See also: IRC log
<Harold> zakim [NRCC] is me
<sandro> like this: ACTION: Allen to fly to the moon
<Allen> OK
<ChrisW> scribenick: Allen_Ginsberg
<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F3#minutes
<Allen> Chris: f2f3 minutes now on wiki
<Allen> Chris: too soon to approve
<Allen> Will approve next week
<ChrisW> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Aug/0041.html
<Allen> last week telecon minutes posted
<Allen> Approve?
<Allen> Does not have regrets or attendance
<Allen> David will send email to Alex to please update attendance - regrets
<Allen> No updates to agenda
<Donald_Chapin> nothing new
<Allen> Liason?
<Allen> UCR
<sandro> Allen: UC1 is clearly about exchanging both facts and rules. Maybe Sven's question was about an earlier version or something.
<sandro> Allen: (addressing Sven's review of UCR)
<sandro> ChrisW: I haven't finished putting in the action updates from last week.
<ChrisW> ACTION: allen to post the previous work on links between reqs and [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/05-rif-minutes.html#action01]
<ChrisW> UC
<rifbot> Created ACTION-98 - Post the previous work on links between reqs and [on Allen Ginsberg - due 2006-09-12].
<sandro> ACTION-98 CLOSED
<sandro> Looking at: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/products to see overview of topics
<LeoraMorgenstern> what document is Chris reading from?
<LeoraMorgenstern> URL?
<sandro> Chris is probably looking at http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/open
<LeoraMorgenstern> Okay, thanks.
<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Use_Cases
<Allen> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR
<sandro> "Which CSFs (other than Alignment) does the XML syntax requirement support? "
<sandro> CSFs are http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Goals
<sandro> look at 9-circle diagram near top of that page
<sandro> csma: The idea is to show that XML is important for more than just W3C.
<sandro> csma: ie it supports widescale adoption in other ways, too.
<sandro> ChrisW: + low cost of implementation
<sandro> ChrisW: + Extensibility
<sandro> ChrisW: what about Interoperability?
<sandro> csma: That's interop between rules
<sandro> FrankMcCabe: link between XML and extensibility is pretty weal
<sandro> sandro: I don't know if it's weak yet -- I don't know how we're doing extensibility
<DaveReynolds> -1 on XML having strong support for the extesibility CSF
<sandro> csma: I think XML is a CSF itself -- it makes RIF *mentally* easier to adopt
<GaryHallmark> xml syntax supports low cost implementation because you can reuse standard language tools
<sandro> FrankMcCabe: That is -- "low cost of adoption"
<sandro> csma: Implementation is one part of adoption
<sandro> sandro: low cost of software development (adoption by vendors); low cost of deployment (adoption by end-users).
<sandro> FrankMcCabe: you could interpret "implementation" more generally
<ChrisW> ACTION: Frank to draft solution to Issue # [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/05-rif-minutes.html#action02]
<rifbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Frank
<ChrisW> ACTION: Francis to draft solution to Issue 3 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/05-rif-minutes.html#action03]
<rifbot> Created ACTION-99 - Draft solution to Issue 3 [on Francis McCabe - due 2006-09-12].
<sandro> ChrisW: How about Frank looks at all the issues around linking Reqs o Goals and CSFS, issue 3, 4, 13
<ChrisW> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Document_issues?highlight=%28ucr%29%7C%28issues%29
<sandro> ammend action 99 to cover issues 4 and 13 as well
<ChrisW> ACTION: Allen to deal with ISSUE-5 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/05-rif-minutes.html#action04]
<sandro> rifbot not happy about the database being offline either.
<ChrisW> NOTE that rifbot stopped before ACTION 4
<Allen> I'm scribing again
<PaulaP> Axel sent regrets
<Allen> Action review for RIFRAF
<Allen> Hassan's Action?
<Allen> Hassan and Christian will talk
<Allen> continued
<Allen> Alex and Axel not here
<Allen> End of action review
<Allen> Issues
<Allen> Taxonomy/ontology tools for building RIFRAF artifacts?
<Hassan> Great idea - but we need to agree on terms
<Allen> Should we use OWL?
<FrankMcCabe> we should use RIF
<Allen> Or RDF/RDFS
<Allen> Frank: excellant idea.
<Allen> Hassan +1
<Allen> Hassan: but does OWL have expressiveness?
<Allen> Sandro: seems like it could be good enough
<Allen> Hassan: agrees, but does everyone else agree?
<Allen> Chris: even if something in RIFRAF is beyond OWL, doesn't mean it doesn't go in RIFRAF
<Zakim> csma, you wanted to ask about the link between UC and reqs
<Allen> Dave: what does owl encoding buy us?
<FrankMcCabe> OWL would enhance precision
<Allen> Dave: if it is only for people why do it?
<Allen> Chris: will need to include text annotation. Problem is we are beyond capabilities of questionaire tech is doing this.
<Allen> Dave: this is less work than fixing questionaire?
