14:28:46 RRSAgent has joined #rif 14:28:46 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-rif-irc 14:28:53 zakim, this will be rif 14:28:54 ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 32 minutes 14:29:13 Meeting: RIF Telecon 20 Mar 07 14:29:22 Chair: Christian de Sainte-Marie 14:29:42 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Mar/0050.html 14:29:54 ChrisW has changed the topic to: 20 Mar RIF agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Mar/0050.html 14:30:08 zakim, clear agenda 14:30:08 agenda cleared 14:30:14 agenda+ Admin' 14:30:21 agenda+ F2F 14:30:27 agenda+ Liason 14:30:34 agenda+ Technical Design 14:30:40 agenda+ UCR 14:30:47 agenda+ RIFRAF 14:30:51 agenda+ AOB 14:30:59 rrsagent, make minutes 14:30:59 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/03/20-rif-minutes.html ChrisW 14:39:09 rrsagent, make logs public 14:53:58 csma has joined #rif 14:54:11 patranja has joined #rif 14:54:25 Harold has joined #rif 14:54:39 SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started 14:54:45 +??P34 14:54:53 zakim, ??IP34 is me. 14:54:53 sorry, Francois, I do not recognize a party named '??IP34' 14:55:06 zakim, ??P34 is me. 14:55:06 +Francois; got it 14:55:28 zakim, mute me. 14:55:28 sorry, Francois, muting is not permitted when only one person is present 14:56:34 agiurca has joined #rif 14:57:22 IgorMozetic has joined #rif 14:57:31 +[TU-Cottbus] 14:57:51 zakim, TU-Cottbus is me 14:57:51 +agiurca; got it 14:57:52 zakim, mute me. 14:57:52 Francois should now be muted 14:57:56 +[NRCC] 14:58:00 zakim, mute me 14:58:00 agiurca should now be muted 14:58:08 zakim, [NRCC] is me 14:58:08 +Harold; got it 14:58:13 Hassan has joined #rif 14:59:23 +Hassan_Ait-Kaci 14:59:53 +[IPcaller] 14:59:58 MoZ has joined #rif 15:00:05 zakim, [IPcaller] is me 15:00:05 +IgorMozetic; got it 15:00:06 +[IBM] 15:00:11 zakim, mute me 15:00:13 IgorMozetic should now be muted 15:00:16 what's the beeping? 15:00:21 zakim, [ibm] is temporarily me 15:00:21 +ChrisW; got it 15:00:25 zakim, who is talking? 15:00:27 DaveReynolds has joined #rif 15:00:36 ChrisW, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Harold (45%) 15:00:42 zakim, mute harold 15:00:42 LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif 15:00:46 Harold should now be muted 15:00:50 +Sandro 15:01:02 +??P46 15:01:09 +??P22 15:01:10 -??P22 15:01:11 zakim, ??P46 is me 15:01:11 +csma; got it 15:01:13 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:01:15 On the phone I see Francois (muted), agiurca (muted), Harold (muted), Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), IgorMozetic (muted), ChrisW, Sandro, csma 15:01:20 StellaMitchell has joined #rif 15:01:37 +Deborah_Nichols 15:01:42 +??P18 15:01:43 +Dave_Reynolds (was ??P18) 15:01:46 zakim, unmute me 15:01:46 Harold should no longer be muted 15:01:50 josb has joined #rif 15:02:05 Francois, can you scribe today? 15:02:07 +[IBM] 15:02:10 +josb 15:02:18 zakim, mute me 15:02:19 -Deborah_Nichols 15:02:20 Harold should now be muted 15:02:24 + +49.892.180.aaaa 15:02:25 zakim, who is talking? 15:02:31 zakim, [ibm] is temporarily me 15:02:33 +StellaMitchell; got it 15:02:33 OK, will call again. 15:02:35 sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [IBM] (4%), ChrisW (55%), csma (36%) 15:02:40 zakim, please unmute me. 15:02:43 -Harold 15:02:44 Francois should no longer be muted 15:03:19 +[NRCC] 15:03:29 zakim, [NRCC] is me 15:03:29 +Harold; got it 15:03:41 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:03:41 On the phone I see Francois, agiurca (muted), Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), IgorMozetic (muted), ChrisW, Sandro, csma, Dave_Reynolds, StellaMitchell (muted), josb (muted), PaulaP 15:03:44 ... (muted), Harold 15:04:11 Scribe: Francois Bry 15:04:19 scribenick: francois 15:04:39 Christian: Review actions. No admin action? 