[Core] Core telecon Monday, November 10

All WG members are invited to join the next telecon
of the Core taskforce.


AGENDA Teleconference
W3C RIF-Core Taskforce
10 November 2008

North America and Europe are on standard time:
Mondays 1500 UTC, 0800 (West US) 1100 (East US) 1600 (London) 1700
(Paris)

Duration: *normally 60 mins*

Zakim Bridges: +1.617.761.6200 (US), +33 4 89 06 34 99 (F) or
+44.117.370.6152 (GB)

Conference code: 74394 ("RIFWG")

Web-based IRC (member-only): as for main telecons


Agenda

* Review of Dave's passes through Core document to bring it into
line with our current set of resolutions and to fill in some blanks

* Further PROPOSED resolutions on Core issues

- http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/72
Should Core support some approximation to skolem functions?
(see PROPOSED and Dave's earlier email below)

- Christian's new issue about unification in PRD and Core being
limited to pattern matching
PROPOSED: Use RIF-Core specific Conformance Clauses for restriction
of unification to matching 

* Finishing edits for FPWD

- Clean-up pass and wording any unresolved issues as Editors' notes

- Postponing Core schema to 2nd WD to let PRD stabilize a bit more
and to avoid high schema maintenance costs. See also:
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/69
Should there be a Core schema incldued in BLD and PRD schemata?

Best,
Harold


Please note that RIF-Core telecons are for attendance only by
RIF Working Group Participants and guests invited by the chairs.

------------------------------------------------------


-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Reynolds [mailto:der@hplb.hpl.hp.com] 
Sent: September 19, 2008 11:32 AM
To: Boley, Harold
Cc: Axel Polleres; Gary Hallmark; Adrian Paschke; kifer@cs.sunysb.edu;
team-rif-chairs@w3.org
Subject: Re: RIF-Core: proposing resolutions to current issues

. . .

> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/72
> PROPOSED: Do not include Skolem functions or a 'New' builtin for Core
> (a 'New' construct can be developed for PRD).

I would prefer to include the "new" builtin and have that available in 
both BLD and PRD.

My primary motivation is that a substantial number of "in the wild" RDF 
rule sets do something like this to construct new bNodes. For the 
observed usages then the proposed "new" builtin would be sufficient and 
would be implementable in both a BLD and PRD setting.

However, PRD seems to be opting for the "new" action, rather than the 
builtin/skolem function, and that seems to have a Gensym semantics. 
That's clearly a problem. I assume PRD doesn't want two different forms 
of "new" and the true Gensym form can't be in Core.  I'd like to at 
least understand the PRD position here before agreeing to this proposal.

. . .

Received on Wednesday, 5 November 2008 22:28:50 UTC