A copy of http://www.w3.org/2006/11/04-rif-irc.txt is attached.
14:15:38 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rif
14:15:38 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/11/04-rif-irc
14:16:12 <johnhall> johnhall has joined #rif
14:18:20 <pascalhitzler> pascalhitzler has joined #RIF
14:19:12 <DaveReynolds> DaveReynolds raised question of whether issue 12 would be addressed somewhere during the discussions
14:20:52 <MarkusK> Topic: Requirements
14:21:15 <MarkusK> http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-ucr/#Requirements
14:21:59 <MarkusK> csam: objective is to agree on definition of requirements, their origin (UC, charter, other), and their justification
14:22:08 <MarkusK> s /csam/csma/
14:24:29 <MarkusK> csma: aim only to identify work items for breakout sessions
14:24:46 <josb> josb has joined #rif
14:25:01 <AxelPolleres> AxelPolleres has joined #rif
14:25:09 <MarkusK> 4.1.1. Compliance model
14:25:17 <Harold> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Requirements
14:25:25 <GiorgosStoilos> GiorgosStoilos has joined #rif
14:25:28 <sandro> RRSAgent, poiinter?
14:25:28 <RRSAgent> I'm logging.  Sorry, nothing found for 'poiinter'
14:25:34 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
14:25:34 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2006/11/04-rif-irc#T14-25-34
14:26:02 <MarkusK> "RIF must define a compliance model that will identify required/optional features."
14:26:26 <MarkusK> no objections
14:26:28 <MarkusK> 4.1.2. Default behavior
14:26:36 <MarkusK> "RIF must specify at the appropriate level of detail the default behavior that is expected from a RIF compliant application that does not have the capability to process all or part of the rules described in a RIF document, or it must provide a way to specify such default behavior."
14:26:57 <MarkusK> from charter
14:27:37 <MarkusK> csma: origin of requirements should be mentioned in the UCR document
14:29:15 <MarkusK> sandro: UCR needs to provide justifications by use cases
14:30:06 <MarkusK> csma: what about non-functional requirements that appear in charter? May not be justified by UCs.
14:30:26 <ChrisW> ChrisW has joined #rif
14:30:54 <MarkusK> chris: some requirements might not have concrete use cases, still they are important
14:31:14 <ChrisW> ChrisW has changed the topic to: 4 Nov RIF F2F4 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F4
14:31:20 <johnhall> johnhall has joined #rif
14:31:48 <ChrisW> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:31:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/11/04-rif-minutes.html ChrisW
14:31:50 <MarkusK> csma: Question for breakout: Should all requirements be connntected to use cases? What exceptions are allowed?
14:31:57 <MarkusK> no objections to 4.1.2. 
14:32:04 <MarkusK> 4.1.3. Different intended semantics
14:32:12 <MarkusK> "RIF must cover rule languages having different intended semantics."
14:32:24 <MarkusK> csma: direct origin of requirement unclear
14:32:31 <ChrisW> scribenick: MarkusK
14:33:14 <MarkusK> csma: does this need further clarification?
14:34:40 <MarkusK> Breakout: issue 12, http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/12
14:35:07 <aharth> aharth has joined #rif
14:35:26 <MarkusK> 4.1.4. Embedded comments
14:35:31 <MarkusK> no objections
14:35:37 <MarkusK> 4.1.5. Embedded metadata
14:35:57 <MarkusK> "RIF must support metadata such as author and rule name."
14:36:28 <MarkusK> possible discussion on term "metadata"
14:36:34 <MarkusK> 4.1.6. Implementability
14:36:40 <MarkusK> "RIF must be implementable using well understood techniques."
14:36:59 <ChrisW> Topic: Requirements review
14:37:03 <MarkusK> csma: some clarification might be needed. Why did we add that?
14:37:13 <ChrisW> Chair: Christian de Sainte-Marie
14:37:38 <MarkusK> ivan: I think it is sufficiently clear
14:37:47 <ChrisW> Meeting: RIF F2F4 Day 1 Session 1
14:37:57 <MarkusK> 4.1.7. Limited number of dialects
14:38:04 <MarkusK> "RIF must have a limited number of standard dialects and/or a common core."
