See also: IRC log
<csma> clear agenda
<csma> agendum+ Admin
<csma> agendum+ liaisons
<csma> agendum+ Action review
<csma> agendum+ Public comments
<csma> agendum+ XML syntax for Import
<csma> agendum+ Implementations
<csma> agendum+ Test cases
<csma> agendum+ AOB (next telecon)
<csma> scribe: Leora Morgenstern
<sandro> zakim not working for me.
just checking that I can scribe.
<csma> scribenick: LeoraMorgenstern
<ChrisW> minutes of last telecon: http://www.w3.org/2009/10/27-rif-minutes.html
<hak> Note to the chair: I will have to leave at 8:30 PST - sorry -hak
<csma> next item
csma: Since the minutes for last week's minutes were posted today, we'll vote on them next meeting.
<csma> next item
csma: We'll discuss OWL compatibility next meeting.
news from liaison: you finally spelled the word right!
<csma> next item
csma: why is action 936 on me? I think it should be on Stella, since it concerns creating a new category for test cases.
close action-933
<trackbot> ACTION-933 Add the syntax for location and profile to agenda of next telecon closed
<ChrisW> Michael, see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-comments/2009Sep/0009.html
close action-929
<trackbot> ACTION-929 Send http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_WL2 closed
close action-909
<trackbot> ACTION-909 Check into XML syntax for PRD test cases closed
close action-936
<trackbot> ACTION-936 Move that test case to new category closed
stella, gary: lots of discussion regarding running test cases.
csma: would be good for Gary to send implementation report regarding difficultites.
close action-934
<trackbot> ACTION-934 Send implementation report closed
<hak> continued
<csma> next item
next item
<csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Public_Comments
Action on Michael to draft reply to public comment CD2
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on
Action on Mkifer to draft reply to public comment CD2
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on
<csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-comments/2009Sep/0006.html
Action Mkifer to draft reply to public comment CD2
<trackbot> Created ACTION-937 - Draft reply to public comment CD2 [on Michael Kifer - due 2009-11-17].
Michael: will also try to look at public comment AR4, but it's really mostly about XML
Action Harold to draft reply to public comment AR4
<trackbot> Created ACTION-938 - Draft reply to public comment AR4 [on Harold Boley - due 2009-11-17].
Action Mkifer to draft reply to public comment CD3
<trackbot> Created ACTION-939 - Draft reply to public comment CD3 [on Michael Kifer - due 2009-11-17].
Michael: Not sure what Damasio is saying.
Stella: Ryazanov's complaint, about tests not conforming to the XML schema, is no longer true, since tests have changed.
csma: Will have to first resolve syntax issue on our side, and then respond to Ryazanov that syntax has been fixed.
Action csma to draft reply for AR5
<trackbot> Created ACTION-940 - Draft reply for AR5 [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-11-17].
Action mkifer to draft reply to EM3 (David Mott: question on FLD)
<trackbot> Created ACTION-941 - Draft reply to EM3 (David Mott: question on FLD) [on Michael Kifer - due 2009-11-17].
action csma to draft reponse to TK3 (Thomas Krekeler)
<trackbot> Created ACTION-942 - Draft reponse to TK3 (Thomas Krekeler) [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-11-17].
action chrisw to send an email to jos regarding Ian Horrock's public comment regarding discussion of OWL
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - chrisw
<csma> next item
action cwelty to send email to Jos regarding Ian Horrock's public comments on discussion of OWL
<trackbot> Created ACTION-943 - Send email to Jos regarding Ian Horrock's public comments on discussion of OWL [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-11-17].
<csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/meeting/2009-04-16#resolution_7http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/meeting/2009-04-16#resolution_7
Scribe's note:
Resolution 7 reads:
In the XML syntax (for Core, BLD, PRD), the xml-schema type of both arguments to import
is an anyURI -- NOT rif Const element(s).
See: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/meeting/2009-04-16#resolution_7
harold: seems to have
misunderstood the resolution.
... does not support it.
<AdrianP> we could make locator a type tag "Locator"
<AdrianP> then we don't violate the syntax design principle of RIF
harold: I would have asked for a discussion of this point.
csma: is there anyone else who thinks the statement is ambiguous?
michael: the implications probably weren't understood.
csma: overturning the resolution on the argument that we didn't understand the implications is a dangerous precedent.
sandro: if true that we didn't understand some implication, that is a reason to re-open it. I don't know if that's the case here.
<StellaMitchell> re: ambiguous - when I first went back and read the resolution I misunderstood it - thought BLD was aligned with the decision
<AdrianP> I think it would be the only place where the role tag contains some content
<AdrianP> so we cannot omit role tags in the syntax
<ChrisW> +1 continue discussing
<AdrianP> +1
<StellaMitchell> +1 revisit
<Harold> +1
<mdean> +1
<sandro> +0.5 okay to talk about it more
+1
<MichaelKifer> +1
harold: I would like to write up the dilemma, send it in email, and we can then read it, and discuss it at the next telecon.
csma: Please put in email the explanation of the implication.
