14:36:16 RRSAgent has joined #rif 14:36:17 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-rif-irc 14:36:32 zakim, this will be rif 14:36:32 ok, ChrisW; I see SW_RIF()11:00AM scheduled to start in 24 minutes 14:36:53 Meeting: RIF Telecon 11 March 2008 14:37:41 Chair: Chris Welty 14:37:59 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Mar/0037.html 14:38:12 ChrisW has changed the topic to: 11 March RIF Telecon Agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Mar/0037.html 14:38:29 rrsagent, make minutes 14:38:29 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-rif-minutes.html ChrisW 14:38:35 zakim, clear agenda 14:38:35 agenda cleared 14:38:46 agenda+ Admin 14:38:52 agenda+ F2F10 14:38:58 agenda+ Action Review 14:39:04 agenda+ Liason 14:39:13 agenda+ Issue 40 (Builtins) 14:39:24 agenda+ Lists 14:39:36 agenda+ BLD syntax 14:39:44 agenda+ Publication Plan 14:39:49 agenda+ AOB 14:39:56 rrsagent, make logs public 14:41:11 zakim, next item 14:41:11 agendum 1. "Admin" taken up [from ChrisW] 14:54:08 Harold has joined #rif 14:56:22 csma has joined #rif 14:58:53 Hassan has joined #rif 14:59:37 SW_RIF()11:00AM has now started 14:59:57 +Hassan_Ait-Kaci 14:59:58 +Sandro 14:59:59 josb has joined #rif 15:00:02 mdean has joined #rif 15:00:39 +Mike_Dean 15:00:57 StellaMitchell has joined #rif 15:01:03 +josb 15:02:09 +[IBM] 15:02:22 zakim, ibm is temporarily me 15:02:22 +ChrisW; got it 15:02:24 +[NRCC] 15:02:56 zakim, [NRCC] is me 15:03:00 +Harold; got it 15:03:03 Stella, can you scribe today? 15:03:05 yes 15:03:06 +[IBM] 15:03:11 zakim, [ibm] is temporarily me 15:03:14 DougL has joined #rif 15:03:17 Scribe: StellaMitchell 15:03:22 +StellaMitchell; got it 15:03:55 +DougL 15:03:56 + +1.703.418.aaaa 15:04:12 zakim, aaaa is me 15:04:12 +csma; got it 15:04:14 Hi Dough, Should we refer to CycL? 15:04:28 LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif 15:04:29 Hi, sure. 15:04:32 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F9_Minutes 15:04:42 zakim, mute me 15:04:42 csma should now be muted 15:04:58 RESOLVED: accept F2F9 Minutes 15:05:03 Chris: any objections to accepting minutes from F2F9? ... none 15:05:08 no 15:05:27 +LeoraMorgenstern 15:05:33 Doug how? (I found something online, but maybe you have more precise ref) 15:05:43 Chris: no minutes from March 4th yet 15:06:01 Leora: I just sent out the minutes from March 4th 15:06:07 zakim, next item 15:06:07 agendum 2. "F2F10" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:06:10 zakim, unmute me 15:06:10 csma should no longer be muted 15:06:14 Chris: any adjenda ammendments? ... none 15:06:37 csma: Jos also wanted to discuss appendix of swc doc 15:06:38 zakim, list agenda 15:06:38 I see 7 items remaining on the agenda: 15:06:39 2. F2F10 [from ChrisW] 15:06:39 3. Action Review [from ChrisW] 15:06:40 4. Liason [from ChrisW] 15:06:40 5. Issue 40 (Builtins) [from ChrisW] 15:06:41 6. Lists [from ChrisW] 15:06:41 7. BLD syntax [from ChrisW] 15:06:43 9. AOB [from ChrisW] 15:06:47 chris: we will talk about that during the publication plan 15:07:04 The wikipedia page for CycL references the CycL syntax document (near the bottom) 15:07:26 OK. 15:07:27 Chris: any news on F2F10? Axel (host) is not here 15:07:37 zakim, mute me 15:07:37 csma should now be muted 15:07:52 yes 15:08:01 Chris: f2f10 will be in deri Galway on May 26-28 15:08:22 ACTION: Axel to update the F2F10 wiki page 15:08:22 Created ACTION-443 - Update the F2F10 wiki page [on Axel Polleres - due 2008-03-18]. 