14:38:09 <ChrisW> Scribe: Markus
14:38:52 <MarkusK> csma: two different requirements: common core, limited number of dialects
14:39:12 <MarkusK> sandro: the core is required by the charter 
14:39:30 <MarkusK> ivan: clarification needed on "limited number of dialects"
14:39:58 <MarkusK> hassan: term "dialect" is unclear as well
14:40:14 <MarkusK> Breakout: discuss meaning of "limited number of dialects"
14:40:51 <MarkusK> 4.1.8. OWL data
14:40:58 <MarkusK> "RIF must cover OWL knowledge bases as data where compatible with Phase 1 semantics."
14:41:29 <MarkusK> csma: note: requirements only for Phase 1, hence "Phase 1 semantics"
14:41:56 <MarkusK> from UCs and charter
14:41:57 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
14:41:57 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2006/11/04-rif-irc#T14-41-57
14:41:59 <MarkusK> no objections
14:42:05 <MarkusK> 4.1.9. RDF data
14:42:11 <MarkusK> "RIF must cover RDF triples as data where compatible with Phase 1 semantics."
14:42:40 <MarkusK> dave: no a priori reason to limit Phase 1 RDF or OWL compatibility to OWL DL.
14:42:49 <MarkusK> 4.1.10. Rule language coverage
14:42:56 <MarkusK> "RIF must cover the set of languages identified in the Rulesystem Arrangement Framework. See the Coverage section."
14:43:04 <MarkusK> csma: might need rephrasing
14:43:34 <MarkusK> csma: covered "features" are more important than "languages"
14:43:43 <MarkusK> Breakout: discuss this requirement
14:44:03 <MarkusK> csma: this is an umbrella requirement for the single languages' requirements
14:44:12 <MarkusK> 4.1.11. Semantic precision
14:44:20 <MarkusK> "RIF must have a clear and precise (unambiguous) semantics to reduce the potential for error in the exchange of rules."
14:45:21 <sandro> "It depends what you mean by 'clear and precise semantics'"  is a wonderful phrase
14:45:30 <MarkusK> csma: discussion needed on meaning of "clear and precise"
14:45:43 <MarkusK> csma: better discuss ofter discussing technical spec
14:46:11 <MarkusK> hassan: clarification needed on what semantics is needed. Meta-semantics of RIF?
14:46:25 <MarkusK> csma: yes, but discussion needed to fully clarify this
14:46:33 <MarkusK> 4.1.12. Semantic tagging
14:46:40 <MarkusK> "RIF must have a standard way to specify the intended semantics (or semantics style) of the interchanged rule set in a RIF document."
14:47:14 <MarkusK> term "semantic style" needs some clarification
14:47:39 <MarkusK> ivan: some clarification needed, but glossary might suffice for this
14:48:21 <MarkusK> hassan: "semantic style" refers to different kinds of semantics such as e.g. model theoretic semantics
14:48:29 <MarkusK> 4.1.13. Standard components
14:48:35 <MarkusK> "RIF implementations must be able to use standard support technologies such as XML parsers and other parser generators."
14:49:12 <sandro> s/model theoretic semantics/model theoretic semantics, proof theoretic semantics/
14:49:12 <MarkusK> csma: we might want to reorder the requirements to clarify their interrelation
14:50:07 <MarkusK> 4.1.14. Translators
14:50:11 <Harold> Re Rule language coverage, what about: RIF must cover the set of languages selected via the Rulesystem Arrangement Framework. See the Coverage section.
14:50:15 <MarkusK> "RIF must not require rule systems to be changed; it must be implementable via translators."
14:50:31 <MarkusK> Breakout: discuss 4.1.14
14:50:40 <MarkusK> 4.1.15. XML syntax
14:50:49 <MarkusK> "RIF must have an XML syntax as its primary normative syntax."
14:50:55 <MarkusK> 4.1.16. XML types
14:51:03 <MarkusK> "RIF must permit XML information types (where appropriate) to be expressed using XML Schema. See the charter on Datatype support."
14:51:10 <MarkusK> dave: this was changed already
14:53:08 <MarkusK> issue was that primitive xsd types should go into phase 1, while structured types are for phase 2
14:53:54 <MarkusK> csma: correct version now is:
14:53:59 <MarkusK> "RIF must support an appropriate set of scalar datatypes and associated operations as defined in XML Schema part 2 and associated specifications. See the charter on Datatype support."
14:54:08 <MarkusK> from http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Requirements
14:54:34 <MarkusK> other requirements might have been updated in this document as well
14:55:33 <MarkusK> csma: no discussion of Phase 2 requirements now
14:56:07 <sandro> sandro: note that this rephrasing on XML schema drops the requirement, in the Charter, to support LISTS in phase 1.
