RIF telecon -- 07 Sep 2010

<csma> agendum+ Admin

<csma> agendum+ Liaisons

<csma> agendum+ Action review

<csma> agendum+ RIF in RDF

<csma> agendum+ RIF and XML data

<csma> agendum+ RIF Primer

<csma> agendum+ UCR

<csma> agendum+ Test cases

<csma> agendum+ AOB (next meeting)

<csma> Scribe: Stella Mitchell

<csma> scribenick: StellaMitchell

<csma> next item

<csma> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2010Sep/0001.html

csma: will propose to accept the above minutes next call
... added UCR publication plan to agenda per Adrian's request

<csma> next item

csma, sandro: RIF/SPARQL topics will continue by email

close action-1047

<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

action-1047 completed

sandro: I decided not to work on action-1046, so we can close that - it's not high enough priority for the time left

<ChrisW> trackbot, this is rif

<trackbot> Sorry, ChrisW, I don't understand 'trackbot, this is rif'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help

<ChrisW> trackbot, associate this channel with rif

<trackbot> Associating this channel with rif...

<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

<trackbot> If you want to associate this channel with an existing Tracker, please say 'trackbot, associate this channel with #channel' (where #channel is the name of default channel for the group)

<ChrisW> trackbot, associate this channel with #rif

<trackbot> Associating this channel with #rif...

<ChrisW> close action 1047

<ChrisW> close action-1047

<trackbot> ACTION-1047 Write down "RIF-direct semantics" proposal for RIF-in-RDF. closed

close action-1046

<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

close action-1044

<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

actions 1043 and 1041 are completed

action-1039 closed

<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

action-1040 continuted

action-1037 continued

close action-1033

<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

close action-1032

<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

close action-1031

<trackbot> Sorry... I don't know anything about this channel

action-1010 continued

action-1004 continued

action-935 continued

action-152 continued

actions 1035 and 1036 continued

<csma> next item

sandro: Axel and I talked about imports and he wrote a spec - this will be a Note. It would be good if someone could check over the semantics.
... sandro: rif-used-with-profile vs. rif-imported-with-profile - is Chris ok with this naming

cw: Yes, I was more concerned that it is past tense

sandro: the document needs a review; aiming to publish as a note by the end of the month

leora: I will review the RIF/RDF document for clarity and usability since I need to review it in detail in order to write my primer section anyway
... it would take me a week - if I get it by Weds afternoon

<AdrianP> yes, will make sense to have a RIF telecon for the remaining three weeks

csma: should we have a telecon each week until the end of the group?

<csma> ACTION: Leora to review RIF in RDF by Sept 14 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/07-rif-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-1048 - Review RIF in RDF by Sept 14 [on Leora Morgenstern - due 2010-09-14].

sandro: remaining changes are not something leora really needs to wait on

leora: I'll reivew it by tomorrow then

sandro: I would like Dave Reynolds to review this also

DaveR: ok

<csma> ACTION: Dave to review RIF in RDF by Sept 14 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/07-rif-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-1049 - Review RIF in RDF by Sept 14 [on Dave Reynolds - due 2010-09-14].

sandro: does anyone know about [WSML light] - it involves RIF being embedded in RDF as one big string

<csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/105

csma: we still have an issue open on RIF and RDF - 105 above

sandro: this is resolved, that's the recent work by Axel and I, which now needs to be reviewed
... we'll leave it open for now and resolve after reviews

<csma> next item

<csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/103

csma: almost ready to have the next version of "RIF and XML data" reviewed...I think I have addressed all issues raised on earlier versions

<csma> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/104

csma: issue 103: spec doesn't refer to that data model any longer

issue 104: using NCNames in spec - issue is really how to deal with attributes and properties that are not in a namespace

scribe: there are 2 suggested approaches: 1. use dummy namespace

<ChrisW> sandro: never believe me when I say "I don't need an action"

scribe: 2. extend space of rif:iri to contain ncnames
... (1 abuses notion of namespace and 2 abuses notion of iri)

sandro: maybe there's a 3rd option...

<csma> o[namespace#attribute(localname)->value]

<csma> o[namespace#localname->value]

csma: the examples above are what we're talking about....1st involves attribute of element, 2nd involves child of element

sandro: should we spend more telecon time going over this issue now?

<sandro> ?x[<http://example.org/customertable#Name -> ?y]

Doug: yes, I think we should

<sandro> And( ?x[<http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace#attribute(lang)> -> "en"^^xs:language])

<sandro> ?x[<http://example.org/customertable#Name> -> ?y]

1st pasted example above pasted by Sandro (with the And) can be used to bind to the lang attribute

scribe: 2nd is used to bind to child element "Name"

csma: and problem is when there isn't a namespace

sandro: even when there is a namespace, I think this syntax is odd

<sandro> sandro: ... #attribute(lang) ... seems very odd

csma: I have no problem with changing the syntax
... the current syntax is intended to be explicit

<csma> ?x[<Name> -> ?y]

<DaveReynolds> XML Schema component designators do use (..) in their syntax, though rather differently

<csma> ?x[<#Name> -> ?y]

<csma> ?x[<http://example.org/dummy#Name> -> ?y]

<sandro> maybe: http://www.w3.org/ns/none

csma: but if attribute lang or subelement Name have no namespace...
... in first 2 examples above don't work
... we could use a dummy namespace as above

<csma> ?x["Name"xs:NCName -> ?y]

sandro: dummy namespace works but it's a hack

csma: alternatively, we could change the spec so that an ncname is a rif:iri

<sandro> sandro: about about just using a string, instead of an iri?

csma: for the frame slot name

<sandro> ?x[ ("Element", "Name") -> ?y ]

<ChrisW> time check

<sandro> ?x[ ("Element", "http://example.org", "Name") -> ?y ]

<sandro> ?x[ ("Attribute", "http://example.org", "Name") -> ?y ]

<sandro> ?x[ ("Attribute", "Name") -> ?y ]

sandro: we could do something like above: the slot name could always be a list that would optionally include a namespace

daver: lists are allowed as slot names but this would break RDF
... also, ???

