15:07:16 RRSAgent has joined #rif 15:07:16 logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/11/14-rif-irc 15:07:25 Meeting: RIF Telecon 14 Nov 06 15:07:25 Chair: Christian de Sainte-Marie 15:07:25 Agenda:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Nov/0052.html 15:07:43 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Nov/0052.html 15:07:57 Zakim, read agenda from http://www.w3.org/2006/10/17-rif-agenda.rdf 15:07:58 working on it, ChrisW 15:07:58 agenda+ Admin' [ChrisW] 15:07:59 agendum 1 added 15:08:00 agenda+ F2F [ChrisW] 15:08:01 agendum 2 added 15:08:02 agenda+ Liason [ChrisW] 15:08:03 agendum 3 added 15:08:04 agenda+ Technical Design [ChrisW] 15:08:06 agendum 4 added 15:08:08 agenda+ RIF-RAF [ChrisW] 15:08:09 agendum 5 added 15:08:11 agenda+ UCR [ChrisW] 15:08:13 agendum 6 added 15:08:15 agenda+ AOB [ChrisW] 15:08:18 agendum 7 added 15:08:19 done reading agenda, ChrisW 15:43:15 Francois has joined #rif 15:54:30 patranja has joined #rif 15:55:06 zakim, this will be rif 15:55:06 ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 5 minutes 15:55:53 fgm has joined #rif 15:56:16 csma has joined #rif 15:57:25 Who is FGM? 15:57:43 DaveReynolds has joined #rif 15:57:57 SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started 15:58:04 +??P20 15:58:08 Francois, can you scribe? 15:58:19 Hassan has joined #rif 15:58:51 +??P27 15:58:55 -??P20 15:58:56 +??P20 15:59:03 +??P29 15:59:06 +Dave_Reynolds (was ??P29) 15:59:11 +[IBM] 15:59:25 zakim, [ibm] is temporarily me 15:59:25 +ChrisW; got it 15:59:33 +??P28 15:59:34 Deborah_Nichols has joined #rif 15:59:43 +Hassan_Ait-Kaci 15:59:54 +Deborah_Nichols 15:59:59 ??P28 is me. 16:00:03 zakim, ??P20 is sandro 16:00:03 +sandro; got it 16:00:21 zakim, mute me. 16:00:23 sorry, Francois, I do not see a party named 'Francois' 16:00:28 LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif 16:00:29 zakim, ??P27 is me 16:00:29 +csma; got it 16:00:43 DavidHirtle has joined #rif 16:00:45 Harold has joined #rif 16:00:46 zakim, ??P28 is me. 16:00:46 +Francois; got it 16:01:18 +[IPcaller] 16:01:33 Scribe: Francois Bry 16:01:33 ScribeNick: Francois 16:01:43 +Jos_de_Bruijn 16:01:44 +[NRCC] 16:01:46 josb has joined #rif 16:01:58 zakim, [NRCC] is me 16:01:58 +Harold; got it 16:02:04 +LeoraMorgenstern 16:02:26 +[LMU] 16:02:35 cgi-irc has joined #rif 16:03:01 zakim, who is on the phone? 16:03:01 On the phone I see sandro, csma, Dave_Reynolds, ChrisW, Francois, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), Deborah_Nichols (muted), DavidHirtle, josb (muted), Harold, LeoraMorgenstern (muted), 16:03:04 ... PaulaP (muted) 16:03:35 StellaMitchell has joined #rif 16:04:41 +[IBM] 16:04:46 zakim, [ibm] is temporarily me 16:04:46 +StellaMitchell; got it 16:05:07 Christian: Next meeting is next week. 16:05:12 zakim, next item 16:05:12 agendum 1. "Admin'" taken up [from ChrisW] 16:06:04 Christian: actions 164 done, 165, 171 also done. 16:06:06 action-165 and action 171 continued 16:06:09 +[IPcaller] 16:06:24 PROPOSED: Approve 24/10 telecon minutes 16:06:24 [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Nov/att-0002/meeting-2006-10-24.html] 16:06:28 Christian: minutes of Oct. 24 accepted. 16:06:36 RESOLVE: accept Oct 24 minutes 16:06:42 RESOLVED: accept Oct 24 minutes 16:06:49 Christian: minutes of Oct. 31 approved. 16:06:50 PROPOSED: Approve 31/10 telecon minutes 16:06:50 [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Oct/att-0126/rif-minutes-31-Oct-2006.html] 16:07:02 RESOLVED: accept Oct 31 minutes 16:07:11 Christian: Amendments to the agenda? None. 16:07:12 zakim, next item 16:07:12 agendum 2. "F2F" taken up [from ChrisW] 16:07:35 Christian: move to item F2F meetings. 16:08:22 Christian: F2F 5 will not be already in Jan. 16:08:40 Sandro: Still no answer on room at MIT for F2F 5. 16:09:25 ACTION-121 continued (reworded) 16:09:33 ACTION-122 continued 16:10:25 Deborah: I have no material from Allen on room available for F2F 5. 