15:05:04 Christian: Approve minutes of last week telecon. Objections? 15:05:12 +Leora_Morgenstern 15:05:20 Christian: No objections. Minutes approved. 15:05:38 RESOLUTION: Accept minutes of 3/13 telecon 15:05:50 .. of March 13 telecon. Minutes of F2F 5 approved? Objections? 15:06:07 RESOLUTION: Approved F2F5 minutes 15:06:08 +Mike_Dean 15:06:10 Christian: Minutes of F2F 5 approved. 15:06:23 Christian: Amendments to the agenda? None. 15:06:38 +[IPcaller] 15:06:47 pfps has joined #rif 15:06:49 mdean has joined #rif 15:06:51 -Harold 15:06:55 +Gary_Hallmark 15:07:07 zakim, [IPcaller] is me 15:07:07 +Harold; got it 15:07:20 +??P49 15:07:35 zakim, ??P49 is me 15:07:35 +pfps; got it 15:07:38 Christian: First topic F2F 6. Looking at answer to questionnaire. Only one day where all can attend June 2nd-3rd (ie week end) in Innsbruck. 15:07:49 Christian: comments? None. 15:08:36 I moved from my landline to Skype (and it worked right away). 15:08:53 PhilippeB has joined #rif 15:08:55 ACTION: josb to confirm availability of F2F meeting facilities in Innsbruck 15:08:55 Sorry, couldn't find user - josb 15:08:58 Chris: Action on josb to confirm availqability of facility F2F 6 on june 2-3 in Innbruck. 15:09:11 ACTION: jos_de to confirm availability of F2F meeting facilities in Innsbruck 15:09:11 Sorry, couldn't find user - jos_de 15:09:48 ACTION: jdebruij to confirm availability of F2F meeting facilities in Innsbruck 15:09:53 Created ACTION-267 - Confirm availability of F2F meeting facilities in Innsbruck [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2007-03-27]. 15:09:55 +??P63 15:09:58 +Philippe_Bonnard (was ??P63) 15:10:01 Zakim, mute me 15:10:01 Philippe_Bonnard should now be muted 15:10:03 Christian: Who offers to host F2F 7 late Aug to early Sept. Preferences Sept in North America. 15:10:43 Christian: No deadline for offers yet but F2F 7 should be finalize before F2F 6 (June 2-3). 15:10:45 s/Sept./Oct./ 15:11:17 Chris: Plenary will be fist week of November. Does not fit well with RIF F2F. 15:11:35 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/08/10-bigcal.html W3C Tech Plenary 2007 (Member Only, sorry) 15:12:01 Christian: Next topic Liaisons. 15:12:09 MichaelKifer has joined #rif 15:12:31 Christian: Reports on liaisons? None. 15:12:58 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:12:58 On the phone I see Francois, agiurca (muted), Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), IgorMozetic (muted), ChrisW, Sandro, csma, Dave_Reynolds, StellaMitchell (muted), josb (muted), PaulaP 15:13:01 ... (muted), Leora_Morgenstern, Mike_Dean, Harold, Gary_Hallmark, pfps, Philippe_Bonnard (muted) 15:13:25 Christian: Related to liaison. The WISMO WG have an example of proof-of-concept interchange of rules. 15:13:47 Christian: Does someone want to translate their rules in RIF? 15:13:59 Harold: I might be interested in doing it. 15:14:42 +Michael_Kifer 15:14:48 Christian: I'll ask for getting this example and putting it on the RIF Wiki. 15:14:53 zakim, mute me 15:14:53 Michael_Kifer should now be muted 15:15:06 s/WISMO/MISMO 15:15:10 ACTION: Christian to check with MISMO that their proof of concept example can be published to RIF 15:15:11 Created ACTION-268 - Check with MISMO that their proof of concept example can be published to RIF [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2007-03-27]. 