See also: IRC log
<ChrisW> ACTION: sandro to add RIFTr to implementations [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/20-rif-minutes.html#action01]
<ChrisW> ACTION: sandro to update http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-comments/2009Nov/att-0015/RIF-CASPD.html remove "W3C Note" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/20-rif-minutes.html#action02]
<AxelPolleres> ACTION: axel to fix the example in http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/tests/README.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/20-rif-minutes.html#action03]
<AxelPolleres> adjourned
<AxelPolleres> damn... wrong chat ;-)
<AxelPolleres> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/DTB works for me
<AxelPolleres> rdf:PlainLiteral and indexing from zero were at risk
<AxelPolleres> I should remove the at risk notes, update changelog, tell sandro that its' done... fine? anything else?
<AxelPolleres> all references to XML schema are to 1.1 in DTB.
<AxelPolleres> ... at the moment.
<ChrisW> ACTION: axel to update DTB to remove at-risk features and update change log [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/20-rif-minutes.html#action04]
<sandro> http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-dtb/#ref-xml-schema2
<AxelPolleres> yup
<josb> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/
<josb> check "status of the document"
<sandro> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/#sotd-xml-dep is the SOTD part, but I'm looking for the non-SOTD part.
<josb> "XML Schema Datatypes Dependency
<josb> OWL 2 is defined to use datatypes defined in the XML Schema Definition Language (XSD). As of this writing, the latest W3C Recommendation for XSD is version 1.0, with version 1.1 progressing toward Recommendation. OWL 2 has been designed to take advantage of the new datatypes and clearer explanations available in XSD 1.1, but for now those advantages are being partially put on hold. Specifically, u
<josb> ntil XSD 1.1 becomes a W3C Recommendation, the elements of OWL 2 which are based on it should be considered optional, as detailed in Conformance, section 2.3. Upon the publication of XSD 1.1 as a W3C Recommendation, those elements cease to be optional and are to be considered required as otherwise specified.
<josb> We suggest that for now developers and users follow the XSD 1.1 Candidate Recommendation. Based on discussions between the Schema and OWL Working Groups, we do not expect any implementation changes will be necessary as XSD 1.1 advances to Recommendation."
<sandro> Here it is: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-conformance-20091027/#XML_Schema_Datatypes
<AxelPolleres> so, what more do I need to change?
<josb> bld has a normative reference to xsd
<josb> swc does not
<csma> Axel, there is an Editor's note in 4.10
<AxelPolleres> [[XML Schema2] --> [XML Schema Datatypes]
<sandro> in BLD it's ref-xml-schema
<sandro> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-conformance-20091027/#XML_Schema_Datatypes
<sandro> ACTION: axel copy the OWL text about XSD1.1 to DTB, copying http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-conformance-20091027/#XML_Schema_Datatypes into DTB 2.3, changing OWL to RIF. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/20-rif-minutes.html#action05]
<csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2010Mar/0077.html
<csma> PROPOSED: approve minutes of March 23
<csma> RESOLVED: approve minutes of March 23
<csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2010Apr/0015.html
<sandro> if problems logging into wiki tomorrow, contact sysreq@w3.org
<josb> no
<ChrisW> close action 996
<ChrisW> close action-996
<ChrisW> close action-997
<ChrisW> close action-995
<ChrisW> close action-994
<ChrisW> close action-959
<ChrisW> close action-952
<Harold> Done: ACTION-996 - Remove at risk feature as per resolution: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2010Mar/0080.html
<csma> ACTION: chris to review the proves in SWC [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/20-rif-minutes.html#action06]
<ChrisW> close action-831
<josb> sorry, conneciton problem
<josb> I don't think Axel did
<csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-comments/2010Apr/0007.html
<ChrisW> ACTION: csma to draft reply to WL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/20-rif-minutes.html#action07]
Harold: Core is ready for publication as PR
<ChrisW> ACTION: csma to update PRD changelog [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/20-rif-minutes.html#action08]
<ChrisW> jos, which proofs are new?
Michael: FLD is ready for PR
Sandro: schedule for PR request: need to finish answering questions then can go to PR at the end of the 1st week of May.
<ChrisW> which proofs are new?
<josb> the ones in section 9.2
<josb> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#Embedding_RIF-OWL_2_RL_Combinations
<josb> the one in section 9.2.2.2 is the most critical: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#Embedding_Normalized_OWL_2_RL
Harold: had telecon with Liora. She will update the outline.
Liora: Chris is supposed to update the outline.
Chris: need a good semweb example.
Leora: where should we be looking for such an example?
Chris: need to look at various web site and use geospatial info. Hope to have such an example within the next few days.
CSMA: need to wait for the next outline. Need to publish the URL.
<csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Builtins_Time
<csma> PROPOSED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Builtins_Time
<ChrisW> +1
<Gary> +1
<apaschke> +1
+1
<DaveReynolds> +1
<csma> RESOLVED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Builtins_Time
<sandro> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Builtins_XMLLiteral
<ChrisW> proposed next test case: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/ListLiteralEquality
<josb> 1-
<sandro> jos: syntax errors in literals are syntax errors in RIF, so this is a Negative Syntax Test.
Sandro: this testcase has a syntax error in the XML
Sandro made the fixes in real time
<csma> PROPOSED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Builtins_XMLLiteral
<sandro> new version of test case, with only canonical XML
<sandro> +1
<DaveReynolds> +1
<apaschke> +1
<ChrisW> +1
+1
<ChrisW> proposed next test case: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/ListLiteralEquality
<josb> +1
<ChrisW> leora: +1 (on phone)
<csma> RESOLVED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Builtins_XMLLiteral
<ChrisW> proposed next test case: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/ListLiteralEquality
<josb> don't think so
<csma> And() :- "a"=List(ex:b)
<sandro> sandro: maybe there's a NegativeEntailmentTest here that would work in Core?
<sandro> sandro: but whatever, this is fine.
<csma> PROPOSED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/ListLiteralEquality
<sandro> +1
<Harold> +1
<DaveReynolds> +1
<ChrisW> +1
+1
<josb> I believe that without equality in the language, you cannot duplicate this behavior
<josb> +1
<ChrisW> leora: +1 (on phone)
<csma> RESOLVED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/ListLiteralEquality
<ChrisW> close action-850
<csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Named_Argument_Uniterms_non-polymorphic
<josb> I actually like the current name
<sandro> you would. :-)
<josb> but I don't really mind either way
<csma> PROPOSED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Named_Argument_Uniterms_non-polymorphic
<DaveReynolds> +1
<ChrisW> +1
<sandro> +1
<Gary> +1
<LeoraM> +1
+1
<csma> RESOLVED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Named_Argument_Uniterms_non-polymorphic
<Harold> +1
<csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/No_free_variables
+1
<Harold> +1
<josb> +1
<csma> PROPOSED: Appove http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/No_free_variables
<DaveReynolds> +1
<Gary> +1
<LeoraM> +1
<csma> RESOLVED: Approve http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/No_free_variables
<csma> zakim list attendees