Admin

<ChrisW> Scribe: Mike Dean

<ChrisW> scribenick: mdean

<cke> Christian is in IRC, but not on the phone

<DaveReynolds> Apologies but I need to leave the call early (by about 40 min)

<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009May/att-0195/19-May-2009-rif-minutes.html

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: accept last weeks minutes

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept last weeks minutes

ChrisW: contain 3 last call resolutions

ChrisW: no agenda amendments

Liaison

Sandro: SPARQL working group response and discussion about rdf:text
... need about 3 words changed - mention SPARQL explicitly - all editorial
... lots of people misunderstood spec
... close to consensus
... Axel proposed change from rdf:text to rdf:PlainLiteral

<josb> I would be fine with the name change

Sandro: don't expect any (other) substantive changes

ChrisW: shouldn't require another last call by itself

Sandro: OWL 2 close to CR - one more document and internal approval - should be CR in a couple weeks

Action Review

<ChrisW> close action-822

<trackbot> ACTION-822 Change subscript "l" in 6.1 to something else (not so confused with "1") and have Jos proof-read the change. closed

close action-821

<trackbot> ACTION-821 Review pending DTB actions (815-820) closed

<csma> 782 and 784 are continued

780 and 777 are continued

csma: hope for PRD last call today

ChrisW: Axel hasn't yet reviewed appendix

772 and 770 are continued

close action-770

<trackbot> ACTION-770 Review Core closed

765 is continued

<StellaMitchell> 708 continued (in progress)

<hak> continued until further notice ... (will get really serious on it when all the RIF XML vocabularies are stable - last call)

<scribe> ... pending review: test cases, DTB treatment of casting

close action-740

<trackbot> ACTION-740 Accomodate casting functions in a well defined manner closed

close action-815

<trackbot> ACTION-815 Mark rdf:text at risk in DTB closed

close action-816

<trackbot> ACTION-816 Rename "primitive" datatypes to datatypes closed

close action-815

<trackbot> ACTION-815 Mark rdf:text at risk in DTB closed

close action-818

<trackbot> ACTION-818 Make base directive iris absolute closed

ChrisW: concludes action review

PRD

ChrisW: reviewers for PRD: Harold and Changhai

csma: English proofreading
... Adrian addressed model theoretic concerns

<sandro> Harold, do you know how to do wiki diffs? They are pretty readable these days...

<sandro> (usually)

csma: moved semantics of conditions to appendix
... target audience more familiar with pattern-matching semantics

Harold: (forward) references to appendix are OK

<cke> Christian, your change addresses my main concern. The others are more minor

<Harold> PRD Editors, the Abstract is still a bit short.

Gary: would like pattern-matching and model theory to be equivalent, but requires talking about safeness

csma: only reference to safeness in conformance and definition in core, which may be obscure to non-logician
... perhaps remove pattern matching from title of section

Gary: don't require constraint solving

csma: current definitions are equivalent
... this is an editorial change

Gary: wasn't obvious from my reading

csma: pattern matching title is misleading
... operational definition of safeness - working on it for a while
... hesitant to make Last Call dependent on such an editorial change

<sandro> csma: This is just an editorial change; it does not affect conformance. we're clear that constraint satisfaction is not needed in consumers.

<cke> Does PRD inherit the safeness from Core??

<sandro> csma: This will make understanding PRD easier for users, but does not change definition. We should work on this later, after Last Call.

<sandro> chris: the change is: the move discussion of safeness to be earlier in document?

<sandro> csma: Not exactly: to add an operational definition of safeness. Maybe move it -- I don't know.

<AdrianP> we should try to build the PRD safety defintion upon the Core safety definition

<sandro> chris: everyone agree that an operational definition of safeness is not required for last call?

<sandro> harold: agreed

<josb> agreed

<cke> There is so far no mention of safeness in PRD.

<sandro> mdean, don't let me stop you from scribing -- I just want additional clarity on bits which I think are crucial to minute.

<csma> Changhai: there is, in the conformance section.

<Gary> 2 issues: 1. is the model theory and pattern matching really the same? or does pattern matching imply safeness? 2. assuming equivalent, we should make it more obvious that safeness is required and can be used to simplify implementation

<csma> actions: check that the two spec of the semantics of the condition are equivalent

<ChrisW> ACTION: chris to review PRD operational and model=theoretic conditions are = [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/26-rif-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-824 - Review PRD operational and model=theoretic conditions are = [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-06-02].

