- From: Leora Morgenstern <leora@cs.nyu.edu>
- Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:50:13 -0400 (EDT)
- To: "Axel Polleres" <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Cc: leora@cs.nyu.edu, public-rif-wg@w3.org
Axel, > For the records: There were some small changes on DTB and some > discussions about it: > > 1) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Aug/0002.html > 2) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Aug/0011.html > 3) I think I asked in the last TC whether we can/shall change the > non-uniformity of the list-functions in DTB, which have a different format > (informal mappings only) to all the other functions and predicates in > DTB. I checked the minutes of the August 25 telecon (which you scribed), and indeed, it seems that you did bring this up. However, I have no recollection of this being discussed at the Sept. 1 telecon, nor do my notes reflect it, so unless I hear from someone that they do remember this being discussed at the Sept. 1 telecon, I think it is best not to add this discussion to the minutes. > I could try to tackle that, but not before two weeks from now. > > With the resolution to go to CR, should I consider these > resolved/accepted? > > Axel > > p.s.: Belated regrets due to arrival of our child ;-). I have added you to the regrets list. Congratulations! > > Leora Morgenstern wrote: >> >> Attached are the minutes of the 1 September 2009 telecon. >> >> Please let me know of any corrections. >> >> Best regards, >> Leora >> >> >> >> -- >> Leora Morgenstern, Ph.D. >> Visiting Research Scientist, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences >> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/leora >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> W3C <http://www.w3.org/> >> >> >> RIF Telecon 1-Sept-09 >> >> >> 01 Sep 2009 >> >> Agenda >> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Aug/0037.html> >> >> See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-irc> >> >> >> Attendees >> >> Present >> Harold Boley, Jos de Bruijn, Mark Dean, John Hall, Sandro Hawke, >> Stella Mitchell, Leora Morgenstern, Christian de Sainte Marie, >> Chris Welty >> Regrets >> Michael Kifer >> Chair >> Chris Welty >> Scribe >> Leora Morgenstern >> >> >> Contents >> >> * Topics <#agenda> >> 1. admin <#item01> >> 2. Liaison <#item02> >> 3. Action Review <#item03> >> 4. Exit Criteria <#item04> >> 5. Publications <#item05> >> 6. Implementations <#item06> >> 7. Test Cases <#item07> >> * Summary of Action Items <#ActionSummary> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> admin >> >> <ChrisW> Scribe: LeoraMorgenstern >> >> >> Liaison >> >> sandro, chris: OWL, like RIF, relies on XSD 1.1., and that is still in >> candidate recommendation. >> >> sandro: prognosis for XML schema datatypes is not promising. >> ... OWL will have an appendix referring to XML schema datatypes. >> ... and RIF can do something similar. >> >> <ChrisW> next item >> >> Nothing else in liaison. >> >> <ChrisW> next item >> >> <sandro> *ACTION:* sandro to make sure if OWL does a normative >> appendix for XSD 1.1, that it's phrased in a way that makes it also >> work for RIF. [recorded in >> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action01] >> >> <trackbot> Created ACTION-903 - Make sure if OWL does a normative >> appendix for XSD 1.1, that it's phrased in a way that makes it also >> work for RIF. [on Sandro Hawke - due 2009-09-08]. >> >> >> Action Review >> >> <ChrisW> close action-902 >> >> <trackbot> ACTION-902 Look at message from Nick B. and check FLD >> schema closed >> >> close action-898 >> >> <trackbot> ACTION-898 Answer faq 3.9 closed >> >> >> Exit Criteria >> >> <ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Exit_Criteria >> >> <johnhall> zakim ??p0 is me >> >> <johnhall> P0 >> >> <johnhall> zakim P0 is me >> >> <johnhall> Thanks Jos >> >> Chris: The exit criteria for RIF are listed at >> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Exit_Criteria >> >> Sandro: I am concerned that Chris's revision to my proposal --- >> namely, reducing the requirement from implementing a dialect of FLD to >> merely specifying the dialect --- is putting the bar too low. >> ... I don't think it's too high a burden to require an implementation. >> >> Chris: I think it's an unnecessary burden. >> ... Regarding Sandro's point that someone can just flip through FLD >> and figure out how to have some sort of (trivial?) instantiation: >> Someone can also just say that they have an implementation. >> >> Sandro: Shouldn't they at least have to show that they can read and >> write XML? >> >> Chris: Implementation tests the dialect, not FLD. >> >> Sandro: I won't object; just wanted to