15:08:36 Chris: (a 3 day meeting) 15:08:41 zakim, next item 15:08:41 agendum 3. "Action Review" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:09:00 Chris: Action review: 15:09:11 IgorMozetic has joined #rif 15:10:13 cw: action-423 is pending discussion 15:10:14 +??P53 15:10:16 zakim, unmute me 15:10:16 csma should no longer be muted 15:10:20 ACTION-423: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/index.php?title=BLD&diff=526&oldid=513 15:10:24 harold: the rest of my actions are continued 15:10:28 zakim, ??P53 is me 15:10:28 +IgorMozetic; got it 15:10:32 zakim, mute me 15:10:32 IgorMozetic should now be muted 15:11:57 sandro: action-435 (request namespace for functions and operators) 15:12:29 ... it's turning out to be harder than expected. I need help from the working group 15:12:46 ...I have been in touch with ?? 15:13:34 csma: action-434, change due date to March 21st 15:14:21 zakim, next item 15:14:21 agendum 4. "Liason" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:14:38 s/??/xquery+xpath WGs/ 15:14:39 cw: csma, any news from the OMG meeting? 15:15:21 csma: the only thing that might be of interest to this group is that there is request for proposals on svbr vocab on date and time that is aligned with owl and uml 15:16:01 no 15:16:10 cw: jos, mike, what news from owl task force? 15:16:18 ack me 15:16:24 miked: no news 15:17:23 cw: I understand that there is work going on in owl wg to consider a blessed (recommended) fragment of owl for bld 15:17:31 zakim, mute me 15:17:31 csma should now be muted 15:17:45 +Gary_Hallmark 15:17:52 DLP is the intersection of Horn logic and Description Logic. 15:17:53 s/bld/??/ 15:18:04 s /??/dlp/ 15:18:12 s/bld/DLP/ 15:18:21 Zhe (Alan) Wu, at Oracle 15:19:03 cw: Gary, do you know about this? 15:19:08 Gary: no 15:19:34 miked: I will attend the owled workshop in early april 15:20:14 zakim, next item 15:20:14 agendum 5. "Issue 40 (Builtins)" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:20:17 cw: please bring the swc doc to their attention and solicit feedback 15:20:49 cw: at f2f10 we pretty much agreed on builtins 15:21:17 ... but in the documented issue there is one item left open, about order of the arguments 15:21:21 PROPOSED: BLD builtins are not sensitive to order as they are in query 15:21:21 languages and production rules (closing issue-40). 15:21:31 PROPOSED: BLD builtins are not sensitive to order as they are in query languages and production rules (closing issue-40). 15:21:32 q+ 15:21:47 ack csma 15:21:53 MichaelKifer has joined #rif 15:22:12 csma: I have no objection to that resolution, but I wonder what it means that they are sensitive to order 15:22:34 PROPOSED: BLD builtins are not sensitive to order 15:23:31 harold: if you call a builtin before all arguments are bound, you can have a problem in some implentations 15:23:47 csma: in rif all bindings are done outside of the rule, so we would not have this problem 15:23:49 PROPOSED: BLD builtin calls are not sensitive to order of conjunctions 15:24:29 +MichaelKifer 15:24:31 harold: is the above wording ok with you, csma? 15:24:59 csma: yes, even the original wording was fine, but just might be a little confusing 15:25:01 PROPOSED: BLD builtins are not sensitive to order of evaluation 15:25:06 +1 15:25:12 zakim, mute me 15:25:12 MichaelKifer should now be muted 15:25:18 zakim, mute me 15:25:18 csma should now be muted 15:25:24 -1 15:25:25 cw :any objections to the above proposal? ... none 15:25:31 PROPOSED: BLD builtins are not sensitive to order of evaluation 15:25:35 zakim, unmute me 15:25:35 csma should no longer be muted 15:25:37 +1 15:25:42 +1 15:25:48 +1 15:25:53 +1 15:25:53 0 15:25:54 +1 15:25:57 zakim, mute me 15:25:57 csma should now be muted 15:26:12 Chris: I think Michael was saying "-1" on IRC to "does anyone object?" 