: Christian to open issue about removing equality from BLD because it's  not so practical to implement.
Nov 05 18:07:55 *	rifbot noticed an ACTION. Trying to create it.
Nov 05 18:07:55 *	RRSAgent records action 2
Nov 05 18:07:55 <rifbot>	Created ACTION-366 - Open issue about removing equality from BLD because it\'s  not so practical to implement. [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2007-11-12].
Nov 05 18:07:55 <mdean>	adjourned
Nov 05 18:08:05 <--	AxelPolleres has quit (Quit: Bye all!)
Nov 05 18:08:05 <--	StellaMitchell has quit (Quit: CGI:IRC (EOF))
Nov 05 18:10:10 <--	Harold has quit (Quit: Harold)
Nov 05 18:10:23 <--	josb has quit (Ping timeout)
Nov 05 18:12:31 <--	mdean has quit (Ping timeout)
Nov 05 18:12:51 <--	MichaelKifer has quit (Ping timeout)
Nov 05 18:13:42 <--	GaryHallmark has quit (Ping timeout)
Nov 05 18:14:24 <--	AdrianP has quit (Quit: CGI:IRC (EOF))
Nov 05 18:16:42 <--	PaulVincent has quit (Quit: CGI:IRC (EOF))
Nov 05 18:16:55 <sandro>	"RIF Consuming Reasoner"
Nov 05 23:27:34 ---	Disconnected (Remote host closed socket).
**** ENDING LOGGING AT Mon Nov  5 23:27:34 2007

**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Mon Nov  5 23:27:45 2007

Nov 05 23:27:45 -->	You are now talking on #rif
Nov 05 23:28:04 ---	Topic for #rif is 30 Oct telecon agenda
Nov 05 23:28:04 ---	Topic for #rif set by ChrisW at Tue Oct 30 10:44:29 2007
Nov 05 23:28:23 ---	You have left channel #rif
**** ENDING LOGGING AT Mon Nov  5 23:28:23 2007

**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Tue Nov  6 08:46:48 2007

Nov 06 08:46:48 -->	You are now talking on #rif
Nov 06 08:46:48 ---	Topic for #rif is 30 Oct telecon agenda
Nov 06 08:46:48 ---	Topic for #rif set by ChrisW at Tue Oct 30 10:44:29 2007
Nov 06 08:46:53 <StellaMitchell>	dialling...
Nov 06 08:46:54 ---	Channel #rif created on Sat Feb 17 22:14:37 2007
Nov 06 08:47:23 -->	PaulVincent (3f772df8@ has joined #rif
Nov 06 08:48:00 <IgorMozetic>	chris: possible breakout sessions: implementors (BLD), PRD,
Nov 06 08:48:59 <sandro>	(only Jos not interested in either breakout....  :-)
Nov 06 08:50:17 <IgorMozetic>	axel: let's talk about the structure of the extensibility doc in the afternoon breakout
Nov 06 08:51:29 <IgorMozetic>	topic: extensibility issues
Nov 06 08:52:30 <IgorMozetic>	chris: fallback mechanisms
Nov 06 08:52:50 -->	Harold (harold.bol@ has joined #rif
Nov 06 08:53:18 <IgorMozetic>	sandro: for any new dialect or extension one should also publish the fallback procedure
Nov 06 08:55:56 <IgorMozetic>	axel: impact depends on the dialect one fallbacks from
Nov 06 08:58:13 <IgorMozetic>	csma: fallback must be implementable at the translator level
Nov 06 09:00:21 -->	AxelPolleres (AxelPoller@ has joined #rif
Nov 06 09:01:03 <IgorMozetic>	sandro: fallback procesor is (can be) external progrem
Nov 06 09:01:11 <IgorMozetic>	s/progrem/program/
Nov 06 09:02:45 <PaulVincent>	Fallback: default = reject with exception
Nov 06 09:03:00 <IgorMozetic>	csma: any implementation of any dialect has to implement the fallback procesor
Nov 06 09:03:21 -->	Bob (3f772dd2@ has joined #rif
Nov 06 09:04:04 <PaulVincent>	What are the fallback use cases? is this even an issue? (May be in the Sem Web world but for PRD it would seem to be very unlikely)
Nov 06 09:04:08 <IgorMozetic>	axel: fallback can be a servise
Nov 06 09:04:44 <AxelPolleres>	s/servise/service/
Nov 06 09:05:23 -->	csma (csma@ has joined #rif
Nov 06 09:05:25 <IgorMozetic>	gary: is producing several versions of rules fallback?
Nov 06 09:05:32 <IgorMozetic>	sandro: no
Nov 06 09:06:09 <AxelPolleres>	I think allowed fallbacks to existing dialects  should be defined together with new dialects.
Nov 06 09:06:48 <IgorMozetic>	sandro: the fallback procedure is attached to the dialect, not specific rules
Nov 06 09:06:53 <AxelPolleres>	Also, we need a protocol, which tells how you processed a ruleset.
Nov 06 09:07:41 <AxelPolleres>	i.e., "processed ruleset with the originl semantics", "processed ruleset using fallback X to dialect Y, etc."
Nov 06 09:09:09 <AxelPolleres>	fallback from sms to stratified naf:  check if stratified, if yes replace "smsnaf" by "naf", if no 
Nov 06 09:09:22 <AxelPolleres>	reutrn error.
Nov 06 09:10:06 <IgorMozetic>	sandro: some fallbacks are lossy, some are strict
Nov 06 09:17:12 <sandro>	3.1+   Trim To Named Ancestor
Nov 06 09:17:31 <AxelPolleres>	I can describe the fallback I sketched from-strat-naf-to-bld by rules easily, I am pretty shure...
Nov 06 09:18:07 <AxelPolleres>	... not single-pass though, probably.
Nov 06 09:18:16 <IgorMozetic>	sandro: one can always use XSLT transformations
Nov 06 09:19:33 <IgorMozetic>	sandro: XSLT vs BLDX
Nov 06 09:21:26 <sandro>	Sandro: I would like feedback from the WG about whether we think about fallback in XML terms or Frame terms.
Nov 06 09:21:46 <DaveReynolds>	A challenge with BLDX is that BLD is about deduction not about transformation. How would you use it to specify rewrites?  PRD on the other hand is probably better suited to that use :-)
Nov 06 09:22:50 <PaulVincent>	+1 although it might be a step too far right now...
Nov 06 09:23:55 <IgorMozetic>	igor: I don't see any problem in defining transformations in BLD 
Nov 06 09:24:04 -->	MichaelKifer (kifer@ has joined #rif
Nov 06 09:24:28 <IgorMozetic>	igor: eg, rewrite(Src, Trans) :- ...
Nov 06 09:24:36 <sandro>	Sandro: fallback is the ontolog-mapping problem, so deduction is okay, Dave.
Nov 06 09:24:47 <Harold>	If we 'trim'-transform the Hornlog ruleset  { p(a)  q(f(b)) }  to the Datalog ruleset  { p(a) }  we lose completenessl; if we 'trim' it to the Datalog ruleset  { p(a)  q(b) }  we lose soundness. Transformations to a flattened version like  { p(a)  q(f b) }  could work if all queries, like q(f(?X), to that ruleset  would be correspondingly transformed, like q(f ?X).
Nov 06 09:24:52 <sandro>	s/log/logy/
Nov 06 09:25:13 <AxelPolleres>	If you go via the RDF abstract model of a rule set, you can use SPARQL constructs to define fallback transforms.
Nov 06 09:30:19 <IgorMozetic>	josb: claims that production rules are much more convenient for transformationds
Nov 06 09:30:39 <IgorMozetic>	s/transformationds/transformations/
Nov 06 09:30:45 <DaveReynolds>	Not convinced that deduction is an adequate proxy for rewrite. If you can do the rewrite in one step that is OK but rewrites often do a series of reductions and it is the final reduced form you need to retain as the rewritten version. Sure you can specify the individual rewrites as equations but you need more than that to know what subset of what is "true" is the target rewritten form.
Nov 06 09:31:17 <AxelPolleres>	+1 to Christian to not reinvent the wheel for rewriting formalisms.
Nov 06 09:31:56 <GaryHallmark>	+1 to Christian to start with simple trim to fit or named trim to fit
Nov 06 09:32:15 <IgorMozetic>	axel: one can even use a natural lang to describe fallback
Nov 06 09:32:30 <josb>	+1 to Gary, Christian: let's not make things harder than they should be
Nov 06 09:33:41 <GaryHallmark>	people with complex fallback needs will figure out how to use xslt on their own with no help from us except they need as simple a schema as possible
Nov 06 09:34:29 <IgorMozetic>	sandro: we need the simple mechanisms like trim to start with fallback
Nov 06 09:34:33 <Harold>	The encoding of a fact  q(f(b))  to a complex term  q(f(b))  is trivial in BLD since we use Uniterms for both. The signature will change, though. The encoded complex term would be the input of calling Igor's  rewrite( q(f(b)), ?Trans ), binding ?Trans to  q(f b)  which can again be trivially decoded to a fact. 