make the point. >> >> Harold: Should we also require a syntax and semantics for the dialect >> specification? >> >> Chris thereupon made that change to the Exit Criteria. >> >> <ChrisW> PROPOSED: accept >> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/index.php?title=Exit_Criteria&oldid=10799 >> <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/index.php?title=Exit_Criteria&oldid=10799> >> as RIF CR Exit criteria >> >> <josb> +1 >> >> <StellaMitchell> +1 >> >> <Harold> +1 >> >> <ChrisW> +1 >> >> <sandro> +1 >> >> <LeoraMorgenstern> +1 >> >> <johnhall> +1 >> >> <ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept >> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/index.php?title=Exit_Criteria&oldid=10799 >> <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/index.php?title=Exit_Criteria&oldid=10799> >> as RIF CR Exit criteria >> >> >> Publications >> >> Chris: Editors need to make changes to their Last Call documents: BLD, >> PRD, >> > >> , SWC, FLD, Core >> ... Needs to be done by next week's meeting. >> ... Assignments: Jos, SWC; Chris, >> > >> ; Christian, PRD; Harold, BLD, FLD, Core. >> >> Sandro: Even if no changes have been made, one needs to note in the >> document that there have been no changes since Last Call draft. >> >> <sandro> target publication date: Setp 17 >> >> <sandro> try to approve WD pubs of Test and UCR on Sept 15. >> >> <sandro> PROPOSED: Our Last Call drafts (Core, BLD, PRD, DTB, SWC, and >> FLD) are ready to be published as Candidate Recommendations >> >> <ChrisW> +1 >> >> <sandro> +1 (W3C) >> >> <ChrisW> (IBM) >> >> <Harold> +1 (NRC) >> >> <josb> +1 (FUB) >> >> <johnhall> +1 (OMG) >> >> <StellaMitchell> +1 (self) >> >> <LeoraMorgenstern> +1 (self) >> >> <sandro> RESOLVED: Our Last Call drafts (Core, BLD, PRD, DTB, SWC, and >> FLD) are ready to be published as Candidate Recommendations >> >> Sandro: Note that the statement of no changes or changes to last call >> drafts is CRITICAL PATH, and therefore should be done today or tomorrow. >> >> <sandro> "Change since the 3 July draft...." or "Changes since the >> Second Last Call draft of 3 July..." >> >> <josb> tomorrow is fine for SWC changes statement >> >> >> Implementations >> >> Chris: Since we have moved last call documents to candidate >> recommendation, we are now in the call for implementations period. >> ... We had originally talked about a two-month period for >> implementations. >> ... To get out of CR, we need implementations. >> >> Sandro: Yes, those are in the exit criteria. >> >> <sandro> >> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/How_to_Submit_an_Implementation_Report >> >> Sandro: we want to point people to the above wiki page. >> >> Chris: Now is the time to follow up with people who indicated in the >> comments that they would be interested in providing an implementation. >> ... We need to get commitments from these people that they will do >> this in this period. >> ... Let's begin by making a list of people who will do implementations. >> >> csma: ILOG is working on an implementation. A month ago, we had a >> first prototype running, so we probably have more going on now. >> >> sandro: I don't know if I'll get one done. >> >> Chris: Someone in the XML group at IBM made a RIF-based rule storage >> system. Really a demo of XML X-query technology, but they did take >> some rules and translated them to RIF, and stored them in RIF-XML, and >> queried them. >> ... question: does that count as a RIF implementation? >> >> <ChrisW> *ACTION:* try to dig up XML RIF store [recorded in >> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action02] >> >> <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - try >> >> Sandro: Mike Dean has an implementation. >> >> <ChrisW> *ACTION:* Chris to try to dig up XML RIF store [recorded in >> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action03] >> >> <trackbot> Created ACTION-904 - Try to dig up XML RIF store [on >> Christopher Welty - due 2009-09-08]. >> >> mdean: RIF implementation is in progress. >> >> Chris: Silk will be an implementation of BLD. >> >> csma: Gary mentioned he was doing something, but I don't know the >> status of it now. >> ... will send Gary a message, asking for status. >> >> <ChrisW> *ACTION:* Christian to ask Gary about status of >> implementation [recorded in >> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action04] >> >> <trackbot> Created ACTION-905 - Ask Gary about status of >> implementation [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-09-08]. >> >> csma: I think Adrian is working with tibco on an implementation of PRD. >> >> <ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RIF_Working_Group >> >> Sandro: maybe we should