14:56:31 <MarkusK> csma: requirements from the charter
14:56:46 <MarkusK> csma: mission covered by earlier requirements
14:58:37 <MarkusK> csma: compatibility requirements with XML data, and RDF (where RIF overlaps with RDF); covered
14:58:49 <Harold> Re Limited number of dialects, what about Sandro's proposal: RIF must have a limited number of standard dialects based on a common core. (Both alternatives allowing the 'or' would hardly be acceptable: 1. No common core, 2. More than one core.)
14:59:10 <MarkusK> csma: compatibility with use of SPARQL to query datasets
14:59:39 <sandro> Harold, my understanding is that question is out of order for this session -- this session is just to review and assign work items to the UCR breakouts.
15:00:00 <MarkusK> csma: currently not covered, discussion needed to get requirement on that
15:00:58 <MarkusK> csma: conformance
15:01:02 <MarkusK> no comments
15:01:16 <MarkusK> csma: "load and query", implications on requirements?
15:01:55 <MarkusK> csma: do UCs in phase 1 support this?
15:01:55 <Harold> Yeah, just wanted to have your proposal (and my justification) be kept it in mind for that breakout.
15:02:15 <MarkusK> alen: requirement is present in the medical UC, should be added
15:02:33 <MarkusK> s /alen/allen/
15:02:48 <sandro> csma: 1.   sematics specified in terms of queries
15:02:48 <sandro> csma: 2.  merged rulesets
15:03:12 <MarkusK> csma: "the syntax must support named arguments" is mentioned in charter, but not reflected in requirements
15:03:50 <MarkusK> csma: phase 1 semantics
15:04:31 <MarkusK> csma: rulesets mentioned, but currently no requirement
15:05:14 <MarkusK> csma: some further requirements might not need explicit mentioning (e.g. support for "facts as well as rules"
15:05:22 <MarkusK> csma: datatype support
15:05:46 <MarkusK> csma: current requirements are somewhat less detailed, compare with requirements again
15:06:24 <MarkusK> csma: work item is to check whether requirements from UCs are covered as well
15:07:03 <MarkusK> harold: Re "SHOULD consider RDF as meta-data" -- can we strengthen the "should"?
15:07:27 <MarkusK> csma: "should" comes from charter, further discussion for breakouts
15:08:00 <MarkusK> allen: discussion on coverage http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/22
15:08:15 <MarkusK> csma: already on work items
15:09:31 <MarkusK> csma: break!
15:10:54 <pfps_> pfps_ has joined #rif
15:12:02 <pfps_> pfps_ has joined #rif
15:12:09 <DaveReynolds_> DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif
15:12:47 <ivan_> ivan_ has joined #rif
15:15:50 <mdean> mdean has joined #rif
15:22:48 <pfps_> pfps_ has joined #rif
15:22:54 <DaveReynolds_> DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif
15:28:49 <pfps> zakim, who is on the phone?
15:28:49 <Zakim> sorry, pfps, I don't know what conference this is
15:28:50 <Zakim> On IRC I see DaveReynolds, pfps, GiorgosStoilos, RRSAgent, Zakim, JeffP, msintek, sandro, rifbot
15:31:33 <mdean> mdean has joined #rif
15:33:23 <Hassan> Hassan has joined #rif
15:33:40 <sandro> scribeNick: Hassan
15:33:53 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
15:33:53 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2006/11/04-rif-irc#T15-33-53
15:33:57 <csma> csma has joined #rif
15:34:20 <Hassan> Work on RIF Technical Design
15:34:46 <Hassan> ChrisW: Currently we have 4 proposals - should boil down to one?
15:35:35 <Hassan> Current (1) Harold Boley's CORE condition language
15:35:47 <GiorgosStoilos> GiorgosStoilos has joined #rif
15:36:12 <Hassan> (2) Hassan's CLP reformulation of a core formalism (as a Logical Framework)
15:36:46 <Hassan> (3) CSMA's proposal based on informal test cases?
