14:44:44 RRSAgent has joined #rif 14:44:44 logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/09/11-rif-irc 14:45:04 zakim, this will be RIF 14:45:04 ok, csma; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 15 minutes 14:45:33 Meeting: RIF telecon 11 September 2007 14:45:51 Chair: Christian de Sainte Marie 14:47:48 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Sep/0067.html 14:49:53 zakim, list agenda 14:49:53 I see nothing on the agenda 14:50:56 agenda+ Admin 14:51:06 agenda+ liaisons 14:51:47 agenda+ F2F 14:51:57 agenda+ Naming conventions 14:52:40 agenda+ BLD: RDF in BLD 14:53:45 agenda+ Arch: Meta-data 14:53:53 agenda+ AOB 14:54:39 agenda+ Worked out examples: UC9 14:55:21 zakim, agenda order is 1-3, 8, 4-7 14:55:21 ok, csma 14:55:27 zakim, list agenda 14:55:27 I see 8 items remaining on the agenda: 14:55:28 1. Admin [from csma] 14:55:29 2. liaisons [from csma] 14:55:30 3. F2F [from csma] 14:55:32 8. Worked out examples: UC9 [from csma] 14:55:33 4. Naming conventions [from csma] 14:55:34 5. BLD: RDF in BLD [from csma] 14:55:35 6. Arch: Meta-data [from csma] 14:55:36 7. AOB [from csma] 14:58:20 agiurca has joined #rif 14:58:38 patranja has joined #rif 14:59:25 DaveReynolds has joined #rif 14:59:48 Harold has joined #rif 15:00:09 Adrian, will you be able to scribe today? 15:00:14 SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started 15:00:20 +Dave_Reynolds (was Guest P33 74394) 15:00:22 +Dave_Reynolds 15:00:46 StellaMitchell has joined #rif 15:00:55 +[NRCC] 15:00:58 Hassan has joined #rif 15:01:01 sorry I cannot 15:01:18 PaulVincent has joined #rif 15:01:19 I did not follow the discussion for a time 15:01:20 zakim, [NRCC] is me 15:01:28 +Harold; got it 15:01:29 next week I will scribe 15:01:37 +??P41 15:01:39 ok 15:01:48 zakim, ??P41 is me 15:02:05 +csma; got it 15:02:09 +[IBM] 15:02:11 +Hassan_Ait-Kaci 15:02:27 zakim, who is on the phone 15:02:32 + +49.892.1.aaaa 15:02:32 zakim, [ibm] is temporarily me 15:02:39 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:02:42 +[IPcaller] 15:02:52 josb has joined #rif 15:03:03 +[TU-Cottbus] 15:03:13 I don't understand 'who is on the phone', csma 15:03:13 zakim, TU-Cottbus is me 15:03:21 +StellaMitchell; got it 15:03:21 DeborahNichols has joined #rif 15:03:30 On the phone I see Dave_Reynolds, Harold, csma, StellaMitchell, Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), +49.892.1.aaaa, [IPcaller], [TU-Cottbus] 15:03:47 zakim, [TU-Cottbus] is me 15:04:09 cgi-irc has joined #rif 15:04:15 + +39.047.1.aabb 15:04:23 zakim, mute me 15:04:26 +agiurca; got it 15:04:57 zakim, mute me 15:05:14 sorry, agiurca, I do not recognize a party named '[TU-Cottbus]' 15:05:32 Christian: I can volunteer to scribe... 15:05:39 +Deborah_Nichols 15:05:39 IgorMozetic has joined #rif 15:05:56 scribe: Paul Vincent 15:05:57 agiurca should now be muted 15:06:05 scribenick: PaulVincent 15:06:25 agiurca was already muted, agiurca 15:06:26 zakim, who is on the phone? 15:06:35 + +1.512.342.aacc 15:06:54 On the phone I see Dave_Reynolds, Harold, csma, StellaMitchell (muted), Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), PaulaP (muted), PaulVincent, agiurca (muted), josb, Deborah_Nichols, 15:06:57 ... +1.512.342.aacc 15:07:03 +??P64 15:07:14 +Sandro 15:07:20 zakim, ??P64 is me 15:07:20 +IgorMozetic; got it 15:07:25 zakim, mute me 15:07:25 IgorMozetic should now be muted 15:07:46 Christian calls meeting to order... 15:08:20 Chrisitan: for Deborah - outstanding action 295 - continued 15:08:53 Christian: action 324 obscolete 15:09:37 Zakim, aacc is me 15:09:37 +DougL; got it 15:10:08 Christian: call for agenda amendments: suggest 1 - naming conventions proposed by Sandro, 2 - RIF embed discussion 15:10:43 Harold: suggest moving naming discussion to end in case late comers join call 15:11:14 zakim, list agenda 15:11:14 I see 8 items remaining on the agenda: 15:11:15 1. Admin [from csma] 15:11:16 2. liaisons [from csma] 15:11:19 3. F2F [from csma] 15:11:20 Zakim, who is here? 15:11:21 8. Worked out examples: UC9 [from csma] 15:11:23 4. Naming conventions [from csma] 15:11:25 5. BLD: RDF in BLD [from csma] 15:11:27 6. Arch: Meta-data [from csma] 15:11:27 Christian: concur ... reordering agenda 15:11:29 7. AOB [from csma] 15:11:31 On the phone I