Nov 06 09:34:51 <IgorMozetic>	sandro: 3.2. where is the extension metadata
Nov 06 09:35:28 <IgorMozetic>	sandro: this is about user extensions
Nov 06 09:37:00 <IgorMozetic>	sandro refers to
Nov 06 09:37:04 <AdrianP>	users will implement rewriting transformations anyway, e.g. for rule code refactoring or handling expressive constructs such strong negation in extended logic programs
Nov 06 09:38:41 <IgorMozetic>	sandro: do we need inline fallback?
Nov 06 09:40:28 <IgorMozetic>	sandro: 3.3. how complex an impact structure?
Nov 06 09:40:35 <AxelPolleres>	some suggested text:
Nov 06 09:40:37 <AxelPolleres>	A FALLBACK from dialect A to B is a reference to a well-defined transformation (given in XSLT, SPARQL, naural language) which describes a transformation from rulesets in A to rulesets in B.  The application of fallback F  by a rules engine means that the ruleset in A will be treated by the rules engine as if the transformation was applied using an engine for dialect B.
Nov 06 09:40:37 <AxelPolleres>	Each fallback MUST describe the impact of the fallback in terms of soundness 
Nov 06 09:40:37 <AxelPolleres>	and/or completeness.
Nov 06 09:40:37 <AxelPolleres>	I RIF system can answer to a query indicating whether it processed the dialect the documant was given in or whether it used a fallback, pointing to the used fallback
Nov 06 09:43:44 <IgorMozetic>	chris; fallback might be regarded as constraint relaxation
Nov 06 09:44:08 <IgorMozetic>	s/chris; /chris: /
Nov 06 09:44:30 <AxelPolleres>	For the impact on completeness on soundness in the search enine scenario, see: (about scoped negation and context monotonicity)
Nov 06 09:48:22 <IgorMozetic>	josb: re table: soundness and completeness are boolean,
Nov 06 09:48:44 <IgorMozetic>	 ... while number of extra/missing results can be quantified
Nov 06 09:49:19 <josb>	s/quantified/qualified/
Nov 06 09:52:10 <sandro>	Sandro: Extraneous Results == "Soundness", Missing Results == "Completeness"
Nov 06 09:52:10 <sandro>	Jos,Chris: soundness bit, completeness bit, extraneous results level, missing results levels, ...
Nov 06 09:52:10 <sandro>	csma: inline data is useful for cases where fallback/impact information is known for a particular ruleset.
Nov 06 09:52:10 <sandro>	sandro: yes, indeed.
Nov 06 09:53:06 <IgorMozetic>	chris: let's collect examples of different cases of fallback
Nov 06 09:54:38 <IgorMozetic>	sandro: 4. Starwman
Nov 06 09:54:44 <AdrianP>	Examples for transformations are e.g. the Lloyd-Topor transformations, e.g. replace disjunctions by two rules
Nov 06 09:54:59 <IgorMozetic>	s/Starwman/Strawman/
Nov 06 09:57:22 <IgorMozetic>	harold: shouldn't XSD be part of the document
Nov 06 09:59:52 <IgorMozetic>	sandro: the schema is needed for translators (Gary), not each document
Nov 06 10:00:39 <IgorMozetic>	sandro: BLD can proceed even without saying much on extensibility
Nov 06 10:02:12 <DaveReynolds>	Do profiles relate to extensions? I can see lots of partial BLD implementations rather than lots of BLD++ implementations. Describing that profile seems important to me.
Nov 06 10:03:34 <IgorMozetic>	chris: each implementation of BLD will be its own dialect
Nov 06 10:05:53 <IgorMozetic>	igor: strongly disagrees, each implementation should be for a specific dialect
Nov 06 10:06:20 <sandro>
Nov 06 10:06:41 <Harold>	I just chatted with MichaelK: Both of us would be fine to omit Equal from BLD for now (and regard BLD=, with Equal, as an extension). This would increase chances that BLD could be completely and efficiently implemented soon. Actually, I already distinguished Horn (without Equal) from Horn= (with Equal):
Nov 06 10:08:44 <DaveReynolds>	It's not about good/bad people! BLD has no particularly strong correlation to the languages we are to implement translators for.
Nov 06 10:09:09 *	DaveReynolds Bye, enjoy your breakouts
Nov 06 10:32:57 ---	Disconnected (Remote host closed socket).
**** ENDING LOGGING AT Tue Nov  6 10:32:57 2007

**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Tue Nov  6 10:33:08 2007

Nov 06 10:33:08 -->	You are now talking on #rif
Nov 06 10:33:08 ---	Received a CTCP [10:09] ACTION Bye, enjoy your breakouts from DaveReynolds (to #rif)
Nov 06 10:33:19 ---	Topic for #rif is 30 Oct telecon agenda
Nov 06 10:33:19 ---	Topic for #rif set by ChrisW at Tue Oct 30 10:44:29 2007
Nov 06 10:35:00 -->	StellaMitchell (3f772c85@ has joined #rif
Nov 06 10:35:03 <sandro>	This is the BLD-Implementations Breakout.
Nov 06 10:35:47 <--	josb has quit (Ping timeout)
Nov 06 10:37:00 <--	csma has quit (Ping timeout)
Nov 06 10:37:41 <sandro>	Harold: Transformations vs Engines.
Nov 06 10:37:59 <sandro>	... at NRC, we've looked at XSTL transformations
Nov 06 10:38:24 <sandro>	... One student hopefully working on RIF reader for ooJDrew.
Nov 06 10:38:25 -->	josb (chatzilla@ has joined #rif
Nov 06 10:38:30 <--	MichaelKifer has quit (Ping timeout)
Nov 06 10:38:49 <sandro>	... Variables can be restricted with classes.
Nov 06 10:39:25 <sandro>	... Preliminry treatmen of URL; anchor fact or rule with URL, then retreive based on URL
Nov 06 10:39:35 <sandro>	... Prolog engine using iterative deepening.
Nov 06 10:40:16 <sandro>	oojDrew has POSL and a NAF-HornLog-RuleML as input languages.
Nov 06 10:41:13 <sandro>	Harold: likely to do another direct-input-parser for RIF.
Nov 06 10:41:45 <sandro>	Harold: RIF-to-* in XSLT can share a lot of XSLT.
Nov 06 10:42:51 -->	BobAgain (3f772dd2@ has joined #rif
Nov 06 10:43:41 <sandro>	Mike: builtins will be a fair amount of work....
Nov 06 10:44:12 <sandro>	... We linked to Saxon for some of it.
Nov 06 10:45:06 <sandro>	... 60 swrl builtins
Nov 06 10:45:24 <sandro>	... about the same as here.
Nov 06 10:45:34 <sandro>	... maybe some like trig functions
Nov 06 10:45:56 <sandro>	... about a dozen, like string concat, could be in java -- but the semantics were slightly different.
Nov 06 10:46:04 -->	AxelPolleres (AxelPoller@ has joined #rif
Nov 06 10:46:07 <Harold>	For coordinating the implementations, we could reuse/extend the List of Rule Systems:
Nov 06 10:46:44 <sandro>	... not much of test suite.   thought about leveraging xpath/xquery test suites.
Nov 06 10:48:24 <sandro>	Harold: if we want builtins in datalog, then we're back to SWRL-style.
Nov 06 10:48:51 -->	ChrisW (cawelty@ has joined #rif
Nov 06 10:51:47 <sandro>	Axel: work with Thomas Eiter,   &builtin[input](output)
Nov 06 10:52:03 <Harold>	?x = add(3 4)
Nov 06 10:52:14 <Harold>	 add(?x 3 4)
Nov 06 10:52:18 <AxelPolleres>
Nov 06 10:52:36 <AxelPolleres>	(that's the URL of the dlvhex plugin system)
Nov 06 10:52:48 <sandro>	x=z+(y+3)/4
Nov 06 10:52:57 <Harold>	 add(?x 3 4 5)
Nov 06 10:53:33 <AxelPolleres>	htat would be possible with the dlvhex plugins (since I can program variable input tuple length there)
Nov 06 10:54:20 <--	Bob has quit (Quit: CGI:IRC (EOF))
Nov 06 10:55:29 <Harold>	 And( z=2  y=5  x=z+(y+3)/4 )
Nov 06 10:55:49 <sandro>	if   5 < (1+2/3) * 4   then 
Nov 06 10:56:29 <--	AdrianP has quit (Quit: CGI:IRC (EOF))
Nov 06 10:58:21 <sandro>	Harold: "floundering" a cyclic dependency between the modes of builtins, which makes re-ordering not simple (possible?)