15:15:13 s/WISMO/MISMO/ 15:15:25 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/urw3/ 15:15:42 Christian: MISMO: Mortgage Industry Standard ... 15:16:18 Chris: New Incubator activity ask RIF to look at what they are doing on incertainty reasoning. 15:16:24 -Gary_Hallmark 15:16:39 Christian: JeffPan and Iorgos should be interested. 15:16:45 both of them are there 15:17:03 s/Iogos/Gorgos/ 15:17:17 zakim, take up item 3 15:17:17 agendum 3. "Liason" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:17:18 s/Iorogos/Gorgos/ 15:17:56 zakim, take up item 4 15:17:56 agendum 4. "Technical Design" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:18:04 Christian: More on liaison? No. Move to next topic technical design. 15:18:13 s/Gorgos/Giorgos/ 15:19:20 Christian: actions have been worked out or are continued. 15:19:46 Christian: The frozen version for RIF core has been published on Friday. 15:20:18 Christian: We decided we cannot stop it any longer. Can be rfev iewd up till the end of the week. We'll vote on it next Tuesday. 15:20:37 s/rfev iewd/reviewed/ 15:20:57 Christian: Two reactions, one from Dave. Comments? 15:21:59 Dave: Small editorial things. Two issues: syntax of sorts and examples all in the non-sorted syntax. 15:22:22 Dave: I suggest to explain that in a caveat. 15:22:31 zakim, unmute me 15:22:31 Michael_Kifer should no longer be muted 15:22:41 +Gary_Hallmark 15:22:42 Christian: This has already been decided. 15:22:42 -Gary_Hallmark 15:23:07 Michael: there was a proposal to start with sorts but leaving examples without sorts for not delaying. 15:23:08 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:23:08 On the phone I see Francois, agiurca (muted), Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), IgorMozetic (muted), ChrisW, Sandro, csma, Dave_Reynolds, StellaMitchell (muted), josb (muted), PaulaP 15:23:11 ... (muted), Leora_Morgenstern, Mike_Dean, Harold, pfps, Philippe_Bonnard (muted), Michael_Kifer 15:23:29 Michael: Regarding syntax of sorts. This has not been discussed at the F2F. 15:23:31 +Gary_Hallmark 15:23:36 zakim, mute me 15:23:36 Michael_Kifer should now be muted 15:23:51 Dave's caveat wording for his i1) is fine with me. 15:24:02 Christian: Dave's is proposal to add a caveat about the Unsorted examples. 15:24:09 zakim, unmute me 15:24:09 Michael_Kifer should no longer be muted 15:24:14 Christian: Objections to doing this? 15:24:46 Michael: Maybe should we say something in the sorted part that future version will give examples with sorts. 15:24:55 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 15:25:22 Dave: My proposal is to add something before Example 3. 15:25:44 Christian: Or after introduction of miltisorted logic. 15:25:59 Chris: Close to an example is preferable. 15:26:19 The examples of BNF and XML rule syntax given here use the unsorted version of the condition syntax and fail to illustrate the use of URIs for constants. This will be addressed in a future working draft. 15:26:22 Christian: Objections to adding Dave's caveat before Example 3? 15:26:51 RESOLVED: Add " "The examples of BNF and XML rule syntax given here use the unsorted 15:26:51 version of the condition syntax and fail to illustrate the use of URIs 15:26:51 for constants. This will be addressed in a future working draft." 15:26:58 to the CORE WD 15:27:04 Christian: No objections? None. Issue resolved, caveat will be added. 15:27:23 Chris: Harold and Michael, do you take the action? 