see Dave_Reynolds, Harold, csma, StellaMitchell (muted), Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), PaulaP (muted), PaulVincent, agiurca (muted), josb, Deborah_Nichols (muted), DougL, 15:11:36 ... IgorMozetic (muted), Sandro 15:11:38 On IRC I see IgorMozetic, DougL, DeborahNichols, josb, PaulVincent, Hassan, StellaMitchell, Harold, DaveReynolds, PaulaP, agiurca, RRSAgent, Zakim, csma, sandro, rifbot 15:11:51 Christian: propose accept last weeks minutes 15:12:33 Christian: no objections - Sept 4 minutes are accepted 15:13:38 Christian: reordering of agenda cancelled - will keep as is 15:13:38 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 15:13:59 Zakim, take up agendum 2 15:13:59 agendum 2. "liaisons" taken up [from csma] 15:14:04 PRR liaison: no news except submission at OMG before next F2F 15:14:16 +Gary_Hallmark 15:15:03 Deborah-Nichols has joined #rif 15:15:20 q+ 15:15:24 Sandro: liaison with OWL WG (for OWL 1.1) TBA 15:15:29 ack josb 15:15:58 Jos: XML schema WG queried but no response 15:16:50 Christian: Action is 399 closed 15:17:30 ACTION: Sandro to find out from XML Schema WG's staff contact how we should proceed with getting a response to Jos' email 15:17:30 Created ACTION-342 - Find out from XML Schema WG\'s staff contact how we should proceed with getting a response to Jos\' email [on Sandro Hawke - due 2007-09-18]. 15:17:59 q+ 15:18:19 ack josb 15:18:28 Christian: no actions on F2F7: action on all RIF members to register attendance or not 15:18:57 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F7 15:19:15 Christian: F2F objectives: to publish BLD as early as possible in Oct so issues must be settled as much as possible 15:19:34 -> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/38457/f2f7reg/ F2F7 Registration/Regrets Form 15:19:42 LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif 15:19:44 Christian: ... and BLD XML schema to be decided 15:20:45 Christian: ... day 1: syntax, 2 semantics, 3 semantics 15:21:29 +??P20 15:21:41 Christian: ... freeze BLD version ASAP and email link - action for Harold 15:21:42 zakim, ??P20 is me 15:21:42 +LeoraMorgenstern; got it 15:21:47 q+ 15:21:48 zakim, please mute me 15:21:48 LeoraMorgenstern should now be muted 15:22:20 ACTION: Harold to freeze and editors draft of BLD when he's ready (soon), and send the WG e-mail with the frozen version (or a pointer to it). 15:22:25 Created ACTION-343 - Freeze and editors draft of BLD when he\'s ready (soon), and send the WG e-mail with the frozen version (or a pointer to it). [on Harold Boley - due 2007-09-18]. 15:22:29 Christian: ... after freeze pls send issues list to chairs 15:23:27 -PaulVincent 15:24:39 I can in 15:24:45 Sandro: Need to know issues to discuss 15:25:07 Sandro: Need to know issues to discuss 15:25:10 sandro: let's try to minimize suprise issues at F2F 15:25:14 q? 15:25:26 ... think about and raise any important issue beforehand 15:25:31 PaulVincent has joined #rif 15:25:58 csma: we are aiming to have a frozen BLD draft by Friday 15:25:59 Apologies: lost internet / IRC and VOIP for a while 15:26:34 +[IPcaller] 15:27:17 csma: possibility of f2f8 at tech plenary in Nov in Boston, what's the feeling of the group? 15:27:18 I would not be there 15:29:29 sandro: I think a f2f in Nov would be a good idea, because it will be a crucial time - the time when we will be making a case for extending the working group. 15:29:46 Scribing: can carry on but my cnx is clearly poor today - Stella do you want to continue? 15:30:03 +1 also to F2F8 in Nov 15:30:37 csma: poll in F2F8 on Nov 5 and 6 in Boston? 15:30:39 +1 to F2F8 Nov 5-6 in Boston 15:30:45 -1 (I would not be likely to make it) 15:30:46 I try to come. 15:30:46 not yet sure 15:30:50 +1 to F2F8 in Boston 15:31:02 I also try to be there 15:31:14 I also try to be there 15:31:15 +1 to F2F8 in Boston 15:31:41 csma: We have to make a decision 8 weeks before having a f2f 15:31:57 csma: that's why it is important we decide soon 15:32:19 +1 to f2f8 15:32:21 sandro: need Chris's input to make the decision 15:32:49 csma; We will discuss at chair's meeting and let the wg know 15:33:37 zakim, next item 15:33:37 I see a speaker queue remaining and respectfully decline to close this agendum, StellaMitchell 15:33:47 q? 15:33:52 q- 