<Allen> Sandro: looks like it is
<Allen> Christian: encoding in owl buys us help in extracting the meaning of the terms
<Allen> Dave: need to analysis questionaire data
<Allen> Hassan: don't think it will be that much work and will be a time saver....Questionaire is losing forest for trees.
<Allen> Hassan: would like to discuss specifications with sandro
<Allen> Chris: might want to ask Axel as well... contunue to pursue this idea
<sandro> general sense: let's go ahead
<Allen> Move on to Technical Design
<Allen> Action Review
<Allen> Peter's action done
<Allen> Any discussion on Peter's versus pre-existing wiki?
<Allen> Christian: if we remove negation aren't they the same?
<Allen> Chris and Harold agree with that
<Allen> Christian: could be used for first draft of technical design
<Allen> Michael: semantics doesn't make sense for naf
<Allen> csma: didn't understand M's email
<Allen> Michael: agreed, but this was clarified in 2nd email.
<Allen> Michael: naf changes what is an intended models
<Allen> Michael: naf makes a global difference
<Harold> We could start with http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/A.1_Basis%3A_Positive_Conditions and extend those to Horn rules in Phase 1.
<Allen> Csma: for phase 1 it makes no difference...
<Allen> Michael: phase 2 naf would require more but compatible with earlier
<Allen> csma: do phase 1 w/o negation
<Allen> JeffP: what about individual vs data values for variables in P's proposal
<Allen> Chris: michael's proposal was different from P's in that way
<Allen> Michael: also need to divide predicates along those lines too then
<Allen> Chris: does M's semantics include that (possibly)
<Allen> M: yes
<Allen> but it was a general framework not a semantics per s
<Allen> Chris: is breaking the universe up this way required for phase 1
<Allen> Harold: for many purposes not necessary, but not a major problem if we need to do it later
<DaveReynolds> +1 to starting with union, RDF would want to bind variables to both kinds
<Allen> could add these separate domains into later refinements
<Allen> Harold: it should not contain this
<Allen> core is union; extensions could be refinements
<Hassan> My phone is dead ... I'call
<Allen> JeffP: these issues can be related in some way, might want to think more carefully
<Hassan> I'm back - sorry!
<Allen> design choices could impact the way we extend to negation
<Allen> Michael: not related. data types uses sorts. negation proceeds same with or without sorts
<Allen> Hassan: agree with M.
<Allen> Chris: question is do we need it in the core?
<Allen> Hassan: this semantics is agnostic to the universe of discourse
<Harold> We could have a uniform 'universe' of constants initially, then split into "i" and "d" constants, then split "d" according to XML Part 2 (Datatypes). Maybe we don't want new kinds of variables for all of these refinements of constants, instead permit certain kinds of 'generic' variables (for some of these distinctions).
<Allen> Chris: only one has been proposed so far and that one makes the distinction. Can we simply that?
<Allen> Hassan: it is silly to have that.
<Allen> Chris: not silly. should it be in core or in extension.
<Allen> JeffP: another way is to distinguish predicates.
<Allen> eg, if you have builtin than its variables have type info
<Allen> Frank: puzzled by peter's intention.
<Allen> Michael: typing variables is problematic. Don't make the distinction in the core.
<Allen> csma: support that. first version should be simple. reaction to core will tell us what to do
<Harold> I agree with Chris and Michael and Christian: Easier not make distinction in first core.
<Allen> Chris: next step - put peter's work in wiki page and connect it to technical design
<Allen> but delete negation and revise interpretation to get rid of distinction
<Allen> Michael: start new wiki page with original?
<Allen> Chris: no.
<Allen> Harold: can help
<Allen> Harold: can M's proposal be the starting point (made compatible with peter's)
<ChrisW> ACTION: harold to start new wiki page on the core language to include Peter's proposal modulo changes we discussed [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/09/05-rif-minutes.html#action05]
<csma> +1
<JeffP> +1
<PaulaP> bye
<Allen> Chris: adjorn
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.127 of Date: 2005/08/16 15:12:03 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found ScribeNick: Allen_Ginsberg WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <Allen_Ginsberg> ... Inferring Scribes: Allen_Ginsberg WARNING: 0 scribe lines found (out of 315 total lines.) Are you sure you specified a correct ScribeNick? WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: Allen Allen_Ginsberg Chris ChrisW Christian Csma Dave DaveReynolds Dave_Reynolds Donald_Chapin Frank FrankMcCabe GaryHallmark Gary_Hallmark GiorgosStoilos Harold Hassan Hassan_Ait-Kaci IBM IPcaller IVML JeffP JosDeRoo Jos_De_Roo Jos_de_Bruijn LeoraMorgenstern MalaMehrotra Mala_Mehrotra MarkusK Michael MichaelKifer Mike_Dean NRCC P29 P41 PaulaP SaidTabet Said_Tabet StellaMitchell aaaa aabb johnhall josb kifer mdean patranja rifbot sandro scribenick was You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Got date from IRC log name: 5 Sep 2006 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2006/09/05-rif-minutes.html People with action items: allen francis frank harold[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]