have a RIF Dev mailing list, similar to OWL dev? >> >> <sandro> *ACTION:* sandro request creation of public-rif-dev [recorded >> in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action05] >> >> <trackbot> Created ACTION-906 - Request creation of public-rif-dev [on >> Sandro Hawke - due 2009-09-08]. >> >> Chris: Rolf Gruetter has said that his group at WSL needs to have >> disjunction in rule heads. >> >> Note: Gruetter did not say anything about his group actually >> developing an implementation >> >> csma: OntoBroker has some sort of implementation of BLD >> >> Chris: Alexander Riazanov working on an implementation that converts >> BLD to TPTP. >> >> Harold: He has been on vacation; but I'll try to talk to him about that. >> ... There needs to be some web page on implementation of OntoBroker >> >> Sandro: Or better yet, send in an implementation report, as my wiki >> page specifies. >> ... Doing that is very quick. >> >> Chris: Currently the public information about OntoBroker's >> implementation is inconsistent. ontoprise web page says there's a RIF >> implementation and links to OntoBroker web page, but OntoBroker's web >> page says nothing. >> ... What about Tom Gordon. Is he an implementor? >> >> Harold: I don't think he's an implementor. He has a system LKIF, which >> is for legal knowledge. >> ... I don't believe he will implement RIF: he has more of a >> theoretical interest in whether one can represent legal knowledge >> using RIF. >> >> <sandro> Chime >> >> <sandro> Chimezie Ogbuji >> >> Discussion also on Adreas Abecker's comments and Chimezie Ogbuji's >> comments. >> >> <ChrisW> Nick Bassiliades >> >> Harold: Nick Bassiliades has been following RIF; does defeasible >> rules; unclear as to whether he'll actually do an implementation of RIF. >> >> <sandro> CR dreadline Oct 23rd, friday before the conferences.... >> >> Sandro: Let's make deadline for implementations October 23, so people >> will be able to announce it before the rules conferences. >> >> Chris: We'll revisit this topic at each telecon. >> >> csma: will restart work on RIF XML soon. >> >> >> Test Cases >> >> Chris: Axel had made an all built-ins test case >> ... And that test case seems to indeed include /all/ built-ins >> >> Stella: I think it would be better to split it up somehow. >> >> Chris: Perhaps by data-type? >> ... There are definitely some typos, like "listeral" instead of >> "literal" >> >> Stella: Perhaps organize it by string predicates, number predicates, >> etc? >> >> <josb> (I wanted to say exactly what Chris just said) >> >> Sandro: what's the problem with it being so big? >> >> Stella: If it fails, it's hard to figure out why. >> ... can we split it by positive guards, negative guards, etc? >> >> Sandro: We can group it by the things people are most likely to >> implement >> >> <ChrisW> *ACTION:* Stella to refactor All Builtins testcase [recorded >> in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action06] >> >> <trackbot> Created ACTION-907 - Refactor All Builtins testcase [on >> Stella Mitchell - due 2009-09-08]. >> >> Stella: I can refactor the all built-ins case >> ... There are all sorts of issues still to be dealt with, with respect >> to the test cases. >> ... Especially with all the changes in the documents, the >> specifications, etc. >> ... We need more than 15 minutes to go through this. >> >> <StellaMitchell> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Jul/0026.html >> >> Chris: Let's make this a priority for the next telecon, since the set >> of test cases will be very important to the implementors. >> ... What do we do with unapproved test cases? Require changes? Drop >> them? >> ... We do need an Assert/Retract case >> >> csma: We need an Assert /Retract case that is different from a Modify. >> ... I don't have a case in mind, but it probably should be a negative >> case; that you can't assert something about an object that you've >> retracted. >> ... I had a discussion with Adrian about this. He initially didn't >> agree; then we had a discussion, including Changhai Ke and Gary, who >> agreed with me. But Adrian has not replied, and therefore there has >> been no conclusion. >> >> <ChrisW> *ACTION:* Christian to fix/update AssertRetract test case >> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action07] >> >> <trackbot> Created ACTION-908 - Fix/update AssertRetract test case [on >> Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-09-08]. >> >> csma: I need to get a consensus on this, and then either modify the >> test case myself, or get someone to do it. >> ... I think the assert test case is fine. >> ... However, there is no XML for it. >> >> Chris: do we have anything to generate XML for PRD? >> >> csma: