RIF Telecon 24 November 2009 -- 24 November 2009

<ChrisW> Scribe: StellaMitchell

<ChrisW> last meeting minutes: http://www.w3.org/2009/10/27-rif-minutes.html

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: accept last meeting minutes

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept last meeting minutes

<LeoraMorgenstern> I just sent out the minutes of the november 10 meeting.

Liason

ChrisW: Sandro is the SPARQL team contact

Sandro: SPARQL is specifying how to use inference with SPARQL, but they are considering OWL-type inference

<josb> Sandro, could you paste a link to the draft?

<josb> yes!

ChrisW: If people in this WG want RIF-style inference in SPARQL, they will need to get involved

MichaelK: I'll take a look at SPARQL

<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Extension_Request_2009b

ChrisW: We requested to extend the working group
... extending WG to March to reach recommendation status
... goal is to get out of CR by middle of January
... after out of CR and vote to go to PR, the group won't have much work to do

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: Request WG extension as specified at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Extension_Request_2009b

<csma> q

<Harold> "... the CR Exit Criteria do not appear to be met" might sound a bit too weak.

<Leora> It's also ungrammatical

<csma> +1

<Gary> +1

<hak> +1

<Leora> +1

<mdean> +1

<sandro> +1

<MichaelKifer> +1

<ChrisW> +1

<Harold> +1

<josb> +1

<Leora> (I find it amusing that Chris sounds kind of like God in films)

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: Request WG extension as specified at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Extension_Request_2009b

<csma> God with the flu, actually

Action Review

<csma> continued, I think

<ChrisW> close action-947

<trackbot> ACTION-947 Send email to implementors asking for test results. closed

close action-946

<trackbot> ACTION-946 Put syntax of imports on next agenda closed

close action-944

<trackbot> ACTION-944 Summarize issue of imports argument and propose a solution closed

close action-942

<trackbot> ACTION-942 Draft reponse to TK3 (Thomas Krekeler) closed

<csma> close action-948

<trackbot> ACTION-948 Modify retract case. closed

close action-941

<trackbot> ACTION-941 Draft reply to EM3 (David Mott: question on FLD) closed

close action-943

<trackbot> ACTION-943 Send email to Jos regarding Ian Horrock's public comments on discussion of OWL closed

<csma> will do

<ChrisW> ACTION: csma to send response DM3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/24-rif-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-949 - Send response DM3 [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-12-01].

<csma> continued

close action-937

<trackbot> ACTION-937 Draft reply to public comment CD2 closed

<ChrisW> ACTION: csma to send response cd2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/24-rif-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-950 - Send response cd2 [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-12-01].

<csma> 935, 932 are continued

close action-930

<trackbot> ACTION-930 Look at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-comments/2009Sep/0009.html closed

JosB: Working on proofs for action 831

<hak> continued ... eventually I'll get enough time to get back into it and catch up with all the changes

<hak> :-)

<sandro> action-152?

<trackbot> ACTION-152 -- Paul Vincent to propose test cases for UC1 -- due 2008-01-15 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/152

Public Comments

DaveR: I responded to some public comments directly, and just want to make sure this is recorded properly

<csma> Ok, I did not see it

ChrisW: Anything else on public comments?

XML Syntax of import

<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Nov/0056.html

ChrisW: Harold sent the email above discussing the XML syntax for imports
... any discussion about this?

Christian: I don't prefer one syntax over the other, but I am concerned about undoing a resolution that we made at a F2F

ChrisW: We already agreed to revisit the syntax, and we did agree to have a striped XML syntax in general
... GaryH, Sandro, what are your thoughts on this syntax?

GaryH: The proposal is OK with me

Sandro: Harold, can we discuss for a minute?