15:38:08 <Hassan> (4) Dave Reynolds' proposal to use RDF - syntax level, possibly compatible with (1)-(3)
15:38:58 <Hassan> s/Harold Boley/Harold Boley et al./
15:39:21 <GaryHallmark> GaryHallmark has joined #rif
15:39:30 <Harold> Harold has joined #rif
15:39:52 <Hassan> CSMA: not yet another semantics, but use *partial* semantics
15:41:07 <Hassan> CSMA: not incompatible with the others as well
15:41:27 <sandro> csma: "partial semantics" == "constraints on semantics"
15:42:20 <Hassan> Leora: I don't understand "partial semantics"
15:42:20 <cgi-irc> cgi-irc has joined #rif
15:42:38 <PaulaP> PaulaP has joined #rif
15:43:01 <Hassan> CSMA: "partial semamntics" means "incomplete specification that may be extended"
15:43:27 <Harold> Christian's Core with a 'partial semantics' would be compatible with the Condition Languages semantics in the sense that Conditions are 'partial rules'.
15:43:49 <Hassan> a/semamntics/semantics/
15:44:48 <Hassan> Harold: limited to conditions that are common to different styles of rules
15:45:29 <Hassan> CSMA: I do not know what the right constraints are but say, Modus Ponens ...
15:47:13 <Hassan> CSMA: find some way of making sense with some rules even though the full set of assumptions is not met
15:48:14 <Hassan> Harold: OK - we agree (in our proposal) and tried to formalize that but had to backtrack to what we have now
15:49:26 <GaryHallmark> harold: taxonomy of actions: 1. introspective (KB change), 2. bounded by programming environment, 3. real world actions
15:50:16 <Hassan> CSMA: I would like to do things another way: if we characterized some level of syntax and some semantics then interchange can be still achieved even though there is no complete agreement
15:51:23 <Hassan> Sandro: what CSMA is saying (IMO) is that we should be able to interchange among different styles of rules (say Prolog and Production)
15:51:32 <GaryHallmark> +1 to interchange of rules between producton rule and horn
15:51:46 <Deborah_Nichols> Deborah_Nichols has joined #rif
15:52:30 <Hassan> Peter: everyone agrees if limited to Horn - 
15:53:11 <johnhall> johnhall has joined #rif
15:53:28 <GaryHallmark> peter: pure postive horn and PR should give same result
15:54:09 <Hassan> Hassan: let us not confuse Logc and Model Theory (Proof theory e.g., SOS, Natural Semantics, ...)
15:54:26 <Hassan> s/Logc/Logic/
15:54:30 <Harold> Hassan, do you mean "operational semantics" in the sense of "rewrite-rule semantics"?
15:54:37 <sandro> PROPOSED: For positive Horn rules, RIF will use the direct and obvious mapping between production rule systems and logic programming systems.
15:54:59 <Harold> +1
15:55:15 <GaryHallmark> +1 to sandro's proposal
15:56:24 <Hassan> MichaelKifer: Sandro's proposal is already covered by ours
15:56:25 <Harold> Paula, what is your and Francois opinion on this now?
15:56:35 <ivan> ivan has joined #rif
15:56:42 <AxelPolleres> AxelPolleres has joined #rif
15:57:01 <pascalhitzler> pascalhitzler has joined #RIF
15:57:42 <PaulaP> Harold, I'm not sure I understand Christian's proposal
15:57:47 <Hassan> JosB: need only agree on the core shared - extensions may and will have different semantics
15:57:55 <sandro> Jos: the extension can have different semantics, they just need to reduce to the original semantics on the original inputs
15:58:23 <sandro> mkifer: Sandro, your proposal is like a law of nature
15:58:30 <Harold> Paula, I meant about Sandro's proposal of mapping at least between subsets of Production rules and Horn?
15:58:41 <Hassan> JosB: therefore no need for "partial" semantics - compatibility should not be based only onf models, but also on other criteria (operational)
15:59:20 <Hassan> s/onf/on/
15:59:54 <PaulaP> Harold, I think Michael Kifer is right...it is obvious if the mapping is not 'problematic', that is in the case that the subset is a common one
16:00:40 <pascalhitzler1405> pascalhitzler1405 has joined #RIF
16:01:25 <Hassan> ChrisW: can CSMA's prop be rephrased as using "partial" semantics in the sense that non core features could be expressed more "operationally"
16:02:04 <Hassan> CSMA: allow multiple interpretations as given
16:02:38 <Hassan> Peter: Why not be fully formal?
16:03:29 <sandro> Peter: there are formal semantics out there which say that a number of outcomes are all permissible
16:04:28 <Harold> Christian, do you want to formalize the following: "A rule with multiple intended interpretations should be captured as a single RIF rule"? 
