- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:10:51 +0100
- To: <leora@cs.nyu.edu>
- Cc: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
wasn't meant to be put into the minutes, but indeed as an addendum to the minutes... I think all the issues have been discussed thereafter. Axel p.s.: regrets for today's call. On 29 Sep 2009, at 14:50, Leora Morgenstern wrote: > 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 > > -- Dr. Axel Polleres Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, Galway email: axel.polleres@deri.org url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 14:11:41 UTC