See also: IRC log
<ChrisW> Scribe: JeffPan
<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Feb/att-0022/05-rif-minutes.html
Chris: Minutes from last week. Any objections to approving them?
<AxelPolleres> hmmm, I thought I was ?p45. no clue who I am ;-)
RESOLUTION: approve http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Feb/att-0022/05-rif-minutes.html as true record of last weeks' meeting
raise hand is 41#
chris: ACTION-413
ACTION-412 continued -- by tomorrow
ACTION-411 continued
ACTION-409, Jos? On schedule?
Jos: Yes.
<csma> ACTION-410 done
ACTION-382, Sandro?
Sandro: I haven't come across any yet. *shrug*
ACTION-373, Sandro?
Sandro: new deadline?
Chris: 20th.
Sandro: okay.
<csma> yes
<csma> continued
Chris: csma, ACTION-413?
<csma> done
Chris: csma, ACTION-410 Direction to Hotel?
<scribe> scribenick: JeffP
Harold, about hotel for the FTF
<sandro> csma: Port D'Italie is close to ILOG -- Place D'Italie is not so close.
<sandro> Harold: (both are Holiday Inn Express)
<josb> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC/OWL-Compatibility
josb: progress of OWL task force is fine
Harold: how about common logic?
Chris: good idea, but
unfortunately no one is working on both at the moment
... maybe I could do it but not in the near future
Harold: will the ISO standard be free?
Chris: sort of
<Zakim> sandro, you wanted to raise question of XBRL liason
Chris: but it is not available now yet
<Harold> the RuleML Chat
<Harold> came up with questions
<Harold> about the upcoming Symposium:
<Harold> http://2008.ruleml.org/
<sandro> (David vun Kannon)
<sandro> http://xbrl.org/
<scribe> ACTION: Adrian to be the liason of XBRL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-rif-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Adrian
<trackbot-ng> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. agiurca, apaschke)
<scribe> ACTION: apaschke to be the liason of XBRL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-rif-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-414 - Be the liason of XBRL [on Adrian Paschke - due 2008-02-19].
4. F2F [3]
JeffP: I will attend FTF too
<IgorMozetic> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F10
<Harold> Colleagues from the WG are encouraged to submit papers to RuleML-2008: Practically-oriented papers including use cases, implementations, interoperation experiments, ...
<Harold> (also to submit to the Challenge...)
Chris: we will discuss F2F10 in the coming F2F
<AxelPolleres> yes!
AxelPolleres: we would like to propose but need to know the dates first
Chris: we will be looking at the second half of May
<scribe> ACTION: AxelPolleres to post a proposal on F2F10 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-rif-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - AxelPolleres
<csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Feb/0040.html
<AxelPolleres> negation as failure under which semantics?
<AxelPolleres> ok, for conditions only doesn't matter probably...
csma descrbes the content of the above link
csma: I proposed a different
syntax than BLD
... that's becuase the dicussions on the XML syntax haven't
been finalised
<Harold> He seems to have said: some small changes in the syntax from BLD
<GaryHallmark> I volunteer
<GaryHallmark> yes
<ChrisW> ACTION: Gary to review PRD by Friday [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-rif-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-415 - Review PRD by Friday [on Gary Hallmark - due 2008-02-19].
<ChrisW> ACTION: Adrian to review PRD by Friday [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-rif-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot-ng> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Adrian
<trackbot-ng> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. agiurca, apaschke)
<ChrisW> ACTION: apaschke to review PRD by Friday [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-rif-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-416 - Review PRD by Friday [on Adrian Paschke - due 2008-02-19].
<apaschke> I also could not read it yet
csma: the main change of the syntax is about the frame construct
<ChrisW> Frozen PRD - Monday, Feb 18
Chris: what about FLD?
MichaelKifer: Frozen FLD now
Chris: Frozen BLD now
<ChrisW> ACTION: Harold to finish BLD appendices by thursday [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-rif-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-417 - Finish BLD appendices by thursday [on Harold Boley - due 2008-02-19].
<Harold> Table Of Contents
<Harold> 1.
<Harold> RIF Overview
<Harold> 2.
<Harold> RIF-BLD Syntax
<Harold> 3.
<Harold> RIF-BLD Semantics
<ChrisW> ACTION: sandro to freeze BLD and put on wiki page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-rif-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-418 - Freeze BLD and put on wiki page [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-02-19].
<Harold> 4.
<Harold> References
<Harold> 5.
<Harold> Appendix: Specification
<Harold> 6.
Chris: what about FLD?
<Harold> Appendix: List of Builtins
<Harold> 1.
<Harold> Numerics
<Harold> 2.
<Harold> Strings
<Harold> 3.
<Harold> Dates and Times
Chris: josb, how about the RDF compatibility doc?
<ChrisW> RDF & OWL Compat: frozen by friday
josb: by this Friday, including the OWL stuffs
Chris calls for more reviewers?