15:27:36 Harold: I take it. 15:27:53 Michael: We could easily add sorts in Example 3. 15:28:24 Christian: This could convey a wrong message on how sorts are to be. 15:28:37 Michael: But we already decided on this. 15:28:49 ACTION: Harold to add DaveR's caveat text to CORE 15:28:49 Created ACTION-269 - Add DaveR\'s caveat text to CORE [on Harold Boley - due 2007-03-27]. 15:28:55 Chris: Let us keep the example as it is for now. 15:29:06 Chris: let us have this caveat added. 15:29:42 Christian: Regarding Dave's second comment (syntax for primitive sort). What do we do? 15:30:04 q? 15:30:11 the usual way is to keep concepts which are already known 15:30:27 Francois: Dave"s syntax proposal is standard and rather nice. Why not take it? 15:31:19 Dave: It seems to be a small syntactic thing. Benefice would be to have it look like in other SW languages. 15:31:50 q? 15:31:58 q+ 15:32:40 Michael: You mean N3 syntax? 15:33:02 ack hassan 15:33:14 Hassan: I agree with Francois. This might conflict with namespaces. 15:33:21 zakim, who is talking? 15:33:31 Hassan: The notation in the WD is contrive and ugly. 15:33:32 csma, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Michael_Kifer (100%), Sandro (9%), Francois (4%), Harold (50%) 15:33:59 zakim, mute harold 15:33:59 Harold should now be muted 15:34:22 Dave: in N3 there are quotes. Integer unquoted is like ???? 15:34:38 Harold, we were getting noise that sounded like something touching the microphone, like fabric, or maybe wind. 15:34:48 Michael: If there is consensus to change this syntax, I'll change it. 15:35:07 s/????/in our draft, a shortcut. 15:35:14 Sandro, there was a test alarm for our server room. 15:35:29 Hassan: I'll prefer the simpler and most naturakl and most known. value column sort or something like that. 15:35:32 Very considerate of them, Harold. :-) 15:36:06 because it is standard! 15:36:12 Why we don't use the textual syntax as for example "lexicalValue"^^"sort" 15:36:20 +1 josb 15:37:05 q? 15:37:43 Chris: Only two choices: keeping how it is now or choose the notation of another formalism. 15:37:48 The single-hat was used for something else in N3. 15:37:59 Christian: SEcond choise is "lexicalValue"^^"sort" for WD 1. 15:38:05 No but ... 15:38:07 s/choise/choice/ 15:38:16 zakim, unmute me 15:38:16 Harold should no longer be muted 15:38:30 (The single-hat was used for the same thing "." and "->" are commonly used for in other languages.) 15:38:45 Hassan: There are no rweason for _. It does not kae it easier to parse. 15:39:02 I don't know why "sort" be in quotes? 15:39:09 s/rweason/reasons 15:39:11 Christian: Desion is between _sort"value" or "lexicalValue"^^"sort". 15:39:28 Christian: No objections against "lexicalValue"^^"sort". 15:39:32 s/Desion/Decision 15:39:46 Hassan: One character should be enough ^ not ^^. 15:40:14 Great! Ubu roi... 15:40:18 Chris: Like in RDF or like in the current draft. No other choice. 15:40:51 Christian: It is _sort"value" or "lexicalValue"^^"sort". Objections against "lexicalValue"^^"sort". 15:40:52 +1 for ^^ 15:41:07 +1 for ^^ 15:41:23 Christian: No objections. "lexicalValue"^^"sort" chosen. Who implement the modification in WD Core? 15:41:50 s/implement/implements 15:42:00 Michael: How is the syntax exactly? "lexicalValue"^^"sort" or "lexicalValue"^^sort ? 15:42:16 I take the action. 15:42:26 Chris: "lexicalValue"^^sort? 15:42:42 ichael: What should be the syntax for variables? 15:42:53 s/ichael/Michael 15:43:05 Variables should be "lexicalValue"^^?Varname I think. 