SV_MEETING_TITLE -- 21 Sep 2010

<leora> Adrian, I just made a bunch of changes to the UCR document.

<leora> Chris, I did the changes you requested to UCR, including softening the statements that something CANNOT be represented in BLD. (See the intro.)

<ChrisW> Scribe: PaschkeAdrian

<ChrisW> scribenick: PaschkeAdrian

Admin

<ChrisW> Last meeting minutes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2010Sep/att-0020/2010-09-14-rif-minutes.html

<ChrisW> PROPOSED: accept last week's minutes

<ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept last week's minutes

Liason

Actions

<ChrisW> close action-1053

<trackbot> ACTION-1053 Review UCR closed

close action-1051

<trackbot> ACTION-1051 Annotate use cases wrt implmentability w existing dialects closed

RIF Primer

Leora: need to add a summary of Christian's XML document
... would prefer to leave it out since it is not finished yet

<Harold> Note that RIF+XML-Data already is in http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Overview#A_General_Survey_of_the_RIF_Documents

csma: motivation is report on the combination of RIF and XML data since the other combinations are in the primer
... want to show that you can use RIF also with other formats not just Semantic Web data / formats

Harold: OWL2RL is not in the primer as well

ChrisW: thought we can write different primers with different focus
... but do not have the bandwith

Doug: would be good to have a list of what is missing

<Harold> Note http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Primer#What_this_document_doesn.27t_cover

Doug: make it explicit what this document does not cover

Leora: there is already a section about this

Sandro: primer mostly about Core, i.e. RIF Core Primer

ChrisW: yes we can make it more specific

Harold: 5.1 mentions equality

Sandro: yes, is the only section about BLD
... prefer to have it as a RIF Core primer

Harold: built-ins are also in PRD

<Harold> We have "RIF Datatypes and Built-Ins 1.0"

Leora: problem of time to address all dialects in the Primer, e..g would be good to address PRD as well, but no time for it

ChrisW: what about RIF Primer for Logic

Leora: to generic title

<DaveReynolds> Suspect my mic isn't working. The document primarily mentions BLD not Core. The examles and features might be mostly the Core subset but the prose keeps referring to BLD>

<ChrisW> I suggest "RIF Logic Primer"

Sandro: if we call it RIF Core primer we should take out section 5.1

Leora: we need 5.1

Sandro: get someone else to contribute PRD to Primer

Garry: can contribute something

<ChrisW> ACTION: Gary to try and add a PRD section to primer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/21-rif-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-1054 - Try and add a PRD section to primer [on Gary Hallmark - due 2010-09-28].

<sandro> ACTION: Gary to contribute a PRD section like the BLD section (5.1) to the Primer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/21-rif-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-1055 - Contribute a PRD section like the BLD section (5.1) to the Primer [on Gary Hallmark - due 2010-09-28].

<ChrisW> close action-1054

<trackbot> ACTION-1054 Try and add a PRD section to primer closed

Sandro: will correct some additional review comments in the primer

xml data

csma: review comments from Gary ...
... abbreviated presentation synatx, although not normative, is used, since it is more compact
... need to change the EBNF
... implementation dependent - undefined; will change this
... singelton list - in Schema you know if it is a list or not;
... without schema, i.e. just data, hard to know if it is a list or singel data
... depends on the application in casw without schema

Gary: zero linked lists should be mentioned

csma: regarding comment on "modify XMl document"
... benefit of abstract model is, that it does not specify the semantics for adding data to the source XML document
... it is up to your application if it reserializes inferred data
... next point - consumer side input; should that apply to OWL-RDF data
... question is, can we make a technical note of this spec. although it is only an initial spec, e.g. withouth beeing detailed
... only 1 1/2 week left

Gary: would be good if more people read it; short time frame is a concern; so it will not be complete and consistent
... would be good to have it as placeholder; do not know about the procedure ehre

ChrisW: release it as working draft next week; last working group meeting next week

Sandro: can publish as a note

ChrisW: sound more like a draft than a note

csma: can we leave editors notes in a note?

Sandro: we can do what we want; either note or working draft

<StellaMitchell> zakom, ??p10 is me

ChrisW: think working draft is the right state to leave it when the working group ends, to point out that it is not finished

csma: agree, prefer WD as well

<sandro> cmsa: agreed -- XML-Data will be a WD in the next (last) version.

ChrisW: will vote on publication next Tuesday
... what can be done by then

csma: will work on Garys comments
... asked Jos and Michael

cmsa: Jos reviewed an older version; Michael will be travelling

csma: maybe Jos can do, but good to have anotehr reviewer

<ChrisW> ACTION: Adrian to review XML data [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/21-rif-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-1056 - Review XML data [on Adrian Paschke - due 2010-09-28].

UCR

Stella: proposed to remove section http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/UCR#Structure_of_RIF

Leora: add a link to the RIF overview document

Stella: add RIf PRD in the bullet list

Harold: in the bullet list which are relevant to the use cases
... in the bullet list only those dialects that are relevant to the use cases

Leora: Stella to review the changes by Leora

<csma> Typo: second bullet in section 3: use present, not past tense

Stella: distinction between general and basic requirements http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/UCR#Requirements

Leora: had some historic reasons;

csma: basic requirements where from an earlier version of UCR where we had critical success factors, phase I and phase II requirement etc.
... later we simplified it

ChrisW: get rid of the distinction

Adrian: will list them as requirements; will change it
... changes from Leora are open; from this morning

ChrisW: looks ready for publication

<sandro> plan is to publish UCR as Note.

Sandro: publish as note

ChrisW: will be voted next week

Leora: want to add a reference on deontic logic; which is mentioned in one of the comments

Test Cases

Stella: approved all test cases;
... Sandro wanted to add a new one about RIF XMl data
... section on test results 6.2
... test results page might be removed?
... result page is not complete;

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/test/results/report

<csma> There are 4 test cases in the "proposed" section, and 5 in the "in development" section...

<csma> What do we do with them?

Leora: should be linked from some document, so that we do not lose it

ChrisW: could be used in a community page
... csma what about the 4 open test cases?

csma: if I have time I will work on them; I have the XML, but need to update the PS

Sandro: can use tool for translation from XML to PS

csma: does it support PRD

Sandro: probably yes; do not know if it is working

csma: will send you the XML

Stella: test cases also need to be structure as entailment test

csma: will look at it
... other test cases (in development)

Stella: three UCR use cases

csma: equality test cases

Adrian: was the original use case and later refined to different factorial use cases

csma: do we want nothing left "in development"?

ChrisW: no oppinion about it

csma: can drop the equality test case
... is the same a factorial

<ChrisW> AOB?

<ChrisW> next meeting in 1 week, last meeting!

- DRAFT -

SV_MEETING_TITLE

21 Sep 2010

Attendees

Contents