15:26:22 +1 15:26:42 RESOLVED: BLD builtins are not sensitive to order of evaluation (closing issue 40) 15:26:46 do you have some wine to celebrate? 15:27:23 zakim, next item 15:27:23 agendum 6. "Lists" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:27:26 action: ChrisW to close issue 40 15:27:26 Sorry, couldn't find user - ChrisW 15:27:44 action: cwelty to close issue 40 15:27:44 Created ACTION-444 - Close issue 40 [on Christopher Welty - due 2008-03-18]. 15:28:17 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/List_Constructor-alt 15:28:21 cw: we agreed on syntax, but not on semantics yet 15:28:49 http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/List_Constructor 15:28:58 cw: above, are links to 2 proposals for semantics 15:29:11 PROPOSED: Approve Michael's alternative proposal on lists [6] and 15:29:11 update FLD+BLD syntax/semantics accordingly to reflect that and the 15:29:11 previous resolution on lists 15:29:37 harold: I have no preference between the two. I think we should use the "alternative" proposal 15:30:33 harold: I think on one level the semantics interpretation is more complicated in mk's (alternative) proposal 15:30:43 ... it is kind of unusual, but it seems to work 15:31:01 cw: can you clarify? 15:31:11 These functions are required to satisfy the following: Itail(a1, ..., ak, Iseq(ak+1, ..., ak+m)) = Iseq(a1, ..., ak, ak+1, ..., ak+m). 15:31:57 harold: this leads us into the realm of semantic description that is more expressive than the original 15:32:27 yes 15:32:29 cw: any other discussion on this? are people ready to accept this semantics? 15:33:00 So, we are voting for one of the two pages? 15:33:01 Why not use the standard free algebra style of semantics? 15:33:03 cw: does anyone feel uncomfortable accepting the semantics of the "alternative" proposal? 15:33:06 PROPOSED: Approve Michael's alternative proposal on lists and update FLD+BLD syntax/semantics accordingly to reflect that and the previous resolution on lists 15:33:26 cw: does anyone object to the above resolution? 15:33:34 I'm confused. Which wiki page are we voting for? 15:33:43 hak: I think it is overly complicated 15:34:08 ...there are standard semantics for lists everwhere, why are we reinventing the wheel 15:34:17 hb: to keep it n-ary 15:34:23 hak: that is just syntax 15:34:50 csma has joined #rif 15:35:05 hb: first step was to eliminate pairs from the syntax, and then we eliminated pairs from the semantics too 15:35:05 zakim, unmute me 15:35:05 MichaelKifer should no longer be muted 15:35:19 hb: and how would you deal with rest variables? 15:35:29 q+ 15:35:32 q- 15:35:32 Itail deals with rest variables. 15:35:33 hak: just a logic variable 15:36:00 mk: we have a model theory so when we introduce a new kind of term we have to define the interpretation of this new kind of term in the model theory 15:36:10 ...you have to be specific about your proposal 15:36:26 Direct treatment of 'Seq(' TERM+ ` | ` TERM ')'. 15:37:10 hak: use standard semantics and syntactic sugar transformation 15:37:25 In particular 'Seq(' TERM+ ` | ` Var ')'. 15:37:25 hak: I don't object, I am just saying my opinion 15:37:36 cw: any other comments? 15:38:02 cw: sequence semantics in the alternatives and pairs semantics was the original 15:38:07 zakim, unmute me 15:38:07 csma should no longer be muted 15:38:41 Michael, Pair is a function symbol, so I eliminated that from the syntax, moving it to the semantics. 