15:43:06 In XML syntax variables may be something like xs:NCName 15:43:19 Christian: Action on Harold for changing syntax of sort annotations. 15:43:30 N3 does not have sorted variables 15:43:48 ?Varname^^sort 15:43:57 I meant the latter. 15:44:04 Dave: I porose the N3 syntax for values not for variables. 15:44:15 s/porose/propose 15:44:19 Dave: My suggestiuon was to align on something already published. 15:44:30 s/suggestiuon/sugestion 15:44:37 Chrisitan: Harold's proposal ?varname^%^ sort. 15:44:41 So we have ?Varname^^sort for sorted variables and "lexicalValue"^^sort for sorted literals. 15:44:45 Michael: this is reasonable to me. 15:45:02 s/Chrisitan/Cristian 15:45:15 Chris: replace _sortWHATEVER by WHATEVER^^sort. 15:45:15 s/Cristian/Christian 15:45:16 ACTION: Harold to change _sort syntax to ^^sort syntax 15:45:17 Created ACTION-270 - Change _sort syntax to ^^sort syntax [on Harold Boley - due 2007-03-27]. 15:45:33 Christian: action on Harold implementing this change. 15:45:36 rofl 15:46:01 Christian: An orther srt of comments by Francois. 15:46:12 scribenick: sandro 15:46:35 Francois: It was systematic issues in the text, most of which have been resolved. 15:46:49 ... Not happy with "I", the interpretation function. 15:47:11 ... the subscript, "e" constant, "e" function, etc. 15:47:19 ... these are stylistic details. 15:47:24 ... in the Semantics section 15:48:08 MichaelKifer: There is a function, I_truth .... Francois wants to call it I_formula. This is truth evaluation, in every text book 15:48:17 Francois: I don't really agree, but it's okay. 15:48:45 Francois: It makes the text harder to understand, but it's not impossible to understand. 15:49:09 CSMA: Stylistic questions like this, we'll have to deal with before the final draft, but let's keep it like this for now. 15:49:13 Francois: Okay 15:49:27 scribenick: Francois 15:50:07 Christian: WE'll vote on next Tuesday. Mention objections or issues before. I expect the document to be accepted. 15:50:20 SAndro: will the WD1 be published soon after the vote? 15:50:30 s/WE/We 15:50:37 s/SAndro/Sandro 15:50:43 Christian: If we vote to publish the text, there should only be minor changes. 15:50:49 zakim, mute me 15:50:49 Michael_Kifer should now be muted 15:51:09 Sandro: Formating and the like will be needed. One day work or so. 15:51:24 s/One day work or so/A few days work/ 15:51:31 Chrisitian: Then we'll have 2 months for producing a much better WD2. 15:51:54 Chrisitan: Let us more to the next topic is issue 30, the RIF URI. 15:52:01 s/Chrisitian/Christian 15:52:15 s/Chrisitan/Christian 15:52:35 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/30 15:52:41 Chris: There has been discussions on this at the last F2F. rif:uri has not been defined. Hence the issue recorded. 15:52:59 Chris: We were pretty close to an understanding at F2F, I think. 15:53:20 Christian: Can someone summarize the positions on rif:uri? Jos? 15:53:27 ack jos 15:53:37 Christian: josb are you there? 15:54:52 q+ 15:55:01 josb: THe discussion was to clarify what is meant by URIs. It seems that a URI in RIF is the same as the XML schema data type anyUri. This is not the case. WE do not want URI be interpretaed as themselves but instead as individual in some particular domain. 15:55:12 s/THe/The 15:55:21 s/WE/We 15:55:24 josb: we have to characterize the syntactical class of uri. 15:55:28 zakim, unmute me 15:55:28 Michael_Kifer should no longer be muted 15:55:33 ack michael 15:56:16 Michael: I changed the document. URI can now denote resources on the web. It is not clear whether we need anyUri at all. 15:57:23 Michael: the mention is in section multisorted syntax at the end. 15:57:33 Christian: josb what decision do you suggest? 