<csma> ... clarify that safeness is required to guarantee that constraint solving is not required for RIF-PRD

<ChrisW> ACTION: csma to clarify in PRD that safeness is required to guarantee that constraint solving is not needed [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/26-rif-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-825 - Clarify in PRD that safeness is required to guarantee that constraint solving is not needed [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-06-02].

csma: should satisfy Gary's comment

<csma> ... add, if possible, an operational definition of safety

<ChrisW> ACTION: csma add, if possible, an operational definition of safety [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/26-rif-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-826 - Add, if possible, an operational definition of safety [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-06-02].

csma: definition would probably go in appendix

ChrisW: Last Call dependent on completion of actions 824 and 825

csma: also need to remove appendix 13 - currently incomplete

<ChrisW> ACTION: csma to fix or remove appendix 13 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/26-rif-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-827 - Fix or remove appendix 13 [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-06-02].

<ChrisW> ACTION: gary review csma changes to PRD [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/26-rif-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-828 - Review csma changes to PRD [on Gary Hallmark - due 2009-06-02].

csma: Last Call dependent on completion of 824, 825, 827, 828

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: Publish PRD as Last Call, contingent on completion of actions 824, 825, 827, and 828

<Harold> +1

<AdrianP> +1

<cke> +1

<StellaMitchell> +1

<Gary> +1

<mdean>: +1

<DaveReynolds> +1

<hak> +1

<ChrisW> Axel: +1 (on phone)

<MichaelKifer> +1

<josb> 0 [since I could not review it]

<ChrisW> +1

<sandro> +1

<apollere2> +1

<ChrisW> Leora: +1 (on phone)

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: Publish PRD as Last Call, contingent on completion of actions 824, 825, 827, and 828

ChrisW: PRD checklist includes - check syntactic list restriction from core

<ChrisW> ack csma.a

Adrian: done for presentation syntax and XML

SWC

ChrisW: 2 reviews, from Axel and Gary

Axel: import for OWL, but OWL doesn't have import for RIF (e.g. DL Safe RIF Rules)
... a couple editorial items
... XML Schema namespace prefix terminology

ChrisW: not fixed?

Axel: no email from Jos

Jos: not yet incorporated

ChrisW: make concrete list and action, so vote can be contingent

Axel: multi-structures look different from BLD

<DaveReynolds> Sorry I have to drop off. Vote +1 SWC for last call (subject to editorial changes from Axel). Vote 0 FLD for last call (no objection but prefer Chris's wording on Should/Must and haven't fully studied latest version).

ChrisW: changed a couple months ago

MichaelKifer: lack of uniformity entailing formulas that are not documents
... could adorn any structure with any formula
... now more restrictive
... role of each item in semantic structure is now clear

<csma> (Re lists in PRD: I just checked, and the abstract syntax includes the restriction)

MichaelKifer: also allows more uniformity in FLD

ChrisW: SWC still has old multi-structure definition

MichaelKifer: ... not needed there, kind of artificial

Axel: recursive imports needs to be clarified

Jos: recursive imports addressed in section 5.2

ChrisW: imports closure

<ChrisW> ACTION: josb to update SWC to new BLD definition of multi-structures [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/26-rif-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-829 - Update SWC to new BLD definition of multi-structures [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2009-06-02].

<ChrisW> ACTION: axel to review jos' edits to SWC [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/26-rif-minutes.html#action08]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-830 - Review jos' edits to SWC [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-06-02].

Gary: all known issues have been taken care of

Jos: suggest publishing SWC without proofs

Sandro: haven't asked for publication date yet - probably June 2 or 4, but could probably push off to June 9

ChrisW: proofs are non-normative

Jos: might require small changes

<sandro> bug-fixed after Last Call are okay.

Sandro: worth waiting for proofs?
... but extra week would also help for rdf:text

Chris: get well soon

<ChrisWW> ACTION: josb to finish the SWC proofs or remove them [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/26-rif-minutes.html#action09]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-831 - Finish the SWC proofs or remove them [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2009-06-02].