15:38:41 mk: if you don't have function symbols, you cannot treat it as syntactic sugar 15:38:47 zakim, mute me 15:38:47 csma should now be muted 15:39:03 cw: so advantage is you can handle lists without requiring functions 15:40:11 gary: it is good to decouple them (lists and function symbols) for production systems 15:40:16 fine 15:40:39 ??? 15:40:47 PROPOSED: Approve Michael's alternative proposal on lists and update FLD+BLD syntax/semantics accordingly to reflect that and the previous resolution on lists 15:40:53 cw: any objections to above? 15:41:04 ...none 15:41:06 +1 15:41:13 +1 15:41:13 0 15:41:15 +1 15:41:16 +1 15:41:16 +1 15:41:19 +1 15:41:27 +1 15:41:39 Gary on phone: +1 15:41:41 +1 15:41:42 RESOLVED: Approve Michael's alternative proposal on lists and update FLD+BLD syntax/semantics accordingly to reflect that and the previous resolution on lists 15:41:52 zakim, next item 15:41:52 agendum 7. "BLD syntax" taken up [from ChrisW] 15:42:29 hb: can you give an update on this discussion 15:42:38 s/ hb:/cw: hb,/ 15:43:01 hb: we agreed at previous meeting to remove reification from bld 15:43:28 zakim, mute me 15:43:28 MichaelKifer should now be muted 15:43:57 ...we also discussed at f2f10 about going back to making a distiction inthe grammar between terms and predicates 15:44:17 ...and also bring in syntax for builtins 15:44:59 cw: and also Jos had an action to add metadata and iris to the syntax 15:45:06 q+ 15:45:15 ack me 15:46:00 cw: people have agreed to remove reificaiton and to add metadata and iris 15:46:24 ...so the remaining issue is whether to distinguish between functions and predicates in the grammar 15:47:30 hb: mk said it is a good idea to keep uniterm 15:47:55 cw: we are not proposing to remove uniterms...just in how they are used in the grammar 15:47:57 -Gary_Hallmark 15:48:12 s/inthe/in the/ 15:48:28 s/between terms and predicates/between functions and predicates/ 15:49:16 +Gary_Hallmark 15:49:19 cw: yes, it changes the markup by distinguising functions from predicates 15:49:34 ...but still they will have the same syntax 15:49:43 q+ 15:50:03 the grammar: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Mar/0001.html 15:50:21 hb: we want to handle future ilog extensions 15:50:27 q- 15:50:32 s/ilog/hilog/ 15:50:49 zakim, unmute me 15:50:49 MichaelKifer should no longer be muted 15:51:15 cw: mk, where do you stand on this issue? does distinguishing functions and predicates in the syntax make it more difficult to do hilog extensions? 15:51:27 mk: no, I don't think it does 15:52:05 mk: that's why I wanted to make bld grammar a specialization of fld grammar 15:52:38 ...(so that it can be extended in a compatible way) 15:52:59 hb: I'm not convinced this will work 15:53:27 hb: yes, hilog would be generalization of bld 15:53:55 q+ 15:54:05 jos: I proposed 2 grammars: fld and bld. the fld one contains hilog 15:54:08 I give up.... 15:54:08 zakim, unmute me 15:54:08 csma should no longer be muted 15:54:22 zakim, mute me 15:54:22 MichaelKifer should now be muted 15:54:22 q- 15:54:28 josb, is your BLD grammar a subset of your FLD grammar? 15:54:35 Yes 15:54:47 csma: I don't understand the current discussion 15:54:48 the grammar: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Mar/0001.html 15:54:54 q? 15:55:25 csma: ..fld and bld are the same in the area of subject of predicates and functions 15:55:38 I showed that you CAN! 15:55:43 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Mar/0001.html 15:55:49 sandro: I think harold is saying that if you split uniterm into functions and predicates in fld then you can't extend to hilog 15:56:16 right 15:56:18 We want to read BLD documents (with BLD facts and rules) into future HLD (HiLog) documents. 