16:10:46 Christian: Allen told me he booked a room for 3 days. 16:11:00 Deborah: no additional room available. 16:11:10 Sandro: Which dates. 16:11:22 Chris: 26, 27, 28 Feb 2007. 16:11:38 Christian: either 3 days or 2 days. 16:11:40 Possible dates for next f2f: McLean, VA. Feb 26-28 16:12:05 Christian: let us decide on dates for F2F 5 asap. 16:12:21 Christian: Are there other proposals? 16:12:30 +Gary_Hallmark 16:12:48 Chris: Let us give up till 21 Nov for further proposals. 16:13:16 Christian: Decision on place for F2F 5 in 2 weeks from now. 16:13:16 agiurca has joined #rif 16:13:24 zakim, who is talking? 16:13:34 ChrisW, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: sandro (54%), csma (10%), Francois (9%) 16:13:34 Christian: Registration forms should be ready next week. 16:13:55 Sandro: Feedback desirable on whether people like dates for F2F. 16:14:05 hrisitan: already discussed at last F2F. 16:14:16 action: christian to send email about f2f5 process 16:14:16 Created ACTION-183 - Send email about f2f5 process [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2006-11-21]. 16:14:23 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 16:14:26 JosD has joined #rif 16:14:28 s/hrisitan/Christian/ 16:14:36 +agiurca 16:15:04 GiorgosStoilos has joined #rif 16:15:25 Chris: At last F2F people did not wanted to have F2F in Jan but in Feb, there has been only one proposal for location, as malready mentioned. 16:15:39 zakim, next item 16:15:39 agendum 3. "Liason" taken up [from ChrisW] 16:15:45 Christian: move to item liaison. 16:16:02 +Giorgos_Stamou 16:16:03 agiurca zakim, mute me 16:16:03 Christian: any reports from liaison? 16:16:21 Christian: we should change liaisons because of rare attendance. 16:16:22 PRR: submission deferred to next year 16:16:24 zakim, Giorgos_Stamou is me 16:16:24 +GiorgosStoilos; got it 16:16:46 Chris: let us defer decision on XQuery liaison. 16:17:17 Christian: Final draft differed to 3 months from now. 16:17:53 Sandro: current state of RIF being able to see what PRR is doing? 16:18:03 Chris: we got permission from OMG. 16:18:16 Chris: ... to see draft. 16:18:24 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/FrontPage?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=PRR-draft-010606.pdf 16:18:26 Christian: it is on a wiki. 16:19:12 zakim, what is the code? 16:19:12 the conference code is 74394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200), fgm 16:19:29 zakim, next item 16:19:29 agendum 4. "Technical Design" taken up [from ChrisW] 16:19:41 Christian: move to item technical design. 16:19:47 +[IPcaller] 16:19:52 zakim, ipcaller is me 16:19:52 +fgm; got it 16:20:04 zakim, I am frankMcCabe 16:20:04 sorry, fgm, I do not see a party named 'frankMcCabe' 16:20:19 Christian: On the F2F wiki Chris copied reszolutions taken at last F2F. 16:20:35 Christian: we also have a large number of actions. 16:20:49 continued 16:20:54 zakim, mute me 16:20:54 agiurca should now be muted 16:20:55 Chrisitan: action on Hassan to produce an implementation of RIF. 16:21:09 s/Chrisitan/Christian/ 16:21:23 continued 16:21:34 Christian: Hassan's action continued. 16:21:36 action 142 continued 16:21:50 Christian: Laura rule example for UC 6? 16:22:08 Laura: action continued. 16:22:15 action 159 continued 16:22:19 continued 16:22:25 Christian: action on Paula examples for UC 2? continued. 16:22:34 action 160 continued 16:22:35 UC1 continued 16:22:39 Christian: actions on Paul examples for UC 1? continued. 16:22:41 action 152 continued 16:22:51 action 153 continued 16:22:56 Christian: action on Allen examples for UC 3: continued. 16:22:57 action 154 continued 16:23:02 action 154 completed 16:23:03 he have them 16:23:05 Christian: action 154 done. 16:23:20 we have them. We will put them into wiki 16:23:24 action 156 completed 16:23:25 Christian: action on Sandro examples on UC 5? continued. 16:23:41 Sandro: does someone to take it over? 16:23:46 http://oxygen.informatik.tu-cottbus.de/rewerse-i1/?q=node/22 16:23:54 action 156 continued 16:24:05 action 157 continued 16:24:06 Christian: action 157 on Gary examples for UC 9: continued. 