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: publish SWC as Last Call, pending completion of actions 829, 831, and 830

<AdrianP> +1

<ChrisW> +1

<josb> +1

<Harold> +1

<cke> +1

<sandro> +1

<StellaMitchell> +1

<hak> +1

<Gary> +1

<MichaelKifer> +1

<mdean> +1

<apollere2> +1

<ChrisW> Leora: +1 (on phone)

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: publish SWC as Last Call, pending completion of actions 829, 831, and 830

FLD

ChrisW: reviewed by Stella and Chris

StellaMitchell: all comments have been addressed

<ChrisW> "All logic RIF dialects are required to be derived from RIF-FLD by specialization, as explained..."

<ChrisW> "MUST"

<csma> +1 that non-conformance is not well defined, if it is a MUST

<ChrisW> "All RIF dialects SHOULD be derived from RIF-FLD by specialization, as explained..."

ChrisW: SHOULD implies that you should say why if you can't do something

<Harold> End of first paragraph: "Therefore, any logic dialect being developed to become a standard should either be a specialization of FLD or justify its extensions to (or, deviations from) FLD"

<Harold> Could be changed to: "Therefore, any dialect being developed to become a standard should either be a specialization of FLD or justify its extensions to (or, deviations from) FLD"

MichaelKifer: prefer MUST and keeping logic
... but not a showstopper

<ChrisW> ack csma.a

<Harold> At later points "logic" could be kept.

csma: +1 for SHOULD, afraid of consequences of removing logic on PRD

<sandro> ChrisW, let's just use SHOULD and leave in "logic".... okay?

ChrisW: still went through process, but not documented - grandfathered in

<sandro> PROPOSED.... ?

<sandro> ChrisW, we don't have a lot of time!!

<Harold> What about: "Therefore, the development of any dialect to become a standard should start as a specialization of FLD or justify its extensions to (or, deviations from) FLD"

csma: removing logic throughout would be very painful

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: go for another 10 mins?

<hak> -1

<sandro> +1 extend 10+ minuntes

<csma> +1

<Harold> +1

<mdean> +1

<AdrianP> +1

ChrisW: disjointness of variables and constants

MichaelKifer: special syntax for constants would make this a mess and require disambiguation rules, e.g. open formulas

<csma> ACTION: mkifer to update wording in intro & abstract to use "SHOULD" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/26-rif-minutes.html#action11]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-832 - Update wording in intro & abstract to use "SHOULD" [on Michael Kifer - due 2009-06-02].

ChrisW: don't require all dialects, but allow free variables in framework

MichaelKifer: would require substantial revisions
... need to think of what changes would require, but don't see much value

ChrisW: don't have particular use case, but note that it is allowed in Common Logic

MichaelKifer: if it's quantified, you know it's a variable

<sandro> MichaelKifer: because it's an exchange language, you always apply some sort of transformation anyway.

Harold: some editorial edits
... introduced extension points - now also in schema

MichaelKifer: haven't looked at Stella's message today

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: Publish FLD as Last Call pending completion of action 832

StellaMitchell: clarification regarding XML serialization

<ChrisW> +1

<sandro> +1

<MichaelKifer> +1

<StellaMitchell> +1

<Harold> +1

<mdean> +1

<josb> +1

<ChrisW> Leora: +1 (on phone)

<AdrianP> +1

<apollere2> +1

<Gary> +1

<cke> +1

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: Publish FLD as Last Call pending completion of action 832

<csma> clap! clap! clap!

ChrisW: good work!
... long road

XML Schema task force

ChrisW: glossed over several issues in normative exchange syntax
... task force will meet regularly during Last Call, finish modularization, etc.

<cke> How long will be task force be?

<csma> I will send an email tomorrow

ChrisW: csma will be leading the task force

<AdrianP> have not received any invite for the task force?

<csma> ACTION: csma to send email about the XML schemas TF [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/26-rif-minutes.html#action12]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-833 - Send email about the XML schemas TF [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-06-02].

WG Future and schedule

ChrisW: expecting a telecon next week and the week after that

ChrisW: then reduce to at least once a month to respond to LC comments as needed
... still reserve time slot but don't need every week

rdf:text

Sandro: any problems with replacing rdf:text with rdf:PlainLiteral?

ChrisW: adjourned