IRC log of rif on 2008-10-13

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:47:21 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rif
14:47:21 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/10/13-rif-irc
14:59:44 [DaveReynolds]
DaveReynolds has joined #rif
15:04:12 [LeoraMorgenstern]
LeoraMorgenstern has joined #rif
15:05:08 [Harold]
hi
15:05:24 [LeoraMorgenstern]
I'm on the irc and on the phone, but it hasn't registered.
15:06:04 [Harold]
Zakim, this is RIF
15:06:04 [Zakim]
ok, Harold; that matches SW_RIF(CORE)11:00AM
15:06:26 [LeoraMorgenstern]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:06:26 [Zakim]
On the phone I see [NRCC], ??P3, LeoraMorgenstern
15:06:42 [Harold]
zakim, NRCC is me
15:06:42 [Zakim]
+Harold; got it
15:07:34 [Harold]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Oct/0035.html
15:09:02 [Zakim]
+Gary
15:09:45 [Harold]
- http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/48
15:09:45 [Harold]
PROPOSED: RIF Core will include member (#) but
15:09:45 [Harold]
syntactically restricted its use in rule bodies. Note that in RIF-RDF
15:09:45 [Harold]
the equivalent property rdf:type would still be permitted in rule heads.
15:09:45 [Harold]
Rationale: PRD rules almost always start with
15:09:45 [Harold]
"if p is a person and p.age > 16 and ... then ..."
15:11:13 [Gary_Hallmark]
Gary_Hallmark has joined #rif
15:12:33 [Harold]
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/PRD#Member
15:14:58 [Harold]
PROPOSED: RIF Core will include member (#) but syntactically restricted its use in rule bodies.
15:15:20 [Harold]
Comment: Note that in RIF-RDF the equivalent property rdf:type would still be permitted in rule heads.
15:16:34 [Harold]
Comment: If PRD introduces member (#) in the conclusion, this restriction to conditions in Core should be reconsidered.
15:17:21 [Harold]
Rationale: PRD rules almost always start with a member test in the condition.
15:17:42 [Harold]
PROPOSED: RIF Core will include member (#) but syntactically restricted its use in rule conditions.
15:18:09 [Gary]
rationale 2: PR leverages type system from host programming language and that is externally defined and immutable by rules
15:18:13 [Harold]
Comment: Note that in RIF-RDF the equivalent property rdf:type would still be permitted in rule heads.
15:18:19 [Harold]
Comment: If PRD introduces member (#) in the conclusion, this restriction to conditions in Core should be reconsidered.
15:20:18 [Harold]
Approved by Leora, Dave, Gary, Harold
15:22:14 [Harold]
- http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/75
15:22:14 [Harold]
PROPOSED: Core should keep disjunction in rule bodies,
15:22:14 [Harold]
only if this is permitted by the solution to issue-70.
15:24:29 [Harold]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Sep/0178.html
15:33:25 [Gary]
if (month='may' or month = 'jun' or month = 'jul' or month = 'aug') and (dish='clams' or dish='oysters' or dish='mussels') then "skip main course"
15:34:31 [Zakim]
+??P2
15:35:53 [Harold]
month(may) etc. stored as facts and then retrieved with month(?x) has the same effect.
15:36:43 [Harold]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:36:43 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Harold, DaveReynolds, LeoraMorgenstern, Gary, ??P2
15:40:29 [Harold]
Finite Domains and Exclusions as First-Class Citizens: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.30.3860
15:41:40 [Harold]
PROPOSED: Core should keep disjunction in rule bodies.
15:41:43 [Harold]
Comment:
15:41:50 [Gary]
harold: Month('may') Month('june') Dish('clams') etc. + if (Month(?month) and Dish(?dish) then "skip main course" is equivalent
15:42:38 [Harold]
The solution to issue-70 is able to cope with disjunction.
15:43:18 [Harold]
The solution to issue-70 will be able to cope with disjunction. (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Sep/0178.html and follow up)>
15:44:35 [Harold]
PROPOSED: Core should keep disjunction in rule bodies. Implementations can be direct or in using a well-know preprocessing step.
15:45:07 [Harold]
PROPOSED: Core should keep disjunction in rule bodies. Implementations can be direct or in use a well-known preprocessing step.
15:45:18 [Harold]
PROPOSED: Core should keep disjunction in rule bodies. Implementations can be direct or use a well-known preprocessing step.
15:46:32 [Harold]
Comment: The solution to issue-70 will be able to cope with disjunction. (See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Sep/0178.html and follow up).
15:48:32 [Harold]
PROPOSED: Core should keep ground disjunction in rule bodies. Implementations can be direct or use a well-known preprocessing step.
15:49:25 [Harold]
(Sorry, cannot be decided statically.)
15:51:28 [Harold]
PROPOSED: Core should keep safe disjunction in rule bodies. Implementations can be direct or use a well-known preprocessing step.
15:51:51 [Harold]
Comment: The solution to issue-70, Option 2, will be able to cope with disjunction. (See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Sep/0178.html and follow up).
15:53:47 [Harold]
Comment: An example of solution to issue-70 it Option 2, which will be able to cope with disjunction. (See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Sep/0178.html and follow up).
15:54:33 [Harold]
Comment: An example of a solution to issue-70 is Option 2, which will be able to cope with disjunction. (See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Sep/0178.html and follow up).
15:55:16 [Harold]
Approved as above, plus by Adrian.
15:56:06 [Harold]
Dave: Work on Document itself. End of month should be ready.
15:56:57 [Harold]
... Happy to take sections, but we should agree on them.
15:57:17 [Harold]
... EBNF, Ed notes, structural changes.
15:59:45 [Harold]
Dave will work on this until next Monday, perhaps another Core telecon.
16:00:12 [Harold]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:00:25 [Harold]
RRSAgent, make minutes
16:00:25 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/10/13-rif-minutes.html Harold
16:00:26 [Zakim]
-??P2
16:01:34 [Zakim]
-Harold
16:01:35 [Zakim]
-DaveReynolds
16:01:35 [Zakim]
-LeoraMorgenstern
16:01:39 [Zakim]
-Gary
16:01:41 [Zakim]
SW_RIF(CORE)11:00AM has ended
16:01:42 [Zakim]
Attendees were LeoraMorgenstern, DaveReynolds, Harold, Gary