16:24:06 http://oxygen.informatik.tu-cottbus.de/rewerse-i1/?q=node/24 16:24:26 Christian: action on Axel; examples for UC 10? Axel not here. 16:24:58 Chris: Axel's action is done. 16:24:59 action 158 completed 16:25:33 Christian: actions on Harold to work with Hassan to reconcile proposals: done. 16:25:40 action 163 completed 16:26:04 Christian: action 166 on Sandro: continued. 16:26:04 action 166 continued 16:26:17 Sandro: more talk about it needed. 16:26:32 q+ 16:26:34 what action is that? 16:27:20 ack me 16:27:20 ack ??P27 16:27:44 Dave: I understand SPARQL group has been speaking about a related issue. 16:28:07 Christian: Dave, have you a reference on this? 16:28:19 Dave: I'll try to find and give it. 16:28:40 Chris: We drop action 166 because it is more an issue than an action. 16:28:54 action 166 dropped 16:29:39 Christian: action 170 on Alex to list and clarify issues raised by extensibility requirements? Alex not here. 16:29:40 action 170 continued 16:29:48 Christian: action 170 continued. 16:30:05 Christian: action 182 on Sandro: continued. 16:30:13 action 182 continued 16:30:28 action 180 continued 16:30:32 Christian: action 180 on Harold? 16:30:45 Harold: firstr verision ready, action continued. 16:30:59 s/verision/version/ 16:31:25 Christian: Item Forward-Compatibility. 16:31:38 ... and asn06. 16:31:55 Chrisitan: Sandro what offer asn06 what EBNF does not offer. 16:32:01 Sandro: role names. 16:32:18 Sandro: relates to rule ontologie. 16:32:22 q+ 16:32:53 Sandro: asn06 more abstract than EBNF. 16:32:54 Sandro, role names can also be given explicitly in the EBNF: they are already in the DTD. 16:33:06 Sandro: asn06 adds meta data. 16:33:11 ack francois 16:33:41 +GerdWagner 16:34:02 GerdWagner has joined #rif 16:34:25 +1 to Francois' comment 16:34:29 Francois: meta data to EBNF fine. Stronger statements dangerous. 16:34:48 Christian: people reading the spec will have to understand the formalism. 16:34:56 zakim, mute me 16:34:56 GerdWagner should now be muted 16:35:24 Harold: EBNF can coexists withg a metalanguage. 16:35:48 Harold: meta language should be spearated from the spec., formalism we use. 16:36:15 q+ 16:36:21 Sandro: other issues: sequencing, ordering terms, role names, concrete syntax. 16:36:24 q+ 16:36:34 q+ 16:36:35 Christian: role name is no problem. 16:36:42 Sandro: I think it is a problem. 16:37:24 Sandro: I could not find any proposal with role names. 16:37:40 Christian: EBNF is well understood and well established. 16:37:54 Sandro, the DTD has and role names and uses "|" for allowing unorderedness 16:37:58 Christian: Harold could propose an extension to EBNF with role names. 16:38:02 q? 16:38:15 ask fgm 16:38:21 ack fgm 16:38:29 Frank (fgm): Sandro you dismissed using UML. Why? 16:38:47 Sandro: because we cannot send it in email or on IRC. 16:39:14 Christian: Would be your only problem with UML? 16:39:24 Sandro: I do not know. 16:39:28 q+ 16:40:12 Frank: UML has additional features thar are usefull. All kinds of things can be done in UML. 16:40:27 ack francoi 16:41:42 ack hassan 16:41:56 Francois: we should not initiate to much work on side issues. 16:42:17 Hassan: All theses notations, UML, asn01, asn 06 often complecated. 16:42:42 q? 16:42:43 Hassan: we need something we can write. Position vs. roles is indeed important. 16:43:01 Hassan: Many other issues are important as well. 16:43:22 Hassan: Defining a API is done at ILOG using CaML. 16:43:46 Hassan: I like Sandro's proposal because it can be mapped to LIFE, to EBNF, etc. 16:43:49 Sandro, basically can be used, where and (cf. http://www.jdrew.org/rif/HornRules.dtd). 16:44:11 Chrisitan: Resistance is againt yet another notation that might make proposal difficult to graps. 16:44:12 GiorgosStoilos has joined #rif 16:44:19 s/graps/grasp/ 16:44:33 Hassan: If it can be mapped, no problems. 