Nov 06 10:58:41 <sandro>	(from Lloyd, foundations of logic programming)
Nov 06 11:00:06 <Harold>	 x=z+(y+3)/4  <=> add(x quotient(add(y 3) 4))
Nov 06 11:01:44 <Harold>	And( myequal(z 2)  myequal(y 5)   add(x quotient(add(y 3) 4)) )
Nov 06 11:05:20 <Harold>	We need to do a kind of 'semantic query optimization' where add(x quotient(add(y 3) 4)) would be called only after the two other queries bont z and y.
Nov 06 11:08:03 <Harold>	Mike: Who else could be interested in implementing BLD?
Nov 06 11:08:35 <Harold>	Chris: SRI? Ontoprise?
Nov 06 11:09:18 <ChrisW>	action: igor to start an implementors wiki page
Nov 06 11:09:18 *	rifbot noticed an ACTION. Trying to create it.
Nov 06 11:09:18 <rifbot>	Created ACTION-367 - Start an implementors wiki page [on Igor Mozetic - due 2007-11-13].
Nov 06 11:09:25 -->	RRSAgent (rrs-loggee@ has joined #rif
Nov 06 11:09:25 <RRSAgent>	logging to
Nov 06 11:10:20 <ChrisW>	Meeting: RIF Face to Face Nov 6 2007
Nov 06 11:10:26 <--	BobAgain has quit (Quit: CGI:IRC (EOF))
Nov 06 11:10:32 <ChrisW>	Chair: Christian de Sainte-Marie & Chris Welty
Nov 06 11:13:50 <ChrisW>
Nov 06 11:25:11 <Harold>
Nov 06 11:33:36 <sandro>	Under 3.16. XSLT -- that's like GRDDL
Nov 06 11:44:26 <ChrisW>
Nov 06 11:54:01 <sandro>	DanC: trim-to-ancestor is like CSS -- ignoring the whole rule when there's a bad color named in it.
Nov 06 11:59:33 <sandro>
Nov 06 12:00:45 <sandro>	violet -- one jar file UML editor
Nov 06 12:02:24 <Harold>	 Pragmatic Web:
Nov 06 13:01:58 ---	Disconnected (Remote host closed socket).
**** ENDING LOGGING AT Tue Nov  6 13:01:58 2007

**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Tue Nov  6 13:02:09 2007

Nov 06 13:02:09 -->	You are now talking on #rif
Nov 06 13:02:09 ---	Received a CTCP [10:09] ACTION Bye, enjoy your breakouts from DaveReynolds (to #rif)
Nov 06 13:02:19 ---	Topic for #rif is 30 Oct telecon agenda
Nov 06 13:02:19 ---	Topic for #rif set by ChrisW at Tue Oct 30 10:44:29 2007
Nov 06 13:11:24 -->	josb (chatzilla@ has joined #rif
Nov 06 13:13:13 -->	StellaMitchell (3f772c85@ has joined #rif
Nov 06 13:30:28 -->	IgorMozetic (3f772c9b@ has joined #rif
Nov 06 13:31:09 <sandro>	testing
Nov 06 13:31:10 -->	AdrianP (3f772cac@ has joined #RIF
Nov 06 13:31:16 -->	ChrisW (cawelty@ has joined #rif
Nov 06 13:31:28 <ChrisW>	rrsagent, make minutes
Nov 06 13:31:28 <RRSAgent>	I have made the request to generate ChrisW
Nov 06 13:31:43 -->	Bob (3f772dd2@ has joined #rif
Nov 06 13:31:54 <Bob>	scribenic Bob
Nov 06 13:31:54 -->	mdean (mdean@ has joined #rif
Nov 06 13:31:59 <ChrisW>	rrsagent, make logs public
Nov 06 13:31:59 <RRSAgent>	I have made the request, ChrisW
Nov 06 13:32:08 <ChrisW>	Scribe: Bob
Nov 06 13:32:27 <Bob>	Reviewing breakout sessions
Nov 06 13:32:37 <Bob>	csma: PRD breakout
Nov 06 13:32:44 <ChrisW>	Regrets: DaveReynolds, GiorgosStoilos, PaulaLaviniaPatranjan
Nov 06 13:32:56 <Bob>	review document structure and then the semantics
Nov 06 13:33:38 <Bob>	on the document structure - want to have as large an overlap with BLD as possible however there are issues
Nov 06 13:33:56 <ChrisW>	Present: PaulVincent, MichaelKifer, HaroldBoley, AdrianPaschke, StellaMitchell, MikeDean, IgorMozetic, BobMoore, GaryHallmark, JosDeBruijn, AxelPolleres, SandroHawke, ChrisWelty, ChristianDeSainteMarie
Nov 06 13:34:09 <Bob>	for example PRD requires some idea of negation, even if it is not in first version of BLD
Nov 06 13:34:30 <ChrisW>	rrsagent, make minutes
Nov 06 13:34:30 <RRSAgent>	I have made the request to generate ChrisW
Nov 06 13:35:00 -->	AxelPolleres (AxelPoller@ has joined #rif
Nov 06 13:35:09 <Bob>	Gary's suggestion is to have single Wiki page to define common information
Nov 06 13:35:43 <Bob>	Sandro: horrible idea to have multiple documents containing large sections of identical text
Nov 06 13:36:19 <sandro>	(specifically -- horrible for readers)
Nov 06 13:37:23 <Bob>	csma: virtue of single piece of text shared is it helps during the drafting process may replace later when move to final versions (either share or in separate reference document)
Nov 06 13:38:08 <Bob>	csma: to this might need to do some restructuing of BLD document to support this idea
Nov 06 13:38:55 <Bob>	csma: in discussion on approach taken in PRD, some of group had issues about the BLD's approach
Nov 06 13:40:08 -->	steve (steve@ has joined #rif
Nov 06 13:40:18 <Bob>	csma: discussed some specific points on operational semantics big question was the strategy for selecting which rule to fire (given generally several can be applied at any time)
Nov 06 13:40:55 -->	PaulVincent (0c06ce09@ has joined #rif
Nov 06 13:41:10 <Bob>	csma: all vendor engines have different strategies with some overlap, but much variation
Nov 06 13:41:16 <PaulVincent>	Scribe notes from PRD breakout are emailed to the RIF mailing list FYI
Nov 06 13:42:09 <Bob>	csma: action to list strategies current supported by engines. Need to determine what (if any) common defautl strategies can be adopted
Nov 06 13:44:08 <Bob>	gary: do we need to (re) define operational semantics for the condition language for PRD or can we have a hybrid approach keeping model theoretic semantics for conditions and operational for rest of PRD
Nov 06 13:46:08 <Bob>	csma: explaining "recognition" phase of PR processing ("instantiating" the rules) to Jos
Nov 06 13:49:11 <sandro>	common condition language....
Nov 06 13:50:00 <Harold>
Nov 06 13:50:03 <sandro>	Harold: "pattern" vs "condition" in PRD?     
Nov 06 13:50:53 <Bob>	csma: patterns are essential part of PRD
Nov 06 13:51:50 <--	AxelPolleres has quit (Ping timeout)
Nov 06 13:52:05 <Bob>	csma to explain to Harold difference between conditions and patterns
Nov 06 13:52:21 <Bob>	Sandro: summarising the BLD implementation breakout
Nov 06 13:52:48 <Bob>	Sandro: most of work is handling buildins - which is a lot of the work in terms of implementation
Nov 06 13:53:20 <Bob>	Mike: talked about different kinds of implementations
Nov 06 13:54:13 <Bob>	Sandro: talked with NA WG about extensibility and how they relate to RIF extensibily issues
Nov 06 13:56:09 <Harold>	David Orchard:
Nov 06 13:56:52 <Bob>	Micheal & Jos made some decision but they won't ell us what
Nov 06 13:57:33 <Bob>	Micheal: looking at ways of how to provide type compatibility with OWL
Nov 06 13:58:28 <Bob>	Chris: Topic should now be Working Group future
Nov 06 13:59:43 <Bob>	Chris: at F2F7 decided we'd look to request a 6 month extension
Nov 06 14:00:19 <Bob>	csma: looking up what was agreed at last meeting
Nov 06 14:01:18 <Bob>	Have list of requirements to move BLD to be ready for last call
Nov 06 14:01:38 <Bob>	Sandro: impressed with progress on list since F2F7
Nov 06 14:02:20 <Bob>	speculation on what we meant by engine defintion .....
Nov 06 14:03:44 <sandro>	jos: revisit modules, as needed for Last Call.
