<ChrisW> Scribe: Hassan

<ChrisW> Last week's minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Oct/att-0017/2008-10-07-minutes.html

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: accept minutes of last telecon

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept minutes of last telecon

Action Review

No telecon on Oct. 28 - meeting cancelled

<sandro> action-621 done

<sandro> ACTION-621: done

<trackbot> ACTION-621 Start F2F12 wiki page notes added

<sandro> ACTION-621 done

<sandro> ACTION-621 complete

<DaveReynolds> ACTION-621: completed

<trackbot> ACTION-621 Start F2F12 wiki page notes added

<josb> ACTION-621 is done

<sandro> ACTION-621 closed

<trackbot> ACTION-621 Start F2F12 wiki page closed

<sandro> action-613 closed

<trackbot> ACTION-613 Put f2f12 on agenda next week closed

Core

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: Core should keep safe disjunction in rule bodies. Implementations can be direct or use a well-known preprocessing step.

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: Core should keep safe disjunction in rule bodies. Implementations can be direct or use a well-known preprocessing step.

<DaveReynolds> It was Issue-75 I thinkg

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: Core should keep safe disjunction in rule bodies. Implementations can be direct or use a well-known preprocessing step.

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: CLose Issue-75

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: Close Issue-75

<ChrisW> ACTION: Chris to close issue 75 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-rif-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-622 - Close issue 75 [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-10-28].

Harold: discussing 2 sorts of "safeness"

<josb> I already said last week I'm fine with either choice

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: Parameterize the conformance clauses of Core with

<ChrisW> safeness requirements "strict" and "none" (default: "none").

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: Parameterize the conformance clauses of Core with safeness requirements "strict" and "none" (default: "none").

<ChrisW> ACTION: chris to put proposal in agenda for next telecon (to close issue-70) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-rif-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-623 - Put proposal in agenda for next telecon (to close issue-70) [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-10-28].

DaveReynolds: Looking for definition of Skolem functions that would suit both BLD and PRD. But this looks like two different concepts.

ChrisW: Does this mean Skolem functions should not be on Core?

DaveReynolds: Not necessarily - just that the logical notion is not good for PRD.

Harold: member is in Core - but not subclass

UCR

ChrisW: these are the 2 things remaining to discuss for Core

AdrianPaschke: Updated some examples in the UCR document to use the canonical syntax

DaveReynolds: discusses the changes needed in his UCR examples (frames vs. predicates)

<DaveReynolds> The 4.2 example seems to use nested frames - I didn't think that was supported in BLD PS.

ChrisW: looking for reviewers of the UCR document after AP is done with it (two weeks)

<ChrisW> ACTION: stella to review UCR in two weeks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-rif-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-624 - Review UCR in two weeks [on Stella Mitchell - due 2008-10-28].

<ChrisW> ACTION: Gary to review UCR in two weeks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-rif-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-625 - Review UCR in two weeks [on Gary Hallmark - due 2008-10-28].

SWC

<josb> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC

ChrisW: asking for comments before we publish this? discussion?
... asking for reviewers for the SWC document...

<ChrisW> ACTION: sandro freeze RDF&OWL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-rif-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-626 - Freeze RDF&OWL [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-10-28].

<ChrisW> ACTION: Chris to review RDF&OWL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-rif-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-627 - Review RDF&OWL [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-10-28].

Stuart are U there?

<StuartTaylor> sorry ChrisW phone problems again

<StuartTaylor> yes, I'll do that

<ChrisW> ACTION: StuartTaylor to review RDF&OWL in two weeks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-rif-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - StuartTaylor

<yzhao> I can also review it

<ChrisW> ACTION: YutingZhao to review RDF&OWL in two weeks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-rif-minutes.html#action08]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - YutingZhao

<ChrisW> ACTION: Yuting to review RDF&OWL in two weeks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-rif-minutes.html#action09]

<ChrisW> ACTION: Stuart to review RDF&OWL in two weeks [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-rif-minutes.html#action10]

<sandro> action-600?

<sandro> issue-1?

<sandro> trackbot, help?

<trackbot> Created ACTION-628 - Review RDF&OWL in two weeks [on Yuting Zhao - due 2008-10-28].

<trackbot> Created ACTION-629 - Review RDF&OWL in two weeks [on Stuart Taylor - due 2008-10-28].

<trackbot> ACTION-600 -- Christopher Welty to draft revised metadata conformance wording for BLD -- due 2008-10-03 -- CLOSED

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/600

<trackbot> ISSUE-1 -- This is a test issue. Please ignore. -- CLOSED

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/1

<trackbot> See http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

Test Cases

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Category:Test_Case

ChrisW: Discussing the "Disjunctive Information from Negative Guards" test case
... there are two cases
... discussing: Equality in conclusion 1, Equality in conclusion 2, Inconsistent Entailment - all seem to look good
... discussing No polymorphic symbols, Non-Annotation Entailment - both seem to look good
... discussing http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Category:Proposed
... Annotation Entailment needs to be discussed

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: accept TC http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Annotation_Entailment

ChrisW: this case is about annotation in OWL

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept TC http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Annotation_Entailment

<StellaMitchell> yes

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Argument_names_not_Const

<sandro> sandro: Wow -- that's not what I was expecting. I dont like that. We should allow IRIs.