16:44:51 May be is better to keep both EBNF and UML for a while 16:45:03 Christian: If we do not want to waste time, can we decide to start with EBNF with annotations? 16:45:07 +1. 16:45:14 q- 16:45:26 zakim, unmute me 16:45:26 GerdWagner should no longer be muted 16:45:45 q+ 16:45:56 q+ to propose a compromise 16:45:59 ack gerd 16:46:33 Gerd: If we start with EBNF, this ok. But we should strive for an EBNF style in the spirit of Sandro's proposal. 16:46:43 Sandro: EBNF is no standard. 16:47:07 Gerd: asn06 is hardly recognizable. 16:47:23 Sandro: there are other issues. 16:47:30 ack me 16:47:30 ChrisW, you wanted to propose a compromise 16:47:46 Sandro: for adding things EBNF prductions mnust be modified. 16:47:46 zakim, mute me 16:47:46 GerdWagner should now be muted 16:48:29 Chris: No need to decide right now. Sandro could continue maintaining asn06, other could gain experience with it. No decision needed at this point. 16:48:53 Christian: This was my proposal. 16:49:11 q+ 16:49:21 zakim, unmute me 16:49:21 GerdWagner should no longer be muted 16:49:51 ack gerd 16:49:56 Hassan: If Sandro can make it more explicit? 16:50:51 Sandro: I would like to understand the various issues expressed by Francois and Gerd. 16:51:08 Chrisitan: Michael also has provisos. 16:51:20 Gerd: We should not duplicate syntaxes. 16:51:21 Michael and Axel also sent comments on the proposal 16:51:52 BTW, finding a better metasyntax (not 'abstract syntax') is relevant for most W3C specs, not only for RIF. 16:52:03 Christian: Let us investigate issues parts of rules, how they are related, etc. relates to extension/extensability. 16:52:13 q? 16:52:48 zakim, mute me 16:52:48 GerdWagner should now be muted 16:52:55 Perhaps a topic of collaboration between W3C and OMG? 16:52:58 Christian: Urgent remakrs on asn06? none. Decision we continue to interchange views on notations and Sandro continues to clarify asn06. Decision on formalism to be used will be taken later. 16:53:39 Christian: Was there anythinhg in asn06 on the content of abstract syntax to be discussed right now? No. 16:54:17 Christian: Second proposal on extensibility. 16:54:39 Sandro: I think the requirement is that RIF should be designed so as to be forward compatible. 16:55:25 q+ 16:55:25 Sandro: Questions are consequences if content (from extensions) ignored. 16:55:51 q+ 16:55:58 ack paul 16:56:03 q+ 16:56:19 Paul: Sanmdro says in his comments "implementation can be forward compatible". 16:56:32 s/Sanmdro/Sandro/ 16:56:48 Paul: we must be prcise on forwardcompatibility. 16:57:16 q+ 16:57:20 Christian: We must required that unknown extensions do not break extensions that do not understand them. 16:57:24 q+ 16:57:32 q+ 16:57:47 Christian: this should apply at least for standard extensions. 16:57:54 Sandro: I think we can say more. 16:58:08 ack franco 17:00:17 +1 17:00:19 Francois: let discuss the issue on concrete cases, not abstractly. 17:00:26 q+ 17:00:28 q- 17:02:30 Sandro: Presentation are things like names of variables. 17:02:35 q+ 17:03:10 Sandro: In case of negation, I mean "if a and not be then c". If you do not understand not, you might get the wrong result. 17:03:40 q+ 17:04:29 "... an extension which affects the semantics, but ignoring it wont 17:04:29 give you any incorrect results -- just fewer results" 17:04:59 This has been studied as 'incompleteness'. 17:05:03 SAndro: all open formats have to proceed this way: ignore what they do not understand and proceed. 17:05:23 in the context of closed world, incomplete == wrong 17:05:24 I agree with Sandro - his scheme makes sense to me 17:06:04 Christian: The point is what an application is expected to do when it encounter smething it does not understand. 17:06:28 ack fgm 17:06:32 "... an extension which affects performance, so you'll get the same 17:06:32 answers/actions, but the performance will be significantly worse 17:06:36 Christian: The point is about telling applications what to do when they do not understand. 17:06:37 " 17:07:00 This could be called 'pragmatics'. 