Nov 06 14:04:16 <Bob>	Jos: Modules needed for BLD LC?
Nov 06 14:04:46 <sandro>	mk: I don't think we need modules in BLD 1.0 -- we can put them in the framework, experimentally, and maybe have them in BLD 1.1
Nov 06 14:05:02 <Bob>	Michael: May be able to get around this by moving "experimental" features out of BLD
Nov 06 14:05:58 <Bob>	Michael: explaining modules
Nov 06 14:06:16 <sandro>	mk: one module can define a concept, and another can refer to it.     external theory.
Nov 06 14:06:30 -->	GaryHallmark (945701ab@ has joined #rif
Nov 06 14:07:02 <Bob>	concensus seems to be that modules are not required for BLD 1.0
Nov 06 14:07:22 <sandro>	Chris: BLD needs some way to link to / refer to data, doesn't it?
Nov 06 14:07:31 <Bob>	Chris: do we need modules to manage external data in BLD?
Nov 06 14:08:04 <Bob>	Chris: can we refer to external data
Nov 06 14:08:21 <Bob>	Jos: not currently, but easy to fix
Nov 06 14:09:06 <sandro>	Chris: Modules provide a handle (URI) for it, and a way to circumscribe some data+rules, so that reasoning is bounded.     These are the two functions of a module.   You might want this for rules, for RDF, etc....
Nov 06 14:09:32 <Bob>	Chris: arguing that we need some notion of module
Nov 06 14:09:34 <sandro>	mk: all we need a peice of syntax in XML where you give a URI for where an atomic formula comes from.
Nov 06 14:09:56 <Bob>	Michael: we only need some kind of syntax to do this
Nov 06 14:11:46 <Bob>	csma: can use mechanisms based on IRIs
Nov 06 14:11:47 <sandro>	Sandro: How much do we work on modules in the next six months.   
Nov 06 14:11:58 <sandro>	MK: Work out how to refer to data, and make sure that works for modules.
Nov 06 14:13:37 <Bob>	Sandro: a lot of business about modules is out of scope for phase 1
Nov 06 14:14:54 <Bob>	Jos: need some notion of external data for OWL and/or RDF graphs
Nov 06 14:16:36 <Bob>	Sandro: his concern is that modules may be difficult to incoroporate in only a 6 month time window
Nov 06 14:16:54 <Bob>	Sandro: moduels are clearly an essential item in the longer term
Nov 06 14:17:33 <sandro>	Sandro: My concern is that solving modules (cf ISSUE-33 plus external theories) may be too much for BLD LC.   We may not be able to get this done in next 6 months. 
Nov 06 14:17:50 <Bob>	Action on Micheal to open an issue on modules
Nov 06 14:18:17 <sandro>	ACTION: mkifer to open issue on modules, distinct from ISSUE-33
Nov 06 14:18:17 *	rifbot noticed an ACTION. Trying to create it.
Nov 06 14:18:17 *	RRSAgent records action 1
Nov 06 14:18:17 <rifbot>	Created ACTION-368 - Open issue on modules, distinct from ISSUE-33 [on Michael Kifer - due 2007-11-13].
Nov 06 14:18:51 <josb>	use cases 2.7, 2.8, 2.10 require referring to RDF graphs/OWL ontologies from rule rets
Nov 06 14:19:00 <josb>
Nov 06 14:20:44 <Bob>	Harold: is 6 months long enough? We ought to do some "experiments" to demonstrate some interchange of information between distinct implementation
Nov 06 14:21:04 <Bob>	Sandro: Yes we should do this, but it doesn't need to be before LC
Nov 06 14:21:13 <sandro>	it's part of CR
Nov 06 14:21:54 <sandro>	csma: the reason to go for only 6months is that if we're not at LC by then, it's a sign something is wrong.
Nov 06 14:21:57 <--	steve (steve@ has left #rif (Ciao ...)
Nov 06 14:21:58 <Bob>	csma: idea of 6 months is to show that we can get to LC, not to finish work of the WG
Nov 06 14:22:53 <josb>	s/rets/sets/
Nov 06 14:24:21 -->	AxelPolleres (AxelPoller@ has joined #rif
Nov 06 14:24:35 -->	csma (csma@ has joined #rif
Nov 06 14:25:29 <Bob>	Sandro: probably want to have two F2F meetings before May, who will come? (or rather who won't come to either)
Nov 06 14:25:51 <IgorMozetic>	tentative location of F2F9: in February
Nov 06 14:26:14 <sandro>	PROPOSED: WG asks for 6 months extension.   Plans to get BLD to Last Call and hold 2 more F2F meetings by end of May.
Nov 06 14:26:15 <Bob>	Harold: where will they be? Europe or US
Nov 06 14:26:34 <AxelPolleres>	f2f9 proposals:
Nov 06 14:27:38 <sandro>	(don't record explicitely that we're trying to figure out if PRD is feasible...    people seem to think it is.)
Nov 06 14:28:00 <sandro>	RESOLVED: WG asks for 6 months extension.   Plans to get BLD to Last Call and hold 2 more F2F meetings by end of May.
Nov 06 14:28:26 <sandro>	Topic: Documents
Nov 06 14:30:33 <GaryHallmark>	I do not want to give up on Core being the base for PRD
Nov 06 14:30:33 <Bob>	Do we want a CORE document again
Nov 06 14:30:55 <Bob>	is CORE a profile of BLD, or BLD an extension of CORE
Nov 06 14:31:27 <Bob>	Michael: first is better as we have a semantics for BLD, but not (at the moment) for CORE
Nov 06 14:31:33 <GaryHallmark>	I should be able to write a Core ruleset and run on PR engine or logic engine
Nov 06 14:31:40 <sandro>	mk: The reason to do core as a profile is that we only need on spec of the semantics (BLD) -- core is just a syntactic restriction on  BLD.
Nov 06 14:32:18 <AxelPolleres>	Core could simply reuse the semantics of BLD, being just a syntactic restriction.
Nov 06 14:32:28 <AxelPolleres>	THe other way around, it is not so easy.
Nov 06 14:32:41 <AxelPolleres>	Since, we'd need to split off the semantics.
Nov 06 14:33:23 <Bob>	Michael: couldn't we do the same by defining CORE as a restriction of PRD
Nov 06 14:33:51 <Bob>	Bob: how do we verify that the two defintions of CORE are conformant?
Nov 06 14:34:24 <GaryHallmark>	could either extend Core to BLD and PRD, or restict BLD and PRD to Core
Nov 06 14:34:39 <GaryHallmark>	s/restict/restrict
Nov 06 14:35:07 <Bob>	csma: Idea of having a separate definition of CORE is so BLD PRD (and anything else) work on a common basis
Nov 06 14:35:46 <sandro>	Sandro: Editorially, Core might exists with syntax, test cases, but say "For formal semantics see BLD and PRD".
Nov 06 14:37:05 <Bob>	csma: (explaining) have a document section defining CORE, with BLD and PRD documents including or pointing back to it
Nov 06 14:38:51 <Bob>	csma: semantics defined at the level of BLD and PRD
Nov 06 14:41:42 <Bob>	Chris: (trying to clarify) does csma want a separate CORE document?
Nov 06 14:42:01 <Harold>	This 'Intersection Core' would contain what we called "4. Pure production rules with only asserts in the action part" in
Nov 06 14:42:02 <sandro>	Axel: csma, are you opposed to having Core be a small document which defines a syntactic subset of BLD?    Because that's an easy way to get core.
Nov 06 14:42:22 <Bob>	csma: can extract common syntactic part of CORE easily
Nov 06 14:43:08 <AxelPolleres>	Needless to say that a core from BLD extraction via the abstract model approach is trivial... just add a bunch of more constraints which forbid function symbols and equality.
Nov 06 14:43:19 <Bob>	csma: has something in mind - but wants to show what he means
Nov 06 14:44:09 <sandro>	Sandro: Core == BLD - Equalirt and - function tersm.
Nov 06 14:44:37 <AxelPolleres>	Besides the Core-BLD relation would ALREADY be an example of how extensibility in RIF works:
Nov 06 14:44:47 <sandro>	Harold: let's take equality out of BLD.
Nov 06 14:45:03 <sandro>	Harold: Taking function terms out of BLD is tricky because of Uniterms.
Nov 06 14:45:29 <AxelPolleres>	A dialect can be defined as a profile of another, then we can define an extension of Core by NAF of a dialect which is an extension of another, and we are basically done for a minimal demo of extensibility.
Nov 06 14:45:52 <AxelPolleres>	I don't understand, why we should go for something more complicated, honestly.