15:33:57 zakim, next item 15:33:57 agendum 1. "Admin" taken up [from csma] 15:34:02 zakim, next item 15:34:02 agendum 1 was just opened, StellaMitchell 15:34:08 zakim, close this item 15:34:08 agendum 1 closed 15:34:08 we already discussed bpel orchestration 15:34:09 I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 15:34:12 zakim, next item 15:34:12 3. F2F [from csma] 15:34:14 agendum 3. "F2F" taken up [from csma] 15:34:21 zakim, close this item 15:34:21 agendum 3 closed 15:34:22 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 15:34:23 8. Worked out examples: UC9 [from csma] 15:34:27 zakim, next item 15:34:27 agendum 8. "Worked out examples: UC9" taken up [from csma] 15:34:37 gary: We already dicsussed my example 15:34:45 csma: and Axel is not here 15:34:59 daver: we can discuss mine, UC8 15:35:49 csma: any objection to discuss UC8, although it wasn't on agenda... none 15:35:49 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UC8_Worked_Example 15:36:12 daver: link is above. I wrote this a long time. 15:36:25 daver: so much of the syntax is out of date. 15:36:51 daver: this uc is about vocabulary mapping - typical use of rules with RDF 15:37:29 daver: the rules are simple: take triple patterns, and deduce a new type or new set of values in the target ontology 15:37:49 daver: I represented the rules in Jena Rules and then did the analysis 15:38:00 daver: issues: rules are mostly horn, so no issues 15:38:19 daver: some syn sugar in head 15:39:01 daver: quantification over rdf predicates - with frames there is now no restriction on quantifying over rdf predicates - no longer an issue 15:39:12 daver: datatypes - also resolved 15:39:36 daver: builtins: we still need some nore, but shouldn't be too controversial 15:40:25 daver: bNodes: in examples like this (which are realistic), people are treating bnodes as skolem constants 15:40:42 Re builtins: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/List_of_functions_and_operators 15:41:20 daver: would need gensym equivalent to do what jena rules does 15:42:32 daver: metadata: I had based my example on my proposal at that time, but that's not the way we're going now 15:42:54 q? 15:43:09 daver: the xml syntax doesn't match what we have right now, but it won't be hard to redo once the xml syntax is solidified 15:43:19 sandro: did you do this by hand, or automate? 15:43:39 daver: largely hand editied, but some generated 15:43:56 sandro: do you have a sense of how hard it would be to automate the translation 15:44:32 daver: handling the covered items wouldn't be too difficult, but there is much that isn't covered by RIF 15:45:33 csma: rule where condition would check against RDF data set, and modify the data set? 15:45:47 +Michael_Kifer 15:45:56 sandro: it would be nice to go between N3 and JenaRules by November as a demonstration 15:46:12 daver: that would be difficult for me to do by then 15:46:34 sandro: anyone else you work with who could do it? 15:46:37 daver: maybe 15:47:28 zakim, next topic 15:47:37 zakim, next item 15:47:40 I don't understand 'next topic', StellaMitchell 15:47:47 agendum 4. "Naming conventions" taken up [from csma] 15:48:13 sandro: I started with a strawman. 15:48:23 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Arch/Naming_Conventions Proposed Naming Conventions 15:48:47 sandro: naming conventions make it easier for everyone to work with a vocabulary 15:49:30 sandro: easier for users, and easier for the people coming up with new names 15:49:35 MichaelKifer has joined #rif 15:49:59 sandro: In my proposal, I followed conventions of java 15:50:17 sandro: CamelCase for class names, and don't abbreviate 15:50:51 We had a WG decision to rename Con into Const. 15:51:08 MichaelKifer has joined #rif 15:51:43 sandro: property names are more controversial: start with lowercase, and other than that are CamelCase noun phrases 15:52:23 zakim, mute me 15:52:23 Michael_Kifer should now be muted 15:52:39 sandro: convention of industry is to keep them singular 15:52:53 ScribeNick: StellaMitchell 15:53:26 sandro: I propose that we don't use all caps for any names 15:53:32 q? 15:53:43 q+ 15:53:49 ack daver 15:53:51 csma: any questions? 