16:04:45 <Hassan> DaveReynolds: I like what CSMA is trying to get at: 2 things can be done (1) find test cases with multiple interpretations and (2) example on how to cover this test case
16:05:05 <Hassan> CSMA: need a task force for this
16:05:23 <Harold> (Instead one could capture it with - a conjunction of - several RIF rules.)
16:05:40 <Hassan> Ivan: I would like to understand why is it so important in term of a real UC?
16:06:19 <sandro> Chris: the use case is any interchange between LP and PR systems
16:06:35 <Hassan> Ivan: not a technical issue - why is this important?
16:07:50 <JeffP> JeffP has joined #rif
16:08:59 <MarkusK> MarkusK has joined #rif
16:09:20 <Hassan> Hassan: a rule may have multiple semantics (abstract, concrete, ...)
16:09:33 <Harold> Christian, such 'richness' of interpretations adds to the power of natural languages, but may not be the way to go for formal languages.
16:09:44 <Harold> Hassan's proposal:
16:09:51 <Harold> Three levels:
16:10:09 <Harold> * Change the level of abstraction: CLP
16:10:24 <sandro> 1. "abstract data model from rule"
16:10:37 <Harold> * Model theory can only capture immutable truths. 70% have no logical truth.
16:10:45 <sandro> 2.  lots of impure logical features
16:11:15 <sandro> (truths are good, but how to get there is better.)
16:12:24 <sandro> Hassan: stay OPERATIONAL and FORMAL, not just MODEL THEORETIC
16:12:31 <Harold> * Use Hereditary Harrop Formulas to capture local quantification (with variables).
16:12:50 <sandro> Leora: When you say Operational, do you mean Proof Theoretic?
16:12:53 <Harold> Leora: What does 'operational' mean here?
16:13:15 <sandro> I'm just taking extra notes, Harold.
16:13:20 <sandro> Don't worry about me.
16:13:33 <Harold> Hassan: Only (formal) proof theory.
16:13:49 <Harold> Alex: What about actions? Communication acts?
16:14:06 <Harold> Hassan: Yes, there are references in the write-up.
16:14:48 <Harold> Axel: Shall rule sets then declare what the operation semantics for computing consequences would be? 
16:14:56 <johnhall> johnhall has joined #rif
16:15:30 <Harold> Hassan: RIFRAF should span the space for the operational semantics: a *meta* rule language, which is nice
16:15:38 <sandro> Hassan: a meta rule language -- a way to write down the proof theory of your rule language.
16:15:40 <Harold> (abstract syntax trees)
16:16:07 <Harold> Michael: Stable and Well-founded semantics are still not covered.
16:16:14 <sandro> mikifer: proof theory doesn't cover important things like stable model semantics
16:16:25 <Harold> Hassan: RIght, it cannot capture everything.
16:16:50 <Harold> Allen: Does this go towards fixpoint semantics (op. sem.)?
16:17:07 <Harold> Hassan: Fixpoint only one possiblity.
16:17:42 <csma> What I wanted to add: There are not only rules, there are also ruelsets. I remember Uli saying, at one telecon, that the order in which rules are taken into account may change what is inferred; in many practical cases, it does not actually matter: what you would infer in the various cases is equally acceptable (equally preserves the meaning); only the semantics of the specific RL into which the RIF document is translated will decide which one(s) are actually produced.
16:18:08 <Harold> Andreas: Op.sem vs. proof theory. There are really 3 levels: Model theory, proof-theory, op.sem. (algorithm).
16:18:28 <Harold> Chris: lets do this offline.
16:19:07 <Hassan> ChrisW: My concern with the current proposal is extensiblity - not clear how to go about it
16:20:10 <JosD> JosD has joined #rif
16:20:42 <Hassan> ChrisW: Abstract Syntax makes more sense for extensibility 
16:21:28 <Hassan> ChrisW: (1) how formal should we be (2) what Abstract Syntax
16:22:21 <Hassan> DaveReynolds: What about the separation of data models?
16:22:31 <Hassan> ChrisW: It is compatible with the rest
16:23:03 <Hassan> ChrisW: Identify "incompatibilities" among proposals...
16:23:14 <johnhall> johnhall has joined #rif
16:23:17 <sandro> Chris: Separartion of Data Model can be done in any of the proposals
16:23:46 <Hassan> DaveReynolds: What about formal vs. informal semantics? Precise vs. imprecise?
16:24:46 <Hassan> JosB: A proof theory that is sound and complete is compatible by definition with model theory
16:25:17 <csma> s/JosB/Axel/
16:26:08 <Hassan> ChrisW: Other disagreements?