Nov 06 14:46:26 <mdean>	s/Equalirt/Equality/
Nov 06 14:47:58 <Bob>	Harold, Michael speculating on modificiations to BLD to remove aspects such as equality
Nov 06 14:48:28 <Bob>	Axel: we seem to be making things harder for ourselves
Nov 06 14:49:34 <Harold>	The simplest 'profile' masking in is replace the grammar rule TERM := Const | Var | Uniterm  with TERM := Const | Var
Nov 06 14:49:38 <Bob>	Sandro: What do we mean by restriction? Is it at the XML level, the presentation syntax or somewhere else?
Nov 06 14:50:39 <Bob>	Michael: Can manage this by restricting the signatures - "its trivial"
Nov 06 14:51:59 <Bob>	Michael: BNF specifies a superset of the language as it does not restrict you to "correct" rules
Nov 06 14:52:25 <AxelPolleres>	you could have an own XSD, no problem, but you don't NEED to.
Nov 06 14:53:09 <Harold>	The other change is from  ATOMIC ::= Uniterm | Equal  to  ATOMIC ::= Uniterm.
Nov 06 14:53:49 <sandro>	PROPOSED: Core will be defined as a profile of BLD, with a change in the BNF which (like change  ATOMIC ::= Uniterm | Equal  to  ATOMIC ::= Uniterm ) and the corresponding change to the XML schema.
Nov 06 14:54:15 <Bob>	Michael: Don't need to change BNF, just modify the singatures and symbol spaces
Nov 06 14:54:49 <sandro>	errrrr ---- I meant that to be about function-free --- not Equality.
Nov 06 14:55:19 <GaryHallmark>	+1 to Harold: change the grammar
Nov 06 14:55:24 <sandro>	PROPOSED: Core will be defined as a profile of BLD, with a change in the BNF which and the corresponding change to the XML schema.
Nov 06 14:56:35 <AxelPolleres>	If you can show that the grammar kan just be done by removing nonterminals and productions from the BLD gramma, that would nicely show that Core is a restriction of BLD. No problem iwith that. 
Nov 06 14:56:45 <AxelPolleres>	s/kan/can
Nov 06 14:57:01 <AxelPolleres>	s/iwith/with/
Nov 06 14:57:18 <sandro>	csma: I object to that proposal, because I don't want Core to be a profile.
Nov 06 14:58:38 <sandro>	Jos: datalog variables have to be safe.
Nov 06 14:59:46 <csma>	I object to that proposal because having Core specified as a profile of X
Nov 06 14:59:48 <sandro>	PROPOSAL: Core will be what is currently called BLD with Equality remove, function terms removed, and perhaps safeness.
Nov 06 15:00:11 <csma>	...makes specifying a dialect that extends Core but not X more difficult.
Nov 06 15:00:44 <sandro>	Igor: Maybe get rid of frames and slotted terms
Nov 06 15:00:54 <sandro>	Chris: But they are just syntactic sugar, aren't they.
Nov 06 15:00:56 <AxelPolleres>	csma, I don't understand your concern.
Nov 06 15:01:00 <sandro>	csma: What about built ins?
Nov 06 15:01:55 <sandro>	Sandro: maybe core should have evaluable functions (although not logic functions)
Nov 06 15:02:43 <sandro>	Sandro: So we don't need to worry about builtins for this decision.
Nov 06 15:03:22 <sandro>	PROPOSED: Core will be what is currently called BLD with Equality removed, function terms removed, and perhaps safeness.   (Ignoring editorial issues for now)
Nov 06 15:03:54 <sandro>	PROPOSED: Core will be what is currently called BLD with Equality removed, function terms removed, and perhaps safeness.   We will not get rid of BLD.   (Ignoring editorial issues for now)
Nov 06 15:04:58 <sandro>	Bob: if we define core this way, semantically, ... when we want to incorporate Core in BLD -- how do we verify the semantics are what we want.
Nov 06 15:06:05 -->	MichaelKifer (kifer@ has joined #rif
Nov 06 15:06:18 <sandro>	csma: If we discover we cannot semantically extend this to PRD, that would be new information and re-open this matter.
Nov 06 15:07:46 <sandro>	Sandro: slotted terms in Core or not....?
Nov 06 15:08:03 <sandro>	PROPOSED: Core will be what is currently called BLD with Equality removed, function terms removed, and perhaps safeness.   We will not get rid of BLD.   (Ignoring editorial issues for now)    Frame are in Core, slotted terms are not.
Nov 06 15:08:36 <sandro>	Harold: I think production rules need slotted terms.
Nov 06 15:08:51 <sandro>	Harold: Clips has it.
Nov 06 15:08:57 <sandro>	csma: I will check this.
Nov 06 15:09:14 <Harold>
Nov 06 15:09:26 <Harold>	(deffacts trouble_shooting
Nov 06 15:09:26 <Harold>	    (car_problem (name ignition_key) (status on))
Nov 06 15:09:26 <Harold>	    (car_problem (name engine) (status wont_start))
Nov 06 15:09:26 <Harold>	    (car_problem (name headlights) (status work))
Nov 06 15:09:26 <Harold>	 )
Nov 06 15:09:52 <sandro>	PROPOSED: Core will be what is currently called BLD with Equality removed, function terms removed, and perhaps safeness, and perhaps slotted terms.   We will not get rid of BLD.   (Ignoring editorial issues for now)    Frames stay in core.
Nov 06 15:10:56 <sandro>	RESOLVED: Core will be what is currently called BLD with Equality removed, function terms removed, and perhaps safeness, and perhaps slotted terms.   We will not get rid of BLD.   (Ignoring editorial issues for now)    Frames stay in core.
Nov 06 15:11:07 <sandro>	Chris: Now, how to document Core?
Nov 06 15:13:06 <Bob>	csma: we want to have a separate CORE document, so we can refer to it when we extend CORE but not BLD
Nov 06 15:14:11 <sandro>	mk: If you want to know what Core is, read BLD or PRD, and then read what the subset is.
Nov 06 15:15:14 <Bob>	Michael: have two definitions of CORE - so don't need to read BLD defintion of CORE if working with PRD
Nov 06 15:15:45 <Bob>	csma (and Bob): we don't want to have two possibly conflicting defintions of CORE
Nov 06 15:19:02 <AxelPolleres>	I'd like to paste here the most general definition of external predicates (built-ins), I know of (in an attempt to write down the definition of Eiter et al. in a RIF suitable way): an evaluable predicate &pred(X_1,....,X_n) is  assigned with one or more binding patterns, where a binding pattern is a vector {in,out}^n. Intuitively, an evaluable
Nov 06 15:19:02 <AxelPolleres>	atom provides a way for deciding the truth value of an output tuple depending on
Nov 06 15:19:02 <AxelPolleres>	the extension of a set of input predicates and terms. Note that this means that
Nov 06 15:19:02 <AxelPolleres>	evaluable predicates, unlike usual definitions of built-ins in logic programming,
Nov 06 15:19:03 <AxelPolleres>	can not only take constant parameters but also (extensions of) predicates as
Nov 06 15:20:42 <AxelPolleres>	input.
Nov 06 15:23:50 <AxelPolleres>	i.e. inputs cannot only be  terms, but also predicate names (in which case the extension of the respective predicate is part of the input). Such HEX-predictes (higher-order externa predicates) have a fixed interpretation assigned. They are a very general way of evaluable predicates. THe distinction between input and output terms in binding patterns is made in order to guarantee that  whenever all input values of a binding pattern are bound to concrete v
Nov 06 15:24:32 <AxelPolleres>	intreatation only allows a *finite* number of bindings for the output values, which can be computed by an external evaluation oracle.
Nov 06 15:36:17 <--	StellaMitchell has quit (Quit: CGI:IRC (EOF))
Nov 06 15:43:20 <PaulVincent>	Example OASIS XML rule language:
Nov 06 15:44:41 <PaulVincent>	Example of readable XML format for rules: 
Nov 06 15:47:17 -->	StellaMitchell (3f772c85@ has joined #rif
Nov 06 15:47:27 <AxelPolleres>	scribe: Axel Polleres
Nov 06 15:47:34 <AxelPolleres>	Action review.
Nov 06 15:48:04 <AxelPolleres>
Nov 06 15:49:29 <AxelPolleres>	Action 152 - continued, new deadline: 2008-01-15
Nov 06 15:50:00 <AxelPolleres>	Action 172 - dropped (obsolete)
Nov 06 15:50:11 <AxelPolleres>	Action 173 - dropped
Nov 06 15:51:08 <AxelPolleres>	Action 212 - continued, new deadline: 2007-11-30
Nov 06 15:51:20 <Harold>	Action 253 done:
Nov 06 15:51:45 <AxelPolleres>	Action 253 - done, pending discussion. 
Nov 06 15:52:38 <AxelPolleres>	csma: this is not what the action was about.