15:57:47 josb: I do n ot understand why we need a sort for URIS. 15:58:16 Michael: Do you mean it should be called "resource" instead of "uri"? 15:58:51 josb: we should have constants interpreted in the usual abstract domain. A sort "resource" might be closer to what we actually want. 15:58:52 Harold - I found three instances of "sortal" in the frozen draft 15:58:54 Michael 15:59:08 : syntactic control is need. 15:59:09 hsould be changed to "sort" 15:59:30 +q 15:59:35 +q 15:59:39 +q 15:59:40 In http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/Positive_Conditions, "Syntax for Primitive Sorts" it says: rif:uri. Constants of this sort have the form _rif:uri"XYZ" where XYZ is a URI as specified in RFC 3986. 15:59:46 zakim, mute me 15:59:46 Harold should now be muted 15:59:52 q? 16:00:12 ack Francois 16:01:28 q+ 16:01:58 Francois: There are two ways. Uris interpreted as "resources" or interpreted freely by any individual in the daom ain. 16:02:08 ack hassan 16:02:10 s/daom ain/domain/ 16:02:42 Hassan: If you assign a sort to Uris, since uris are used for defining sorts, ehat is the sort of a sort? 16:02:51 Christian: Solution? 16:03:37 assan: Uris should denote only resources. They are syntactic object. Uri have a particular syntactic form. Then have to be giben a denotation. 16:03:45 s/giben/given/ 16:03:47 s/assan/Hassan 16:04:30 q? 16:04:35 Hassan: If it is a syntactic object, it cxan only have a meta-sort. 16:04:42 s/cxan/can/ 16:05:28 zakim, mute me 16:05:28 Leora_Morgenstern should now be muted 16:05:30 Michael: Sorts are not constant in the domain. 16:05:38 +q 16:05:40 +q 16:05:42 +q 16:06:03 Chris: What would belong to the sort Uri? 16:06:10 Jos, at F2F5 we discussed the issue that several syntactic URIs can denote the same individual in the domain. RFC 3986 introduces a normalization algorithm, but I have not yet seen a formal equality theory for URIs (URI forwarding is hard to deal with). 16:06:31 q+ 16:06:35 Christian: Can you give an example where we need a constant of sort URI? 16:07:00 q- 16:07:07 Michael: predicvate name refer to an object on the web and we use a uri to retrieve it. 16:07:25 s/predicvate/predicate 16:07:26 +q 16:07:29 +q 16:07:53 q+ 16:07:55 ack franc 16:08:38 q+ 16:12:21 These are signatures, not sorts! 16:12:44 Michael: URIs should be used for identifying names of predicates. 16:12:47 ack josb 16:13:01 Christian: Part of the probelm seems to be we do not know what uri are to be used for. 16:13:24 josb: interesting thing is that URI have a semantical domain associted with this sort. 16:13:55 josb: uri for identifying names of predicate has nothing to do with sorts. 16:14:13 Michael: two issues: syntax of uri and domain for their interpretation. 16:14:31 josb: What is the point in having this sort? 16:14:42 ichael: for using uris as names of predicated. 16:14:51 osb: no need of a URI sort for this. 16:15:07 s/ichael/Michael 16:15:18 s/osb/josb 16:15:23 Michael: we need to assign signature to them. this does not seem feasible. 16:15:33 Michael: we need to group them. 16:15:53 Michael: we need machanism to assign signature to constants. 16:16:02 josb: why is sort needed for that. 16:16:11 ichael: what other mechanism is suitable? 16:16:12 s/machanism/a mechanism 16:16:15 s/ichael/Michael 16:16:22 josb: think of any other kid of mechanism. 16:16:25 q+ 16:16:30 s/kid/kind 16:16:41 Christian: can you propsoe such a mechanism? 16:16:52