16:26:41 <Hassan> CSMA: partial vs.permissive is a better dimension
16:27:46 <csma> I wondered if "precise VS permissive" meant the same as "partial VS complete" and whether the latter was clearer than the former
16:29:27 <pascalhitzler> pascalhitzler has joined #RIF
16:30:04 <Hassan> ChrisW: WHat is the disagreement?
16:30:24 <sandro> sandro: the disagreement is: "How are we going to specify the semantics"
16:30:29 <MarkusK> MarkusK has joined #rif
16:30:33 <Hassan> ChrisW: Given a precise semantics how do we specify it?
16:31:00 <Hassan> ChrisW: These are the issues to discuss
16:31:39 <johnhall> johnhall has joined #rif
16:31:43 <Hassan> ChrisW: No decisions are to me made in the breakout sessions but we must clarify everything we are talking about
16:32:03 <Hassan> ChrisW: Preferably in writing...
16:32:32 <Hassan> ChrisW: BO sessions must be balanced in attendance
16:32:56 <Hassan> 2 BOs planned after lunch (1) requirements
16:33:07 <Hassan> (2) technical design
16:33:58 <Hassan> Sandro: the BO should be "How do we specify the semantics?"
16:34:47 <Hassan> CSMA: can we have a 3rd BO on syntax?
16:36:14 <Hassan> ChrisW: SO 3 BO sessions: (1) UCR (2) How to specify Semantics (3) syntactic issues + vocabularies
16:36:39 <josb> josb has joined #rif
16:39:56 <Hassan> ChrisW: New sessions: (1) UCR (2) Partial vs. complete semantics (3) syntactic issues + vocabularies
16:42:09 <Hassan> ChrisW: New sessions: (1) UCR 5 people (2) Partial vs. complete semantics 10 peopla (3) syntactic issues + vocabularies 8 people
16:42:51 <Hassan> s/peopla/people/
16:43:49 <Hassan> ChrisW: 90 mins for BOs and 30 mins plenary for debriefing
16:44:59 <Hassan> ChrisW: Back to discussing URI's  and vocabularies
16:45:52 <cgi-irc> cgi-irc has joined #rif
16:46:34 <Hassan> ChrisW: What about using URIs for everything is RIF
16:47:06 <Hassan> CSMA: Gerd Wagner started this discussion: what elements?
16:50:27 <Hassan> Sandro: this issue is to discuss the shape of RIF constructs as XML elements
16:50:47 <Allen> Allen has joined #rif
16:51:31 <Hassan> Some members have specific example we can discuss
16:51:40 <Hassan> s/example/examples/
16:52:24 <Hassan> Ivan: using ternary/binary predicates
16:53:20 <Hassan> ChrisW: each BO group will report back to the whole group: so we need BO session chairs
16:53:51 <Hassan> ChrisW: and scribes ...
16:54:20 <Hassan> Allen Ginsberg will chair the UC&R session
16:55:34 <Hassan> Sandro will chair the syntax session
16:56:02 <Hassan> Chris Welty will chair the Partial vs Complete session
16:56:28 <Hassan> Paul Vincent will chair the UC&R session
16:56:44 <Hassan> Alex will scribe the syntax session
16:57:17 <Hassan> Deborah will scribe the syntax session
16:59:17 <MarkusK> MarkusK has joined #rif
17:56:05 <sandro> sandro has joined #rif
17:59:54 <pascalhitzler> pascalhitzler has joined #RIF
18:02:33 <MarkusK> MarkusK has joined #rif
18:03:25 <msintek> msintek has joined #rif
18:04:19 <GiorgosStoilos> GiorgosStoilos has joined #rif
18:04:35 <msintek> msintek has left #rif
18:05:51 <josb> josb has joined #rif
18:05:53 <msintek> msintek has joined #rif
18:06:02 <GiorgosStoilos> GiorgosStoilos has joined #rif
18:11:22 <pfps> pfps has joined #rif
18:27:34 <Hassan> Hassan has joined #rif
18:29:35 <pfps> pfps has joined #rif
18:34:42 <JosD> JosD has joined #rif
18:37:37 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rif
18:49:34 <pfps> pfps has joined #rif
19:04:00 <pascalhitzler1405> pascalhitzler1405 has joined #RIF
19:08:15 <GaryHallmark> GaryHallmark has joined #rif
19:14:40 <JosD> JosD has joined #rif
19:19:16 <pascalhitzler> pascalhitzler has joined #RIF
19:29:26 <josb> josb has joined #rif
19:39:14 <GaryHallmark> GaryHallmark has joined #rif
19:39:42 <DaveReynolds> DaveReynolds has joined #rif
19:39:59 <GiorgosStoilos> GiorgosStoilos has joined #rif
19:40:05 <Harold> Harold has joined #rif
19:40:09 <Hassan> Hassan has joined #rif
19:40:12 <GaryHallmark> topic: UCR breakout summary
19:40:28 <GaryHallmark> scribe: GaryHallmark
19:40:36 <GaryHallmark> scribeNick: GaryHallmark
19:41:22 <GaryHallmark> sandro: should we make decisions now?