15:56:22 csma: but hilog distinguishes between predicates and functions 15:56:42 zakim, unmute me 15:56:42 MichaelKifer should no longer be muted 15:56:48 Therefore BLD documents should not separate oreds and funcs. 15:57:01 Therefore BLD documents should not separate preds and funcs. 15:57:04 cw: mk, you made a proposal for the grammars for fld and bld. Can you summarize 15:57:15 Harold, just read the grammars I proposed................... 15:57:29 mk: I proposed a framework to use around the grammars that jos had proposed 15:57:55 hb: I explained my point above in the irc 15:58:28 mk: I understand that you are saying we need to also consider how it will look in xml, and not just in bnf 15:58:47 GaryHallmark has joined #rif 15:58:59 ...I think it would be possible to accomplish the extensible design in xml 15:59:38 ...I wanted to show the concept in bnf, but intended that it would carry over to xml 16:00:21 ...I didn't think hard about this yet, so can't say for sure whether it is possible 16:00:40 cw: this should be ok in xml 16:00:50 mk: it has to be checked 16:01:07 cw: how will we go about checking this? 16:01:15 E.g., the BLD XML-like Atom(a Fun(f c d) e) cannot be importet unchanged in HLD. 16:01:34 E.g., the BLD XML-like Uniterm(a Uniterm(f c d) e) cannot be importet unchanged in HLD. 16:01:56 sandro: why can it not be imported? 16:02:06 zakim, mute me 16:02:06 csma should now be muted 16:02:19 cw: someone has to demonstrate that there is an xml syntax that can be specialized from hilog to bld 16:02:23 E.g., the BLD XML-like Atom(a Fun(f c d) e) cannot be importet unchanged in HLD. 16:02:23 E.g., the BLD XML-like Uniterm(a Uniterm(f c d) e) cannot be importet unchanged in HLD. 16:02:36 E.g., the BLD XML-like Uniterm(a Uniterm(f c d) e) CAN be importet unchanged in HLD. 16:02:36 sandro: jos says he has done this 16:02:51 mk: jos hasn't done it for hilog yet, so he would have to do that 16:03:32 Fallbacks! 16:03:56 cw: rif is an interchange syntax, we would not break hilog by requiring they use this format 16:04:05 FLD subsumes hilog 16:04:15 so, I did it for hilog 16:04:23 cw: hilog requires functions to be allowed in places where they are not conventioally used in other languages 16:04:45 ...it doesn't require that you don't distinguish between them 16:05:01 And ( ?x = Uniterm(f c d) Uniterm(a ?x e) ) 16:05:21 q+ 16:05:28 q+ 16:05:29 And ( ?x = Uniterm(f c d) ?x(a ?x e) ) 16:06:02 hb: in above example, ?x occurs in 2 places... at the top level it is an atom 16:06:26 ...the other occurance is not 16:07:09 q? 16:08:17 cw: the distinction is there is what you typed, why is it a problem to call it out syntactically 16:08:32 q- 16:08:33 ack csma 16:08:36 ack csma 16:08:37 s/occurance/occurrence/ 16:08:54 sandro: (something about parse trees) 16:09:00 csma: I agree with what sandro said 16:09:54 At the time you write ?x = Uniterm(f c d) you don't need to say how it's going to be used: So both ?x occurrences in ?x(a ?x e) are fine. 16:09:55 ...problem may occur when using a bld doc in hilog dialect 16:09:56 Sandro: when you parse Harold's expression, you find some occurances of ?x occur in the place where you expect a predicate and some where you expect a function. All I want is the XML grammar to contain those labels from the parsing -- so the parsing work is in the XML, as it's supposed to be with XML. 16:10:09 right 16:10:23 +1 to Sandro 16:11:28 zakim, mute me 16:11:28 csma should now be muted 16:11:36 q? 16:11:52 And ( ?x = Uniterm(f c d) Pre(?x)(a Fun(?x) e) ) 16:12:05 hb: is the above what you mean, mk? 16:12:07 mk: no 16:12:10 And ( ?x = Uniterm(f c d) Pred(?x)(a Fun(?x) e) ) 16:12:46 mk: I am not proposing to mark it up. The basic difference between your grammar and jos's is just at the top level 16:12:59 And ( ?x = Uniterm(f c d) ?x(a ?x e) ?x ) 16:13:12 hb: what about the above? is this possible? 