<AxelPolleres> I can review SW-compatibility.
scribe: The reviews should be ready by F2F
<scribe> ACTION: Igor to review both BLD and FLD [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-rif-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-419 - Review both BLD and FLD [on Igor Mozetic - due 2008-02-19].
<scribe> ACTION: Axel to review SW-compatibility. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-rif-minutes.html#action10]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-420 - Review SW-compatibility. [on Axel Polleres - due 2008-02-19].
<LeoraMorgenstern> ok,
<LeoraMorgenstern> i could review bld
<Hassan> Sorry - I am rather booked ...
<StellaMitchell> at editorial level
<scribe> ACTION: Leora to review BLD [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-rif-minutes.html#action11]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-421 - Review BLD [on Leora Morgenstern - due 2008-02-19].
<scribe> ACTION: Stella to review FLD [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-rif-minutes.html#action12]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-422 - Review FLD [on Stella Mitchell - due 2008-02-19].
<csma> I did not include them in PRD
<csma> You want them?
<csma> :-)
<josb> unhappy, but not object
<apaschke> PRD: to support CLIPS?
<csma> Adrain: not at a cost for everybody else (that is, better CLIPS only bearing the cost)
<Harold> Common Logic also has named-arguments. E.g.: (married (roleset:(husband Jack)(wife Jill)))
<GaryHallmark> the reason I'm unhappy is there are 2 separate interp. fcns for slotted and positional, indicating that we don't really know how to map between the two
<GaryHallmark> ... but somehow implementers will have to figure it out
<ChrisW> PROPOSED: Fixed interpretation functions will be represented as TERMs and fixed interpretation relations as ATOMICs.
<MichaelKifer> Gary, there are always many choices (with or without named args). The implementors have to pick whatever they think is most suitable.
Chris: which action should we start with?
csma: Action 408
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/408
<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Feb/0005.html
<apaschke> =boolean-valued relations?
Igor: are we talking about using equality for assignment?
<AxelPolleres> being TERMs, it means built-ins may appear in all TERM positions. What do you mean Igor?
<Harold> Igor, Christian, Yes Equal can be used for assiging evaluation results from functional builtins to logic Vars.
<IgorMozetic> do we use ?X = add(1,2)
<apaschke> +1 for chris
josb: why do we need assignment at all?
<apaschke> ?X = add(1,2) is fully declarative
<AxelPolleres> +1 to jos, if we have functions as TERMs, they may appear in equality or any other predicate.
<Harold> Yes, something like And(?X = add(1,2), p(Seq(?X ?X)))
<ChrisW> PROPOSED: Fixed interpretation functions will be represented as TERMs and fixed interpretation relations as ATOMICs.
<apaschke> e.g if X is bound it reduce to eqality otherwise it is assignment
<sandro> Chris: These are syntactically different from logic functions.
<Harold> For "Small RIF Dialects" we can use a signature for Equal corresponding to Prolog's "is" primitive.
<IgorMozetic> not using add(1,2,?X)
<Harold> Something like Equal ( Var, Exterm ).
Sandro: what are the alternatives?
<josb> PROPOSED: Fixed interpretation functions will be represented as functions and fixed interpretation relations as predicates, rather than representing functions as predicates
<sandro> Chris: This excludes having only "builtin" predicates. We'll use some of each.
<sandro> Chris: Some predicates and some functions. Not JUST predicates.
<sandro> +1
<Harold> +1
<AxelPolleres> +1
<IgorMozetic> +1
<josb> +1
<MichaelKifer> +0
0
<apaschke> +1
<GaryHallmark> +1, assuming fixed interp. is syntactically distinguished from logical terms
<josb> RESOLVED: Fixed interpretation functions will be represented as functions and fixed interpretation relations as predicates, rather than representing functions as predicates
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/List_of_BLD_built-ins
<ChrisW> ATOMIC ::= Uniterm | Equal | ExtTerm
<ChrisW> ATOMIC ::= Uniterm | Equal | ExtTerm
<ChrisW> TERM ::= Const | Var | Uniterm | ExtTerm
<ChrisW> ExtTerm ::= 'Builtin ( ' Uniterm ' ) '
<IgorMozetic> So we will use ?X = Buildin(add(1,2))
<josb> That's why it's good :)
<AxelPolleres> as long as this is not ambiguous with a normal uniterm...
<ChrisW> ACTION: harold to incorporate new builtin syntax in bld [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/02/12-rif-minutes.html#action13]
<trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-423 - Incorporate new builtin syntax in bld [on Harold Boley - due 2008-02-19].
<AxelPolleres> ie. is "Builtin" forbidden as a local name, yes????
<AxelPolleres> hello?
<josb> local names are written "Builtin"^^rif:local
<josb> so, it's not forbidden and not ambiguous
<sandro> Frozen version of FLD: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/draft/ED-rif-fld-20080212/
MichaelKifer: I will add a link
<LeoraMorgenstern> i will volunteer
ok
<apaschke> bye