19:42:50 <GaryHallmark> chrisw: need to make decisions that affect next breakout
19:44:23 <GaryHallmark> please see breakout session notes for details of this session
19:48:10 <GaryHallmark> paulv: several issues about whether ruleset merging affects RIF
19:48:10 <mdean> mdean has joined #rif
19:49:40 <GaryHallmark> DaveR: should state whether RIF supports merging (don't have to say how)
19:51:58 <GaryHallmark> topic: RIF XML Syntax breakout summary
19:54:33 <GaryHallmark> again see breakout session notes for details of this session
19:56:15 <GaryHallmark> alex: local names (e.g. local var) do not need URIs
19:57:22 <GaryHallmark> josb: namespaces treated as per RDF
19:58:16 <GaryHallmark> sandro: RIF can use URIs like RDF does
20:05:09 <Hassan> http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/IKL/SPEC/SPEC.html
20:08:00 <GaryHallmark> harold: need slotted syntax
20:08:29 <GaryHallmark> alex: roundtripping should be a requirement
20:11:03 <sandro> ACTION csma to do something about roundtripping, like put it on issues list
20:11:05 <sandro> ACTION: csma to do something about roundtripping, like put it on issues list
20:11:05 <rifbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - csma
20:11:15 <sandro> ACTION: Christian to do something about roundtripping, like put it on issues list
20:11:15 <rifbot> Created ACTION-165 - Do something about roundtripping, like put it on issues list [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2006-11-11].
20:15:46 <GaryHallmark> topic: Technical Design breakout summary
20:16:18 <sandro> ACTION: Sandro to find out if we can assign a URI to xpath/xquery functions and operators
20:16:19 <rifbot> Created ACTION-166 - Find out if we can assign a URI to xpath/xquery functions and operators [on Sandro Hawke - due 2006-11-11].
20:17:03 <JosD> JosD has joined #rif
20:17:13 <GaryHallmark> chrisw: role of CORE is to avoid n**2 translators
20:19:21 <GaryHallmark> ... the CORE semantics should be precise
20:19:35 <GaryHallmark> ... is positive Horn a useful CORE?
20:20:54 <GaryHallmark> ... even positive Horn may be a subset of production rules
20:21:08 <GaryHallmark> ... negation is too contentious for CORE
20:21:30 <GaryHallmark> Sandro: must do at least CORE for phase1
20:21:53 <GaryHallmark> s/may/may not
20:37:59 <DaveReynolds> DaveReynolds has joined #rif
20:39:03 <MarkusK> MarkusK has joined #rif
20:40:19 <DaveReynolds_> DaveReynolds_ has joined #rif
21:00:05 <sandro> sandro has joined #rif
21:01:00 <mdean> mdean has joined #rif
21:01:07 <DaveReynolds> DaveReynolds has joined #rif
21:01:29 <pascalhitzler> pascalhitzler has joined #RIF
21:01:31 <josb> josb has joined #rif
21:01:42 <GaryHallmark> GaryHallmark has joined #rif
21:02:08 <johnhall> johnhall has joined #rif
21:02:29 <AxelPolleres> AxelPolleres has joined #rif
21:02:47 <PaulaP> PaulaP has joined #rif
21:03:08 <cgi-irc> cgi-irc has joined #rif
21:03:39 <ivan> ivan has joined #rif
21:03:40 <pfps> pfps has joined #rif
21:04:03 <Harold> Harold has joined #rif
21:10:23 <csma> csma has joined #rif
21:12:03 <JeffP> JeffP has joined #rif
21:12:04 <GaryHallmark> GaryHallmark has joined #rif
21:12:39 <GiorgosStoilos> GiorgosStoilos has joined #rif
21:39:23 <GaryHallmark> GaryHallmark has joined #rif
21:41:58 <pfps_> pfps_ has joined #rif
21:50:14 <GaryHallmark> GaryHallmark has joined #rif
22:09:39 <JosD> JosD has joined #rif
22:12:19 <pfps_> pfps_ has joined #rif
22:13:26 <sandro> pfps, did you pick a time for dinner?