<sandro> dave: What about XML Schema Component Designators.

<sandro> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-ref/

csma: Good, I am going to look at the document above, that may provide the solution

csma: one more topic: how XML schemas are handled in RIF/XML combinations

<csma> ?x[ ("Element", "number") -> 1000 ]

<csma> ?x[ ("Element", "number") -> "1000" ]

csma: consider the example above: we may have a schema that tells us that cust number is an integer or we may have no schema
... if we want the interpretation to be the same in both cases, then...
... however, we may not care whether the interpretation is the same in both cases
... I think it is reasonable that the interpreation with schema would be different from that without schema, however I can understand that some people would think it's more elegant that interpreation with schema is a subset of interpreation without schema

<AdrianP> often quotes are interpreted as indicating that the value is a String instead of a numeric value

sandro: I think all 4 cases should be handled and have a boolean flag on the import

<sandro> sandro: Let's have a boolean flag on Import where you say whether the the RIF is written using only string (the lexrep of the values) or is written to use the actual values; orthogonal to whether a schema is present.

<DaveReynolds> not convinced that using strings in place of typed values when you know the typed values makes sense

csma: The new version of this document will be ready by the end of the week, and we need a few reviewers. Ideally, I'd like Gary to, but he's not here...will ask him by email

sandro: I'm thinking that if you have something that's working the way you want and then you get a schema, you don't want the behavior to change

<sandro> Yeah, I'm fine with schema means you have to use the datatype values, not the string.

sandro: ...and you want to use the schema for validation

daver: you can do the schema validation elsewhere. I think it's ok that if you change the semantics of the ruleset (by introducing a schema) that the behavior changes

<csma> next item

csma: other volunteers for reviewing the XML data and RIF document?.... none

leora: we still need to finish the compatibility section and the test suite section
... I will work on this today

chrisw: we have to wrap this up very soon. We can drop the sections that are not complete

cw: I can put in a paragraph on the test suite in section 9, and we can drop section 7

leora: does it make sense to have a RIF/RDF section without a RIF/OWL section?

cw: yes, better to have both, but one section is still useful

csma: if we only have time for one, I think RIF/OWL is more important

cw: I think RIF/RDF would be more widely used and so is more important

<Doug> agreed

<AdrianP> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Primer#RIF_in_RDF

<sandro> agreed -- by FAR the most important is rif AND rdf. more than rif AND owl, and more than rif IN rdf.

<csma> +1

daver: distinction between "RIF in RDF" and "RIF and RDF"...latter is more important

<csma> next item

csma: we already have identified reviewers for RIF Primer

<AdrianP> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/UCR

<sandro> +1 rif UCR is important, if someone can do the work.

csma: We had decided to not have UCR as a recommendation, but Adrian would like to revisit

adrian: I think it's an important document and we have already published and referenced it

<sandro> not "recommendation" there, just "current publication"

csma: only 2 active editors for UCR - Adrian and Leora

cw: I don't think UCR is the right place for usage examples
... so, I think the document has to be either completely rewritten to be useful, or we can deprecate the document, or we can remove the examples

<sandro> +1 "there were use cases that motivated RIF"

<Doug> Maybe include the examples in an appendix as ones which led to the current state etc.

leora: I think it's important to include use cases which cannot be repesented in any RIF dialect (in UCR)

csma: As ChrisW pointed out, UCR could be a Use Case and Requirements Document as originally intended and the Primer can contain RIF examples

<Leora> leora: my point is that it's important to indicate explicitly which use cases cannot be represented in RIF dialects.

cw: these are design use cases that influenced the design of the language; they are not all implementable
... I'm just saying to remove RIF syntax of the usage examples, not the examples themselves

sandro: don't say you can't do in RIF, say you need extensions to RIF to handle them

<sandro> sandro: Yes, say "you have to use an extension to do this", and make clear it cant be done in existing dialects.

csma: Adrian and Leora will both work on updating this

<sandro> +1 for each use case, say which dialects can be used.

<csma> ACTION: Adrian to remove RIF syntax from UCR [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/07-rif-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-1050 - Remove RIF syntax from UCR [on Adrian Paschke - due 2010-09-14].

<csma> ACTION: Leora to annotate use cases wrt implmentability w existing dialects [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/09/07-rif-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-1051 - Annotate use cases wrt implmentability w existing dialects [on Leora Morgenstern - due 2010-09-14].

<csma> next item

csma: next call next week?

<sandro> I'm at risk next week, on vacation.

<csma> next telecon will be 14 Sept

<AdrianP> after next week telecon, would be good to have someone for review

<AdrianP> Stella?

<csma> adourn?

- DRAFT -

RIF telecon

07 Sep 2010

Attendees

Contents

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output