17:07:10 FRank: There are other things that can be done. The choice of behavior in case one does not understand could be specified at the agent level. 17:07:29 Frank: I do not like thinking of systems processinbg rules they do not understand. 17:07:34 q 17:07:52 q? 17:07:59 Sandro: There is a class of users who will proceed if they do not understand, other will stop. 17:08:21 Frank: annotation could be added to ru;les themselves instead of to the language. 17:08:51 s/ru;les/rules/ 17:09:12 Frank: there is an ontology of things you can do (if some contructs are not understood). 17:09:40 Christian: action on Frank to propose extensions to Sandro's proposal. 17:09:43 q+ 17:09:47 q+ 17:09:50 q+ 17:09:51 action: francis to propose extension to Sandro's proposal for extensibility at the level of rules, rulesets 17:09:51 Created ACTION-184 - Propose extension to Sandro\'s proposal for extensibility at the level of rules, rulesets [on Francis McCabe - due 2006-11-21]. 17:09:53 "... an extension which offers syntactic sugar." 17:10:16 Frank: distinction between syntactic sugar, prsentation and semantics is harder than you think. 17:10:32 This is sometimes called 'conservative extension'. 17:10:38 Christian: Can you give example in email? 17:11:07 Frank: people use conventions for variable names. They often are needed for understanding rulers. 17:11:13 s/rulers/rules/ 17:11:26 q? 17:11:28 ack paulv 17:11:30 E.g., if the source language has n-ary lists, but the target language doesn't, but does have complex terms, then the lists can be 'simulated 17:11:54 in the the target language via 'cons' complex terms. 17:12:09 Paul: FRancois seems to think of another kind of upwar compatibility. My concern is updating domains in production rules. 17:12:22 Paul: this is different issue. 17:13:30 Paul: upward compatibilty important in practice. 17:13:47 ack harold 17:13:48 -fgm 17:13:49 Paul: forward compatibilty is a must in commercial world. 17:14:26 zakim, what is the code 17:14:26 I don't understand 'what is the code', fgm 17:14:26 Harold: extensions that affect semantics, fewer results refers to completeness. 17:14:53 Harold: 3 aspects: syntax, semantics and pragmatics. 17:14:53 ack hassan 17:15:03 +[IPcaller] 17:15:07 zakim, ipcaller is me 17:15:07 +fgm; got it 17:15:11 Hassan: I agree with Sandro. There a 3 points. 17:15:22 q? 17:15:46 Hassan: remember inconsistent predicates. In practice, they igonre them ... and it worked. 17:16:07 Hassan: Why not to provide it as an extensibility machanism if it works? 17:16:26 s/completeness/incompleteness/ 17:16:44 Hassan: Another thing. If you have a system that does not understand negation but there is a proof system that can do it. 17:16:58 q? 17:17:15 Hassan: All this is important. Ignore features might make sense. 17:17:28 ack franc 17:17:39 q- 17:17:52 Hassan: delegation to proof mechanisms are meaningful and important. 17:18:56 Christian: I propose to first get an idea of the components of a rule, e.g. ehat harold will propose tommorrow. SEcond, examples of forward compatibility are needed, expressed in Harold's formalism. 17:19:18 Christian: who wolunteers to work ourt such examples for next week? 17:20:24 Hassan: What about Pascal's example at the RuleML 2006? 17:20:50 Christian: action on Hassan to explain Pascal's example? 17:21:02 Hassan: I do not have time. I can send an email to Pascal. 17:21:16 action: hasson to send email to Pascal about his example from RuleML 17:21:16 Sorry, couldn't find user - hasson 17:21:20 Christian: more examples? 17:21:24 action: hassan to send email to Pascal about his example from RuleML 17:21:24 Created ACTION-185 - Send email to Pascal about his example from RuleML [on Hassan Ait-Kaci - due 2006-11-21]. 17:21:48 We already have one fwd compatibility example: the current CORE contains only one kind of constants (we were asked to keep it that simple, eg for Prolog compatibility). The 'bipartitioned' extension splits constants into individuals vs. data. 17:21:55