22:13:29 <josb> josb has joined #rif
22:13:33 <GaryHallmark> GaryHallmark has joined #rif
22:15:09 <pfps> dinner is "shortly" after 6
22:15:36 <AxelPolleres> AxelPolleres has joined #rif
22:16:08 <cgi-irc> cgi-irc has joined #rif
22:17:28 <sandro> PROPOSED: that implementability, semantic precision, standard components, and translators be treated as "general".
22:18:18 <sandro> RESOLVED: that implementability, semantic precision, standard components, and translators be treated as "general".
22:24:49 <sandro> ACTION: PaulV to work with Allen on defn of covers
22:24:49 <rifbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - PaulV
22:24:53 <sandro> ACTION: Paul to work with Allen on defn of covers
22:24:53 <rifbot> Created ACTION-167 - Work with Allen on defn of covers [on Paul Vincent - due 2006-11-11].
22:24:58 <sandro> ACTION: Igor to work with Allen on defn of covers
22:24:58 <rifbot> Created ACTION-168 - Work with Allen on defn of covers [on Igor Mozetic - due 2006-11-11].
22:29:17 <sandro> RESOLVED: "RIF must cover rule languages with different semantics."
22:29:31 <sandro> I don't have a clue what it means, but I'm withdrawing my objection.
22:30:16 <sandro> PROPOSED: "RIF must have a standard core and a limited number of dialects based upon that core"
22:31:29 <sandro> RESOLVED: "RIF must have a standard core and a limited number of standard dialects based upon that core"
22:32:46 <sandro> PROPOSED: "RIF core must have a clear and precise semantics.  Each standard RIF dialect must have a clear and precise semantics that extends the RIF core semantics."
22:34:32 <sandro> PROPOSED: "RIF core must have a clear and precise syntax and semantics.  Each standard RIF dialect must have a clear and precise syntax and semantics that extends RIF core."
22:34:45 <sandro> RESOLVED: "RIF core must have a clear and precise syntax and semantics.  Each standard RIF dialect must have a clear and precise syntax and semantics that extends RIF core."
22:38:25 <sandro> PROPOSED:  "Dialect  Identification", "RIF must have a standard way to specify the dialect of the interchanged rule set is a RIF document."
22:38:25 <sandro> RESOLVED:  "Dialect  Identification", "RIF must have a standard way to specify the dialect of the interchanged rule set is a RIF document."
22:38:28 <sandro> RRSAgent, pointer?
22:38:28 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2006/11/04-rif-irc#T22-38-28
22:38:35 <pfps_> pfps_ has joined #rif
22:40:28 <sandro> ACTION Hassan: improve glossary 
22:40:45 <sandro> ACTION: Hassan improve glossary 
22:40:46 <rifbot> Created ACTION-169 - Improve glossary  [on Hassan Ait-Kaci - due 2006-11-11].
22:41:59 <sandro> PROPOSED: (implementable via translators) For every standard RIF dialect it must be possible to implement a translator for from rule lanuages covered by the dialect to RIF. 
22:42:52 <sandro> Allan: this comes from We're Not expecting people to do research to implement RIF
22:45:28 <sandro> Chris: This doesn't say that you don't need to change your rule system.
22:45:39 <sandro> Allan: Well, it implies it.
22:46:48 <JosD> JosD has joined #rif
22:48:27 <sandro> PROPOSED: (implementable via translators) For every standard RIF dialect it must be possible to implement translators between rule lanuages covered by the dialect and RIF without changing the rule language.
22:48:35 <Hassan> Hassan has joined #rif
22:49:09 <sandro> RESOLVED: (implementable via translators) For every standard RIF dialect it must be possible to implement translators between rule lanuages covered by the dialect and RIF without changing the rule language.
22:49:49 <sandro> PROPOSED: It must be possible to create new dialects of RIF and extend or modify existing ones upwardly compatible
22:50:08 <sandro> Chris: let's put this off to tommorrow.
22:52:06 <Harold> Harold has left #rif
22:52:19 <msintek> msintek has left #rif

Received on Saturday, 18 November 2006 01:40:52 UTC