Nov 06 15:53:10 <AxelPolleres>	csma: action should be take current cond language, cut it to pieces.
Nov 06 15:53:56 <AxelPolleres>	Action 256 - dropped, subsumed by Sandro's activities.
Nov 06 15:54:19 <AxelPolleres>	Action 265 - dropped, subsumed by abstract model.
Nov 06 15:54:59 <AxelPolleres>	Action 274 - continued, should be reassigned, since unsure whether allen rejoins.
Nov 06 15:55:21 <AxelPolleres>	Action 292 - ...
Nov 06 15:56:03 <AxelPolleres>	chrisW: we anted to add pointers to builtins in document, but still waiting for built-in definitions. - ... continued
Nov 06 15:56:19 <AxelPolleres>	Action 305  - done
Nov 06 15:56:54 <AxelPolleres>	Action 323 - done
Nov 06 15:57:09 <AxelPolleres>	Action 331 - done, still pending discussion.
Nov 06 15:58:31 <AxelPolleres>	Action 342 - done. Jos got reply's, they said we are basically on our own with both questions.
Nov 06 15:58:48 <AxelPolleres>	Jos: will summarize that thread and send a summary to the list.
Nov 06 15:59:44 <AxelPolleres>	ACTION: JdeBruijn to send two mails on outcome of Action 342 
Nov 06 15:59:44 *	rifbot noticed an ACTION. Trying to create it.
Nov 06 15:59:44 <rifbot>	Sorry, couldn't find user - JdeBruijn
Nov 06 15:59:44 *	RRSAgent records action 2
Nov 06 15:59:58 <AxelPolleres>	ACTION: deBruijn to send two mails on outcome of Action 342 
Nov 06 15:59:58 *	rifbot noticed an ACTION. Trying to create it.
Nov 06 15:59:58 <rifbot>	Sorry, couldn't find user - deBruijn
Nov 06 15:59:58 *	RRSAgent records action 3
Nov 06 16:00:10 <ChrisW>	action: bruijn
Nov 06 16:00:10 *	rifbot noticed an ACTION. Trying to create it.
Nov 06 16:00:10 *	RRSAgent records action 4
Nov 06 16:00:10 <rifbot>	Sorry, bad ACTION syntax
Nov 06 16:00:18 <AxelPolleres>	ACTION: jos to send two mails on outcome of Action 342 
Nov 06 16:00:18 *	rifbot noticed an ACTION. Trying to create it.
Nov 06 16:00:18 <rifbot>	Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - jos
Nov 06 16:00:18 <rifbot>	Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. jderoo, jdebruij)
Nov 06 16:00:18 *	RRSAgent records action 5
Nov 06 16:00:34 <AxelPolleres>	ACTION: jdebruij to send two mails on outcome of Action 342 
Nov 06 16:00:34 *	rifbot noticed an ACTION. Trying to create it.
Nov 06 16:00:34 *	RRSAgent records action 6
Nov 06 16:00:34 <rifbot>	Created ACTION-369 - Send two mails on outcome of Action 342  [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2007-11-13].
Nov 06 16:01:27 <AxelPolleres>	Action 346 - dropped
Nov 06 16:01:58 <AxelPolleres>	Action 349 - continued.
Nov 06 16:02:14 <AxelPolleres>	Action 350 - done, pending discussion.
Nov 06 16:02:24 <AxelPolleres>	Action 351 - done.
Nov 06 16:04:35 <AxelPolleres>	Action 353 - done?
Nov 06 16:04:48 <AxelPolleres>	s/done?/dropped
Nov 06 16:05:29 <AxelPolleres>	Action 354 - dropped
Nov 06 16:06:02 <AxelPolleres>	Action 358 - done
Nov 06 16:07:03 <AxelPolleres>	Action 359 - done, pending discussion.
Nov 06 16:07:35 <AxelPolleres>	ChrisW: Let's rephrase 359 to "Motovat Abstract Model for extensibility"
Nov 06 16:08:26 <AxelPolleres>	Action 361 - done, pending discussion. discussion yesterday, but stil more discussion necessary.
Nov 06 16:09:19 <AxelPolleres>	Action 362 - continued
Nov 06 16:09:25 <AxelPolleres>	Action 263 - done
Nov 06 16:09:52 <AxelPolleres>	Actions 364, 365, 366 - continued
Nov 06 16:10:03 <AxelPolleres>	Action 367 - continued
Nov 06 16:10:11 <AxelPolleres>	Action 368 - done
Nov 06 16:10:12 <josb>	s/263/363/
Nov 06 16:10:41 <AxelPolleres>	Issues:
Nov 06 16:12:04 <AxelPolleres>	Issue 2 - ...
Nov 06 16:12:11 <AxelPolleres>	csma: Is this critical path?
Nov 06 16:14:42 <AxelPolleres>	csma: jos, please take an action to resolve that and look into the best practices document.
Nov 06 16:15:09 <AxelPolleres>	ACTION: debruij to look into SW best practices document and draft a solution
Nov 06 16:15:09 *	rifbot noticed an ACTION. Trying to create it.
Nov 06 16:15:09 <rifbot>	Sorry, couldn't find user - debruij
Nov 06 16:15:09 *	RRSAgent records action 7
Nov 06 16:15:42 <AxelPolleres>	ACTION: jdebruij to look into SW best practices document and draft a resolution for issue 2
Nov 06 16:15:42 *	rifbot noticed an ACTION. Trying to create it.
Nov 06 16:15:42 *	RRSAgent records action 8
Nov 06 16:15:42 <rifbot>	Created ACTION-370 - Look into SW best practices document and draft a resolution for issue 2 [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2007-11-13].
Nov 06 16:16:00 <AxelPolleres>	issue 14 - ...
Nov 06 16:16:45 <AxelPolleres>	... through Issue 21 are not critical path.
Nov 06 16:17:12 <AxelPolleres>	Issue 24 - is critical path.
Nov 06 16:17:28 <AxelPolleres>	Issue 25 - closed. Addressed by SWC document.
Nov 06 16:17:54 <ChrisW>	PROPOSED: CLOSE ISSUE 25.  Addressed by SWC document.
Nov 06 16:18:03 <ChrisW>	RESOLVED: CLOSE ISSUE 25.  Addressed by SWC document.
Nov 06 16:18:07 <AxelPolleres>	no objections.
Nov 06 16:18:57 <AxelPolleres>	Issue 26 - ...
Nov 06 16:19:22 <AxelPolleres>	sandro: could be discussed in testing. roundtripping could be in the testcases.
Nov 06 16:19:39 <AxelPolleres>	... not dure whether in a testcase document or in Arch.
Nov 06 16:19:47 <AxelPolleres>	s/dure/sure/
Nov 06 16:20:56 <AxelPolleres>	... this is an open issue really.
Nov 06 16:21:23 <AxelPolleres>	csma: ... not out of critical path though.
Nov 06 16:21:38 <AxelPolleres>	Issue 24 - ...
Nov 06 16:22:05 <AxelPolleres>	s/24/27/
Nov 06 16:23:11 <AxelPolleres>	... not critical path.
Nov 06 16:23:35 <sandro>	PROPOSED: close ISSUE-27 with the understanding that RIF Core will not have constraints.
Nov 06 16:24:18 <sandro>	PROPOSED: close ISSUE-27 with the understanding that neither RIF Core nor RIF BLD will not have constraints.
Nov 06 16:24:37 <AxelPolleres>	s/not have/have/
Nov 06 16:24:59 <sandro>	PROPOSED: close ISSUE-27 with the understanding that neither RIF Core nor RIF BLD will have constraint logic programming.
Nov 06 16:25:21 <sandro>	RESOLVED: close ISSUE-27 with the understanding that neither RIF Core nor RIF BLD will have constraint logic programming.
Nov 06 16:25:42 <AxelPolleres>	no objections.
Nov 06 16:26:14 <AxelPolleres>	s/no objections/one editorial objection by bob.
Nov 06 16:27:11 <AxelPolleres>	Issue 28 - closed with earlier resolution on Core being basically datalog.
Nov 06 16:27:27 <sandro>	RESOLVED: close ISSUE-28 with the understanding that RIF Core (as defined earlier today) does not have this problem.
Nov 06 16:27:47 <AxelPolleres>	s/RESOLVED/PROPOSED/
Nov 06 16:28:27 <sandro>	PROPOSED: close ISSUE-28 with the understanding that RIF Core (as defined earlier today) does not have the problems which caused us to raise this issue.
Nov 06 16:28:36 <AxelPolleres>	csma: background of this discussion was PRD discussion.
Nov 06 16:29:00 <sandro>	RESOLVED: close ISSUE-28 with the understanding that RIF Core (as defined earlier today) does not have the problems which caused us to raise this issue.