<ChrisW> ACTION: Harold to summarize issue of imports argument and propose a solution [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/10-rif-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-944 - Summarize issue of imports argument and propose a solution [on Harold Boley - due 2009-11-17].
<csma> next item
action csma put this discussion on the agenda for next time
<trackbot> Created ACTION-945 - Put this discussion on the agenda for next time [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-11-17].
<ChrisW> ACTION: csma to put syntax of imports on next agenda [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/10-rif-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-946 - Put syntax of imports on next agenda [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-11-17].
csma: Have we received implementation reports?
<ChrisW> close action 945
<ChrisW> close action-945
<trackbot> ACTION-945 Put this discussion on the agenda for next time closed
<Harold> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Implementations
csma: we should have 6 BLD
implementations (some are already available)
... and 3 PRD implementations (one from ilog)
... 1 SWC implementation, 2 Core implementations,
... for DTB, do we need one implementation of each built-in and
datatype?
chris: exit criteria says we'll
have two implementations of each built-in
... but they need not be independent
csma: We have one implementation
of DTB, but it's just a syntax validator, which may not really
count.
... Though at least it would pass all the syntax tests.
chris: must check fuxi and ontoprise regarding implementation of (??? SWC???)
[why? fuxi mentions OWL, but ontoprise just is listed for BLD ??]
mdean: should have something by the end of the month.
michael: same for me.
csma: at RULE-ML challenge, there
was something that showed RIF compatibility (was showing
translation to PRD among other things)
... May not count as a PRD implementation, because based on an
old spec, but I encouraged them to post on wiki, and
update.
... But this points to the possibility that there are other
people who may be working on implementations.
<Harold> Re DTB implementations, I think we need just one implementation of each built-in, since the Java snippet implementing a built-in is modularly separated from the Java snippets implementing other built-ins. Also, its conformance to the DTB spec can be modularly tested. So everyone can just copy and paste the Java snippets into their own implementation.
Discussion on how close implementors are to implementations.
csma: Currently no test results from anyone but Gary. No idea on how conformant any of them are.
sandro: test results from jos de roo on DTB. Not in right format, but there are results.
<StellaMitchell> Jos De Roo's are not our test cases, are they?
csma: We'll add column on test results to implementation page.
<StellaMitchell> not just format, but they are different tests
Leora: Do we know if anyone is using our test cases, or their own?
action csma to send email to implementors asking for test results.
<trackbot> Created ACTION-947 - Send email to implementors asking for test results. [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-11-17].
csma: how to proceed on DTB: ask everyone which datatype and built-in they are doing?
sandro: no, ask which ones they are *not* doing.
csma: ask for specifics to ensure coverage of DTB
<StellaMitchell> maybe they should be split further
csma: will ask in my email for more specific results for DTB
<csma> next item
gary: I have not seen a test case for list built ins.
sandro: test cases in spec, but not in test case suite
csma: test case on having list in slot?
<csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Assert
<StellaMitchell> Gary, the Assert* results are not in your results
<StellaMitchell> it seems like the group should follow its own "shoulds"
Problem, briefly: This test case should be in Core.
<StellaMitchell> why would we want to have a test case that illustrates bad practice?
<csma> PROPOSED: to approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Assert with a note saying that this is not good practice (since it is translatable in COre, it should be in Core)
<Gary> +1
<csma> +1
<AdrianP> +1
<StellaMitchell> no
<csma> RESOLVED: to approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Assert with a note saying that this is not good practice (since it is translatable in COre, it should be in Core)
<StellaMitchell> but I would be curious to hear the answer
<AdrianP> yes, will ad
<StellaMitchell> ok
<csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Retract
sandro: I would prefer not to combine print and retract; it is not the simplest retract case.
csma: makes sense to just add the end of the second rule to be an assert rather than a print.
sandro: otherwise, we'd have to have a new print test case, and a new type (input/output), etc.
<ChrisW> i need to go, sorry
sandro: I would add a second frame about John, and then make sure that is gone. Use a negative entailment test.
<sandro> ex:john[ex:name -> "Johnl"]
<sandro> Not-Entailed: ex:john[ex:name -> "John"]
<sandro> Non-Conclusion
<sandro> NegativeEntailmentTest
<StellaMitchell> do you mind if I put the PS of Assert into Core syntax, or do you actually want it in PRD syntax?
I want to point out: I cannot scribe past 12:35, so we probably want to wrap up.
action csma to modify retract case.
<trackbot> Created ACTION-948 - Modify retract case. [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-11-17].
csma: next telecon on nov 24
<csma> rrsagnet, make minutes