Not yet. >> >> <StellaMitchell> jacc >> >> Stella: can the XML be generated automatically using a tool like jacc? >> >> Chris: What about the other PRD test cases? Won't this be a problem >> for all of them? >> >> <ChrisW> *ACTION:* Christian to check into XML syntax for PRD test >> cases [recorded in >> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action08] >> >> <trackbot> Created ACTION-909 - Check into XML syntax for PRD test >> cases [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-09-08]. >> >> Chris: 2 remaining open issues in Working Group: >> >> <ChrisW> PROPOSED: close issue-37 as it is addressed by the draft note >> on RIF combination with XML Data >> >> <StellaMitchell> +1 >> >> <ChrisW> +1 >> >> <johnhall> +1 >> >> <csma> +1 >> >> <sandro> +1 >> >> <josb> +1 >> >> <mdean> +1 >> >> <ChrisW> RESOLVED: close issue-37 as it is addressed by the draft note >> on RIF combination with XML Data >> >> <ChrisW> PROPOSED: close issue-38 as it is addressed by the draft note >> on RIF combination with XML Data >> >> <ChrisW> +1 >> >> <csma> +1 >> >> <sandro> +1 >> >> <mdean> +1 >> >> <johnhall> +1 >> >> <LeoraMorgenstern> +1 >> >> <josb> +1 >> >> <ChrisW> RESOLVED: close issue-38 as it is addressed by the draft note >> on RIF combination with XML Data >> >> <StellaMitchell> +1 >> >> <ChrisW> NEXT MEETING IN TWO WEEKS! >> >> >> Summary of Action Items >> >> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Chris to try to dig up XML RIF store [recorded in >> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action03] >> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Christian to ask Gary about status of implementation >> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action04] >> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Christian to check into XML syntax for PRD test >> cases [recorded in >> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action08] >> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Christian to fix/update AssertRetract test case >> [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action07] >> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* sandro request creation of public-rif-dev [recorded >> in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action05] >> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* sandro to make sure if OWL does a normative appendix >> for XSD 1.1, that it's phrased in a way that makes it also work for >> RIF. [recorded in >> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action01] >> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* Stella to refactor All Builtins testcase [recorded >> in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action06] >> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* try to dig up XML RIF store [recorded in >> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html#action02] >> >> [End of minutes] >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl >> <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm> >> version 1.135 (CVS log <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/>) >> $Date: 2009/09/01 16:31:33 $ >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> Scribe.perl diagnostic output >> >> [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.] >> This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 >> Check for newer version at >> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ >> <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/> >> >> Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) >> >> Succeeded: s/tipco/tibco/ >> Found Scribe: LeoraMorgenstern >> Inferring ScribeNick: LeoraMorgenstern >> Default Present: Leora_Morgenstern, ChrisW, Sandro, Harold, >> Stella_Mitchell, +39.047.101.aaaa, josb, johnhall, csma, Mike_Dean >> Present: Leora_Morgenstern ChrisW Sandro Harold Stella_Mitchell >> +39.047.101.aaaa josb johnhall csma Mike_Dean >> Regrets: MichaelKifer >> Agenda: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Aug/0037.html >> Got date from IRC log name: 01 Sep 2009 >> Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/09/01-rif-minutes.html >> People with action items: chris christian sandro stella try >> >> WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. >> You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. >> >> >> >> [End of scribe.perl >> <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm> >> diagnostic output] > > > -- > Dr. Axel Polleres > Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, > Galway > email: axel.polleres@deri.org url: http://www.polleres.net/ > > > -- Leora Morgenstern, Ph.D. http://www-formal.stanford.edu/leora
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 13:51:00 UTC