16:13:45 mk: yes, the x's will be marked as atom, but inside they will all be uniterms 16:13:54 cw: let's move this discussion to email 16:14:15 zakim, next item 16:14:15 agendum 9. "AOB" taken up [from ChrisW] 16:14:29 q+ 16:14:35 TOPIC: Publication plan 16:14:37 ack csma 16:14:51 ACTION: Harold to make the case, in e-mail, based on examples in 11 March meeting, for keeping Uniterm in the XML 16:14:51 Created ACTION-445 - Make the case, in e-mail, based on examples in 11 March meeting, for keeping Uniterm in the XML [on Harold Boley - due 2008-03-18]. 16:15:14 csma: we didn't discuss the orthogonal item of having the syntax (presentation and xml) distinguish between logical and builtin functions and predicates 16:15:23 sandro: we decided that already 16:16:21 csma: one proposal distinguishings builtins from logical and one distinguishes functions and predicates, but neither does both 16:16:49 For reference, I talked about Hterms (Uniterm) in the W3C Submission of SWSL-Rules: http://www.w3.org/Submission/SWSF-SWSL/#ruleml-hilog 16:16:56 jos: it is still not clear how the xml syntax will be defined 16:17:30 ... i.e. how it relates to presenation syntax 16:18:11 cw: we agreed that the mapping would be in a table, but that the xml syntax would be as close as possible to presentation, so that the mapping woujld be trivial 16:18:36 zakim, mute me 16:18:36 MichaelKifer should now be muted 16:18:55 For instance, the HiLog term ?Z(?X,a)(b,?X(?Y)(d)) is serialized as shown below: 16:18:56 csma: for the predicate production you would need to have 2 entries in the table 16:18:58 16:18:58 16:18:58 16:18:58 Z 16:18:58 X 16:18:59 a 16:19:01 16:19:03 16:19:05 b 16:19:07 16:19:09 16:19:11 16:19:13 X 16:19:15 Y 16:19:17 16:19:19 16:19:19 jos: the table is to translate the syntax, it does not care about bnf or schema, just about syntax 16:19:21 d 16:19:23 16:19:25 16:19:59 jos: I need to see how the xml can be derived from the bnf - I am skeptical 16:20:50 hak: I think it can be derived, I have been working on a tool that can do this 16:21:14 csma: if we allow metadata inside uniterms for roundtripping purposes... 16:21:20 hak: you need to annotate the bnf 16:21:56 csma: we may want to have things in the xml syntax that we don't have to reflect in the presenation syntax 16:22:01 hak: you want a forgetful homomorphism 16:22:36 cw: csma, please put your point in an email, with an example 16:23:14 cw: I don't think we should publish next working draft without having syntactic issues revolved 16:23:20 action: csma to write an email with an example of XML that should not be derived from the BNF of the prez syntax 16:23:20 Sorry, couldn't find user - csma 16:23:25 zakim, unmute me 16:23:25 MichaelKifer should no longer be muted 16:23:40 cw:: we can dedicate next week's telcon to all these syntactic issues 16:24:07 sandro: and I have two syntactic issues, which I will describe in email 16:24:07 action: christian to write an example of XML that should not be derived from the BNF of the prez syntax 16:24:08 Created ACTION-446 - Write an example of XML that should not be derived from the BNF of the prez syntax [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2008-03-18]. 16:24:34 cw: are fld/ bld ready to be reviewed? 16:24:46