15:54:19 daver: I think these are useful things, but not critical, and I'm happy with this proposal 15:54:25 daver: but I would add one thing 15:54:57 In our fully striped XML syntax we followed the Java convention. 15:55:03 daver: for ambiguous things, add something to clarify 15:55:18 harold: we have followed java conventions in the BLD 15:55:21 +1 to proposal Sandro and suggestion daver 15:55:38 harold: we have fully striped syntax with two types of stripes: classes and properties 15:56:05 harold: had a wg decision to change con to const 15:56:22 -IgorMozetic 15:56:27 csma: so, you are agreeing with Sandro? 15:56:38 harold: yes, basically 15:56:45 no. 15:56:55 we notice this to the WG for a long time. +1 to Sandro proposal 15:57:05 csma: complete phrases can result in excessively long names for classes and properties 15:57:07 only the basic java convention. 15:57:45 +??P5 15:57:53 then compress it 15:57:54 q? 15:57:57 zakim, ??P5 is me 15:57:57 +IgorMozetic; got it 15:58:00 zakim, mute me 15:58:00 IgorMozetic should now be muted 15:58:24 harold: things are never completely unambiguous anyways 15:58:55 sandro: I see your point 15:59:10 csma: I think UniversalTerm is much more clear than Uniterm 15:59:23 Christian, yes we dont want to expand Uniterm into UniversalTerm 15:59:44 since UniversalTerm is *still* ambigous 16:00:11 Maybe amend: If an abbreviated term is no more confusing or misleading than a longer term -- without external explanation -- to the target audience, then it may be used. 16:00:41 csma: So, we should keep and refine this page that Sando has started 16:01:30 csma: people can propose, and when we agree on them, we will resolve to adopt 16:01:30 -IgorMozetic 16:01:56 q+ 16:01:58 I second Sandro's point 16:02:05 harold: in BLD we are only following Java conventions; not everything Sandro proposed 16:02:26 sandro: no, you don't completely - e.g. noun phrases 16:02:56 sandro: this item (naming conventions) is critical for usable exchange format 16:03:11 sandro: I strenously object to not using noun phrases in the naming conventions 16:03:23 +1 naming conventions 16:03:45 PROPOSED: we will have naming conventions; people edit the page to propose theirs. 16:03:50 q- 16:04:00 csma: any objections to above proposal? 16:04:27 csma: if you modify or object to someone else's proposal, say why 16:04:30 PROPOSED: we will have naming conventions; people edit the page to propose theirs (with explanation and reasons for any differences from what's already on page) 16:04:52 csma: any objection to above? none 16:04:54 RESOLVED: we will have naming conventions; people edit the page to propose theirs (with explanation and reasons for any differences from what's already on page) 16:05:04 zakim, next item 16:05:04 agendum 5. "BLD: RDF in BLD" taken up [from csma] 16:05:41 I thought I voiced some reservation 16:06:01 csma: ill-typed literals 16:06:18 csma: do you have a counter proposal, Dave? 16:06:43 daver: it has to do whether this applies to embedding or combined case 16:06:48 Zakim, Sandro is Sandro-A 16:06:48 +Sandro-A; got it 16:06:53 daver: it's ok in the embedding case, but not in combined case 16:07:28 +Sandro.a 16:07:38 -Sandro-A 16:07:43 daver: should be a flag that says whether it's ok to let an ill-typed literal through the translation 16:08:09 q+ 16:08:17 csma: in the combining situation, it doesn't make sense because you would not translate rdf graph into rules 16:08:23 daver: exactly 16:08:26 ack josb 16:08:42 jos: in combining you migtht encounter this type of thing if you query 16:08:50 jos: but you would not have it in the rules themselves 16:09:16 csma: you would query to check entailment of the condition, and would never have that with ill-typed literal 16:09:45 jos: you can think of any type of query one might write. there might be variables and one of the variables subs could be an ill-typed literal 16:10:22 daver: e.g. rule that queuies an rdf graph to query type of literal (and the literal is ill-typed) 16:11:05 daver: if I queury rdf graph in it's native form... 16:11:26 jos: syntactic correspondence between symbols in rdf and symbols in rif 16:13:08 csma: if rif is used only for interchange, then this is not an issue 16:13:46 csma: issue when embed an rdf graph in a rule set, but not when you have rules that are about rdf graphs 16:14:10 jos: there are