Nov 06 16:29:03 <AxelPolleres>	no objections.
Nov 06 16:29:34 <AxelPolleres>	Issue 28 - ...
Nov 06 16:29:48 <AxelPolleres>	s/28/29/
Nov 06 16:33:20 <sandro>	PROPOSED: close ISSUE-29 with the understanding that the profile mechanism is being addressed elsewhere.
Nov 06 16:33:51 <sandro>	PROPOSED: close ISSUE-29 with the understanding that the profile mechanism is being addressed elsewhere, and the idea of "profiles of Core" is handled by now having Core and BLD.
Nov 06 16:34:48 <sandro>	PROPOSED: close ISSUE-29 with the understanding that the profile mechanism is being addressed elsewhere, and the issues around of "profiles of Core" are handled by having separate dialects, Core and BLD..
Nov 06 16:36:44 <AxelPolleres>	csma: this doesn't answer the question. 
Nov 06 16:37:06 <AxelPolleres>	ChrisW: LEt's clos the issue when it is indeed addressed elsewhere.
Nov 06 16:37:21 <AxelPolleres>	csma: not critical path for BLD.
Nov 06 16:37:51 <AxelPolleres>	Issue 33 - ciritcal path, not closed.
Nov 06 16:38:27 <AxelPolleres>	Issue 34 - on critical path ...
Nov 06 16:39:05 <AxelPolleres>	jos: is again accurate.
Nov 06 16:39:21 <AxelPolleres>	... not closed
Nov 06 16:39:31 <AxelPolleres>	Issue 35 - ...
Nov 06 16:39:46 <AxelPolleres>	jos: has now been resolved in the published WD.
Nov 06 16:40:20 <sandro>	PROPOSED: to close ISSUE-35 with the understanding that this issue is settled in the our latest published version of BLD.
Nov 06 16:40:33 <sandro>	PROPOSED: to close ISSUE-35 with the understanding that this issue is settled in our latest published version of BLD.
Nov 06 16:40:42 <AxelPolleres>	no objections.
Nov 06 16:40:45 <sandro>	RESOLVED: to close ISSUE-35 with the understanding that this issue is settled in our latest published version of BLD.
Nov 06 16:41:00 <AxelPolleres>	Issue 36 - ...
Nov 06 16:41:12 <AxelPolleres>	csma: what is the issue here?
Nov 06 16:41:22 <AxelPolleres>	ChrisW: open and critical path.
Nov 06 16:41:46 <AxelPolleres>	Issue 37 - not critical path, not closed.
Nov 06 16:41:59 <AxelPolleres>	ChrisW: why isn't it?
Nov 06 16:42:23 <AxelPolleres>	Sandro: Would that ever go in BLD?
Nov 06 16:42:57 <AxelPolleres>	Jos: We don't want to tie ourselved to having to address this.
Nov 06 16:43:15 <AxelPolleres>	ChrisW: nice to have, but shouldn't hold us.
Nov 06 16:43:34 <AxelPolleres>	Issue 38 - not critical path, not closed
Nov 06 16:43:52 <AxelPolleres>	csma: related to last one, but even less important.
Nov 06 16:44:02 <AxelPolleres>	Issue 39 - ...
Nov 06 16:44:57 <AxelPolleres>	jos: I'd say it is critical path.
Nov 06 16:45:07 <AxelPolleres>	csma: requirement in UCR.
Nov 06 16:45:14 <AxelPolleres>	... is critical path and open.
Nov 06 16:45:42 <AxelPolleres>	Issue 40 - ... 
Nov 06 16:45:46 <AxelPolleres>	is critical path.
Nov 06 16:45:55 <AxelPolleres>	Issue 41 - is critical path.
Nov 06 16:46:03 <AxelPolleres>	... and open.
Nov 06 16:46:50 <AxelPolleres>	Issue 42 - 
Nov 06 16:47:29 <AxelPolleres>	sandro: I understood the answer from XML Schema to Jos as "you can do it, but we wouldn't recommend."
Nov 06 16:47:44 <AxelPolleres>	jos: let's discuss with Action...
Nov 06 16:47:51 <AxelPolleres>	csma: open and critical path.
Nov 06 16:48:26 <AxelPolleres>	Issues 43-45: critical path and open.
Nov 06 16:48:41 <AxelPolleres>	Issues 46 - not critical path, open.
Nov 06 16:48:47 <AxelPolleres>	... phase open.
Nov 06 16:49:36 <--	Bob has quit (Quit: CGI:IRC (EOF))
Nov 06 16:51:12 <AxelPolleres>	csma: let's check whether to assign actions to address the 11 critical path issues.
Nov 06 16:51:42 <AxelPolleres>	ChrisW: Let's move to Extensibility.
Nov 06 16:52:16 <AxelPolleres>	csma/jos: Can Issue-39 be quickly assigned?
Nov 06 16:52:41 <AxelPolleres>	.... not now.
Nov 06 16:53:02 -->	bmoore3 (3f772dd2@ has joined #rif
Nov 06 16:53:45 <AxelPolleres>	csma: next points: next f2f, extensibility.
Nov 06 16:53:55 <AxelPolleres>	topic: next f2f.
Nov 06 16:56:48 <AxelPolleres>	sandro: first half of february preferred, not to lose pace.
Nov 06 16:57:04 <AxelPolleres>	csma: wil check whether ilog can also make a proposal.
Nov 06 16:57:24 <AxelPolleres>	current proposals online: DERI Galway and JSI ,
Nov 06 16:58:16 <AxelPolleres>	chrisw: prefer end of february, would maybe not be able to come first week.
Nov 06 16:58:37 <AxelPolleres>	... can definitly make it 26,27,28.
Nov 06 17:00:34 <AxelPolleres>	csma:  proposal 1: 26/27, proposal 2: week 18-21
Nov 06 17:01:23 <AxelPolleres>	ACTION: Christian to put f2f9 dates and proposals on agenda of telecon Nov 20th
Nov 06 17:01:23 *	rifbot noticed an ACTION. Trying to create it.
Nov 06 17:01:23 *	RRSAgent records action 9
Nov 06 17:01:23 <rifbot>	Created ACTION-371 - Put f2f9 dates and proposals on agenda of telecon Nov 20th [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2007-11-13].
Nov 06 17:01:57 <AxelPolleres>	s/20/13/
Nov 06 17:02:22 <AxelPolleres>	sandro: Can start a Webform for preferred dates in february.
Nov 06 17:02:50 <AxelPolleres>	ACTION: sandro to start a webform on preferred dates in feb for f2f9.
Nov 06 17:02:50 *	RRSAgent records action 10
Nov 06 17:02:50 *	rifbot noticed an ACTION. Trying to create it.
Nov 06 17:02:50 <rifbot>	Created ACTION-372 - Start a webform on preferred dates in feb for f2f9. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2007-11-13].
Nov 06 17:03:53 <AxelPolleres>	sandro: enter your preferences given that location will be in  Europe.
Nov 06 17:04:36 <PaulVincent>	scribenick: PaulVincent
Nov 06 17:04:46 <sandro>
Nov 06 17:05:24 <PaulVincent>	Sandro: Topic = Extensibility
Nov 06 17:07:33 <PaulVincent>	... extension example: add new condition type for NAF
Nov 06 17:07:46 <PaulVincent>	... includes possible fallback options
Nov 06 17:08:21 <PaulVincent>	... with XML spec defining comment, semantics, and RIF change
Nov 06 17:10:36 <PaulVincent>	... and Fallback specification
Nov 06 17:11:45 <PaulVincent>	... Applies to BLD and extensions (semantically ?)
Nov 06 17:13:23 <PaulVincent>	Jos: need language to extend syntax
Nov 06 17:13:33 <PaulVincent>	Harold: eg XSLT and XML
Nov 06 17:14:49 <PaulVincent>	Jos: Who is target for extension format?
Nov 06 17:15:10 <PaulVincent>	Sandro: All RIF processors
Nov 06 17:16:03 <AxelPolleres>	Harold: What you were asking me is EXACTLY what I described in the AbstractModel document, and why I think that the abstract model is useful. It is just  not  being dsicussed.
Nov 06 17:17:39 <PaulVincent>	Jos: Why need / how use a changelist? 
Nov 06 17:17:45 <PaulVincent>	... may be very complex
Nov 06 17:18:48 <PaulVincent>	Sandro: Alternative is where extensions used are named...
Nov 06 17:19:11 <sandro>	Sandro: Two Branches:  (1) in the instance document, name each extension you use;   (2) build schema for possible extensions and see which fit.
Nov 06 17:20:04 <sandro>	if you have to name extensions, then you can't just combine the elements....