<josb> "The argument names in ArgNames are written as unicode strings that must not start with a question mark, "?"."

<DaveReynolds> a countably infinite set of argument names, ArgNames (disjoint from Const and Var)

<sandro> sandro: So maybe no one cares that Named Arguments are broken like this, since no one is ever going to use Named Arguments. :-( :-(

<sandro> _p("http://example.com/example#a"->4)

<sandro> (that IS okay)

<sandro> _p("http://example.com/example#a"->4) IS OKAY

<josb> "http://example.com/example#a"^^xsd:string

<sandro> _p(<http://example.com/example#a>->4) NOT OKAY

JosB: points out that shorthands syntax is interfering with this...

<StellaMitchell> yes, they are in DTB

<StellaMitchell> yes, it just can be a string that satisfies the syntaxs of a constant

<StellaMitchell> cannot, I mean

all: discussing the ambiguous syntax of identifiers

<StellaMitchell> it can be anything except something that is syntactically a constant

<ChrisW> ACTION: open issue on ambiguity in presentation syntax [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-rif-minutes.html#action11]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - open

<ChrisW> ACTION: chris to open issue on ambiguity in presentation syntax [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-rif-minutes.html#action12]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-630 - Open issue on ambiguity in presentation syntax [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-10-28].

<StellaMitchell> the BLD doc does give a reason for argname different from conts

<StellaMitchell> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD#Terms

all:discussing the rationale of syntactic choices ...

<josb> http://example.com/example#a

<josb> _p(http://example.com/example#a->4)

JosB: IRI's and Strings are usable there (as slots) but we need a means to identify that case.

<Gary> why don't we just get rid of named arg uniterms?

<josb> :)

All: discussing the nature of named-argument terms' slots

<sandro> Sandro: Oh, okay, I remember now why these argument names can't be constants (like slot names) -- we don't want equality to apply (as Michael is saying) -- we want them to be purely syntactic sugar.

<StellaMitchell> I can do that test case

JosB: let's use the XML not the PS when the latter is ambiguous

<StellaMitchell> I can

<StellaMitchell> will make xml versions of all the test

<ChrisW> ACTION: Stella make a positive syntax test version of Argument names not Const [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-rif-minutes.html#action13]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-631 - Make a positive syntax test version of Argument names not Const [on Stella Mitchell - due 2008-10-28].

<StellaMitchell> test

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Class_Membership

<sandro> Can someone read this in English: fam:isParent(?Y ?X):- And (?Y=fam:Uwe fam:Uwe#fam:Parent ?X=fam:Adrian fam:Adrian#fam:Child)

<DaveReynolds> Exactly what I was going to say!

JosB: I don't understand the purpose of the TC - should be simpler to illustrate membership

<sandro> Sandro: Yes, please, let's do this in a much simpler way.

<ChrisW> ACTION: adrian to shorten test case Class Membership [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-rif-minutes.html#action14]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - adrian

<ChrisW> ACTION: apaschke to shorten test case Class Membership [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-rif-minutes.html#action15]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - apaschke

<ChrisW> ACTION: paschke to shorten test case Class Membership [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-rif-minutes.html#action16]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - paschke

<ChrisW> ACTION: adrianp to shorten test case Class Membership [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-rif-minutes.html#action17]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - adrianp

Hassan: I concur with Sandro: the last rule makes no sense ...

<sandro> Sandro: It's baffling to have Adrian named in the body of the isParent rule.

<ChrisW> ACTION: sandro to ask adiran to shorten test case Class Membership [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-rif-minutes.html#action18]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-632 - Ask AdrianPaschke to shorten test case Class Membership [on Sandro Hawke - due 2008-10-28].

<sandro> Sandro: I've been assuming we'd use the Prefix(...) declarations from the Premise in the Conclusion condition.

Hassan: I fully concur with Jos on this - I already requested this (Prefix and Base are pragmas)

<sandro> Jos: Just say the the conclusion has the Prefix copied from the Premise

<StellaMitchell> a lot of the test case conclusions are not documents, but they are condition formulas

<StellaMitchell> and the xml validates by bldcond.xsd and not bldrule.xsd

<josb> pre:local

<josb> =http://bla#local

<josb> (if Prefix(pre http://bla#local))

<StellaMitchell> write conclusions in fully expanded format

<StellaMitchell> or anglebracket iri form

Hassan: I agree with DaveReynolds on the need to separate the macroexpansion from the syntax analysis

<StellaMitchell> I think fully expanded it ok

DaveReynolds: no - I propose to separate the pragmas from the examples

Hassan: I agree with Dave - that is exactly what I had proposed earlier

<ChrisW> ACTION: chris to discuss how to specify prefixes on email [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/21-rif-minutes.html#action19]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-633 - Discuss how to specify prefixes on email [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-10-28].

Hassan: BTW, what Dave is proposing is what we did De Facto in the previous versions using namespaces

AOB?

<sandro> Sandro: Agreed -- namespace handling of the presentation syntax of the conclusion is something test-case-specific, not BLD-general.

+1 to adjourn

<DaveReynolds> bye

<yzhao> ye

<ChrisW> Leora Morgenstern (Sukkot) StuartTaylor ChanghaiKe Christian de Sainte Marie (at risk) PaulVincent