still entailments 16:14:42 sandro: you could have a rule that says ' if x worked for ilog then x works in france' 16:14:59 sandro: if x is an ill-typed literal... then the conclusion will have one 16:15:42 csma: in RIF, you will never have an instance of that in RIF, because it will be translated to a rule language before being applied to the RDF data 16:16:07 q+ 16:16:13 csma: RIF has an entailment relation beccause it tells you how to translate 16:16:26 csma: so you can presever the entailment relation 16:16:55 sandro: you are saying that that aspect should be left up to the implementation 16:17:13 jos: I don't understand - how can you specify part of entailment relation and not another part? 16:17:36 jos: entailment either holds or doesn't hold 16:17:41 q? 16:17:57 daver: (something about well-formed document) 16:18:25 csma: my points is that it is specified in rdf, and the rif semantics doesn't have to handle that case 16:18:31 ack hassan 16:18:34 q- 16:18:55 hassan: I strongly support csma and what mk has been advocating 16:19:51 hassan: making the combined model normative is not a good idea 16:20:23 csma: I'm confused: I though in the combined model, we do not care about ill-typed literals 16:20:44 csma: but in the embedding case (which mk supports) we would have to deal with ill-typed literal 16:21:17 q? 16:21:24 hassan: i'm not sure about ill-typed. But, the semantics of RDF is not relevent here 16:22:15 csma: I would like to ask if others are confused? 16:22:49 daver: hassan is addressing the question of embedding vs. combined model, not specificall ill-typed 16:23:07 csma: am I right that ill-typed is issue in embedded and not in combined models? 16:23:15 jos: it is an issue in both cases 16:24:02 csma: I agree with Dave then, that a flag (for whether ill-typed literals are ok) is a good idea 16:24:27 csma: any more on this topic? 16:24:52 zakim, next item 16:24:52 agendum 6. "Arch: Meta-data" taken up [from csma] 16:25:06 zakim, move to item 5 16:25:06 agendum 5. "BLD: RDF in BLD" taken up [from csma] 16:25:28 zakim, show agenda 16:25:28 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda: 16:25:30 6. Arch: Meta-data [from csma] 16:25:31 7. AOB [from csma] 16:25:56 As I mentioned in the previous telecon, handling ill-typed literals need to be dealt with at least in the (partial) interoperability part of RIF. 16:26:09 Topic: RDF: embedding vs. combined models 16:27:03 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/RIF-RDF_Compatibility 16:27:13 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/RIF-RDF_Compatibility 16:28:27 csma: it talks about correspondence between rdf triples and rif molecules 16:28:31 q+ 16:28:32 dave: ok, I hadn't seen that 16:28:46 daver: but I think bnode discussion is only in informative part 16:28:55 ack josb 16:29:12 jos: re: bnodes the embedding is only used for reasoning, and when you reason 16:29:25 jos: you can skolemize existentially quantified varialbes 16:29:58 jos: if you want to use them for representation and not reasoning, then you are deviated from the semantics of bnodes 16:30:16 daver: but we need rules that operate over RDF data 16:30:44 daver: and such rules will need builtins such as sparql has, to test various things about the data 16:30:53 zakim, move to item 7 16:30:53 agendum 7. "AOB" taken up [from csma] 16:30:53 +1 16:30:58 +1 16:31:04 bye 16:31:13 csma: adjourn? any objections? 16:31:17 -Hassan_Ait-Kaci 16:31:21 bye 16:31:24 -PaulVincent 16:31:25 bye 16:31:26 -Harold 16:31:27 -PaulaP 16:31:28 bye 16:31:28 -Deborah_Nichols 16:31:29 -josb 16:31:30 -LeoraMorgenstern 16:31:30 -Gary_Hallmark 16:31:32 zakim, unmute me 16:31:32 StellaMitchell should no longer be muted 16:31:34 -Dave_Reynolds 16:31:38 -DougL 16:31:40 -agiurca 16:31:51 rrsagent, make minutes 16:31:51 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/11-rif-minutes.html csma 16:31:58 csma: frozen BLD draft will be available by Friday 16:31:59 -Michael_Kifer 16:32:31 rrsagent, make minutes 16:32:31 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/09/11-rif-minutes.html csma 16:32:50 rrsagent, make minutes public 16:32:50 I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', csma. Try /msg RRSAgent help 16:33:13 rrsagent, make record public 16:34:25