Nov 06 17:22:47 <PaulVincent>	Jos: Danger of extensions being mutually exclusive
Nov 06 17:23:51 <PaulVincent>	... and such docs should be rejected
Nov 06 17:24:16 <PaulVincent>	Christian: Task of producer to use valid extensions/sets
Nov 06 17:24:34 <PaulVincent>	Mike: Example case would be merging rulesets with different extensions
Nov 06 17:25:12 <PaulVincent>	Axel: Modular extensions could be dangerous vs a new dialect
Nov 06 17:27:52 <--	PaulVincent has quit (Quit: CGI:IRC (EOF))
Nov 06 17:28:30 <MichaelKifer>	scribenik: MichaelKifer
Nov 06 17:29:38 <MichaelKifer>	csma: what do u do if u have to merge two documents coming from different dialects.
Nov 06 17:30:07 <ChrisW>	Scribe: MichaelKifer
Nov 06 17:30:50 <MichaelKifer>	jos, axel: not clear how to do it. probably impossible. semantics may not be definable
Nov 06 17:31:23 <sandro>	Sandro: I want to be able to add List to PRD and BLD with the same extension.
Nov 06 17:31:28 <MichaelKifer>	sandro: want to add lists to PRD and BLD through the same extension mechanism
Nov 06 17:32:12 <sandro>	Axel: if you have sound and complete fallbacks to two different dialects, then it's defined as if in a superdialect.
Nov 06 17:33:51 <MichaelKifer>	sandro: seems like the group thinks these ideas are interesting, but may be unworkable
Nov 06 17:34:15 <MichaelKifer>	will try to work on that more.
Nov 06 17:34:22 <sandro>	Sandro: I think I know how to do the semantic independence from a programmers perspective, but I don't know the math side of it.
Nov 06 17:34:25 <MichaelKifer>	jos: major skepticism
Nov 06 17:34:56 <sandro>	Gary: make it more fixed, eg TrimToRule, TrimToOr, TrimToAnd, ....
Nov 06 17:35:20 <MichaelKifer>	gary: reduce the scope of the extensibility mechanism
Nov 06 17:36:46 <MichaelKifer>	sandro:  should design extensibility so that it itself will be extensible
Nov 06 17:38:18 <MichaelKifer>	chris to sandro: do u think every dialect will have the patience to describe itself wrt some smaller dialect?
Nov 06 17:39:10 <MichaelKifer>	csma: are we ready to make a resolution on extensibility?
Nov 06 17:39:25 <sandro>	general consensus --- impact matrix is a good start
Nov 06 17:39:35 <sandro>	general consensus -- trim to something is a good start
Nov 06 17:39:40 <MichaelKifer>	sandro: should we proceed developing the impact matrix?
Nov 06 17:40:45 <MichaelKifer>	gary: if a dialect decribes itself wrt a smaller dialect, what happens if the dialect(s) get updated?
Nov 06 17:43:18 <MichaelKifer>	sandro: I should work on an extensibility strawman
Nov 06 17:43:47 <MichaelKifer>	chris: try to do a fallback from bld to core
Nov 06 17:43:54 <AxelPolleres>	I think we need some minimal RDF vokabulary to relate Dialects, a la: you can get from dialect A to dialect B via the following fallbacks... and fallbacks again being described by referencing a trasnformation, the impact, etc.
Nov 06 17:43:58 <sandro>	Chris: Strawman --- Extension of Core to BLD
Nov 06 17:44:11 <MichaelKifer>	sandro: another one is extension of bld with naf and lists
Nov 06 17:44:12 <sandro>	Sandro: BLD to Equalirt, NAF, Lists
Nov 06 17:45:03 <sandro>	ACTION: Sandro to write up strawman extension of Core to BLD.
Nov 06 17:45:03 *	RRSAgent records action 11
Nov 06 17:45:03 *	rifbot noticed an ACTION. Trying to create it.
Nov 06 17:45:03 <rifbot>	Created ACTION-373 - Write up strawman extension of Core to BLD. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2007-11-13].
Nov 06 17:45:48 <sandro>	ACTION: Sandro to request extension to RIF charter
Nov 06 17:45:48 *	RRSAgent records action 12
Nov 06 17:45:48 *	rifbot noticed an ACTION. Trying to create it.
Nov 06 17:45:48 <rifbot>	Created ACTION-374 - Request extension to RIF charter [on Sandro Hawke - due 2007-11-13].
Nov 06 17:47:29 <sandro>	PROPOSED: no invisible extensions
Nov 06 17:47:38 <sandro>	PROPOSED: no invisible extensions (official or user extensions)
Nov 06 17:48:01 <sandro>	Jos: exactly the same syntax, different semantics.
Nov 06 17:49:05 <sandro>	mk: having a dialect tag is enough.
Nov 06 17:50:22 <sandro>	axel: top-of-document tag or syntactic elements used -- either way.
Nov 06 17:51:35 <sandro>	Chris: Issue -- what's the issue we use to make sure we avoid invisible extensions
Nov 06 17:52:15 <sandro>	RESOLVED: no invisible extensions (official or user extensions)
Nov 06 17:52:40 <sandro>	ACTION: Sandro to open the issue: how to make sure we avoid invisible extensions
Nov 06 17:52:40 *	RRSAgent records action 13
Nov 06 17:52:40 *	rifbot noticed an ACTION. Trying to create it.
Nov 06 17:52:40 <rifbot>	Created ACTION-375 - Open the issue: how to make sure we avoid invisible extensions [on Sandro Hawke - due 2007-11-13].
Nov 06 17:53:07 <sandro>	cf top-of-document vs in-spot-of-use
Nov 06 17:54:01 <AxelPolleres>	How to avoid invisible extensions: Whenever the intersection of your dialect with another dialect is non-empty, you hae to make sure that your semantics coincides with that dialect on that extension.
Nov 06 17:54:07 <AxelPolleres>	THat should be sufficient.
Nov 06 17:54:33 <AxelPolleres>	s/on that extension/on the intersection
Nov 06 17:54:52 <sandro>	yes, mechanically -- but the issue here is really "semantic flags at top of document" 
Nov 06 17:55:19 <AxelPolleres>	I don't like the top-level semantic tags, I think.
Nov 06 17:56:13 <sandro>	me neither, but Jos and Michael do, and they're certainly more obvious.
Nov 06 17:58:19 <ChrisW>	by next BLD WD: Resolve lists, meta-data, builtins, frames/classification
Nov 06 17:58:48 <ChrisW>	...and slotted uniterms
Nov 06 17:59:58 <MichaelKifer>	to make this feasible by mid December,  ppl should become more agreeable :-)
Nov 06 18:00:08 <--	bmoore3 has quit (Quit: CGI:IRC (EOF))
Nov 06 18:00:11 -->	bmoore3 (3f772dd2@ has joined #rif
Nov 06 18:02:34 <ChrisW>	PROPOSED: Be nice to Michael until december
Nov 06 18:02:49 <ChrisW>	PROPOSED: Be nice to Michael until mid-december
Nov 06 18:03:01 <ChrisW>	RESOLVED: Be nice to Michael until mid-december
Nov 06 18:03:38 <sandro>	(so that he can produce strawman proposals as above.    individual builtins handled by someone else.)
Nov 06 18:04:06 <ChrisW>	action: Christian to put on agenda the BLD plan
Nov 06 18:04:06 *	rifbot noticed an ACTION. Trying to create it.
Nov 06 18:04:06 *	RRSAgent records action 14
Nov 06 18:04:06 <rifbot>	Created ACTION-376 - Put on agenda the BLD plan [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2007-11-13].
Nov 06 18:04:35 <--	IgorMozetic has quit (Quit: CGI:IRC (EOF))
Nov 06 18:05:11 <ChrisW>	PROPOSED: Adjourn.
Nov 06 18:05:22 <ChrisW>	RESOLVED: Adjourn.
Nov 06 18:05:28 <ChrisW>	rrsagent, make minutes
Nov 06 18:05:28 <RRSAgent>	I have made the request to generate ChrisW
Nov 06 18:05:34 <--	MichaelKifer has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
Nov 06 18:06:02 <--	StellaMitchell has quit (Quit: CGI:IRC (EOF))
Nov 06 18:09:41 <--	mdean has quit (Ping timeout)
Nov 06 18:10:01 <--	ChrisW has quit (Ping timeout)
Nov 06 18:10:08 <--	Harold has quit (Quit: Harold)
Nov 06 18:10:24 <--	csma (csma@ has left #rif
Nov 06 18:13:43 <--	GaryHallmark has quit (Quit: CGI:IRC (EOF))
Nov 06 21:56:27 ---	Disconnected (Remote host closed socket).
**** ENDING LOGGING AT Tue Nov  6 21:56:27 2007

Received on Thursday, 8 November 2007 17:08:11 UTC