Christian: The point here is whether we overturn a resolution

Harold: I think the resolution was misunderstood by me and others at the time it was made

<csma> uri

<csma> </location

Christian: Current syntax is above, striped version below

<csma> uri

Christian: Syntax according to resolution is not striped, Harold's proposal is striped

Sandro: I understood the resolution at the time we made it, because we thought it was too verbose to maintain striping in this case
... I could go either way
... but if we go to the striped form, I have 2 concerns 1) link instead of const 2) anyURI instead of RIF:IRI

Harold: Location and profiles cannot be domain elements that's why they are not rif:ifi. they were originally RIF:IRI and that's why we changed them

ChrisW: Link is a new tag proposed to contain profile and location

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/#Imports

ChrisW: Did OWL2 make a change from how OWL1 handled imports?

Sandro: Above is the OWL2 import text

<MichaelKifer> I like the LINK proposal

ChrisW: So it's metadata on the ontology, not part of the domain

Sandro: Since it's a directive, I think it's OK to use const and it won't be part of the domain

ChrisW: We didn't contextualize const

Sandro: Link instead of const means implementers need to write more code, also worried about distinguishing the IRIs from RIF:ifis

<Harold> Currently the BLD XSD says:

<sandro> my 1st choice is Portland (resolution), 2nd choice (Const/rif:iri), 3rd choice (Link/anyURI)

ChrisW: So Sandro will consider this more and we'll try to resolve in the next telecon

Implementations

<ChrisW> ACTION: mdean to get implementation report for SIL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/24-rif-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-951 - Get implementation report for SIL [on Mike Dean - due 2009-12-01].

<MichaelKifer> I also sent a message about an implementation of FLD.

Christian: I asked Ontoprise for more information about their implementation, but I didn't get a reply yet

ChrisW: Also we got a message about fuxi, but it wasn't a complete implemenation report

<ChrisW> ACTION: sandro to follow up with chime on fuxi implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/24-rif-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-952 - Follow up with chime on fuxi implementation report [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-12-01].

<ChrisW> ACTION: harold to contact josderoo about implementation report and test case submission for eye [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/24-rif-minutes.html#action05]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-953 - Contact josderoo about implementation report and test case submission for eye [on Harold Boley - due 2009-12-01].

ChrisW: Bld and core are OK for exit criteria
... and we have a detailed implementation report from RIFle that says it's PRD
... Christian, do you implement all of DTB?

Christian: No, need to list them
... GaryH pointed out a bug with conflict resolution strategy
... it's a bug, so shoudn't require another last call, but I need to discuss more with GaryH

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

<ChrisW> ACTION: gary to submit implementation report [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/24-rif-minutes.html#action06]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-954 - Submit implementation report [on Gary Hallmark - due 2009-12-01].

<csma> I _think_ it is a bug, but other may disagree, and think that the modification is a change of design :-(

ChrisW: We're on track for FLD implementations also
... so we're at risk for 1) DTB (2 implemenations for every data type) and 2) SWC

<josb> sure, OWL 2 RL is OWL

ChrisW: fuxi says it supports OWL2-rl, Sando can you get some clarification about that?
... does he also support RDF

Sandro: About the 2 risks above (DTB, SWC), I would like to see people's test case results

ChrisW: Csma, will you ask ontroprise about RDF/OWL?

Christian: Yes

mike: And SILK has some support for OWL

ChrisW: Ok, so SWC is looking OK

<josb> Ontoprise's KAON2 in principle already supports OWL with DL-safe rules, but I don't know whether they plan to build a RIF interface for it

<csma> \me, do you mean "before JRules will support OWL"?

ChrisW: So we should contact each implementation to catalog what DTB datatypes they support - best to ask what they don't support
... we don't actually require test results. So, ask implementions if they have test results and if they don't what datatypes they do not support

<ChrisW> ACTION: josb to contact Adrian Marte at STI2 about test cases and DTB support [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/11/24-rif-minutes.html#action07]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-955 - Contact Adrian Marte at STI2 about test cases and DTB support [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2009-12-01].

ChrisW: I think we're at risk for DTB

<Gary> I have done the numeric builtins and the list builtins, expect to complete dates and strings soon...