IRC log of rif on 2006-04-04
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 14:57:33 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #rif
- 14:57:33 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2006/04/04-rif-irc
- 14:57:36 [Harold]
- Harold has joined #rif
- 14:57:50 [FrankMcCabe]
- zakim, this is rif
- 14:57:50 [Zakim]
- ok, FrankMcCabe; that matches SW_RIF()11:00AM
- 14:57:54 [Zakim]
- +Donald_Chapin (was [IPcaller])
- 14:58:16 [Donald_Chapin]
- Donald_Chapin has joined #rif
- 14:58:32 [Zakim]
- +JacekK
- 14:58:34 [Donald_Chapin]
- zakim, mute me
- 14:58:34 [Zakim]
- Donald_Chapin should now be muted
- 14:58:35 [Zakim]
- +[NRCC]
- 14:58:39 [Zakim]
- +??P33
- 14:58:47 [Zakim]
- +Deborah_Nichols
- 14:58:48 [Uli]
- Uli has joined #rif
- 14:58:50 [Zakim]
- +??P34
- 14:58:53 [IanH]
- IanH has joined #rif
- 14:58:59 [LeoraMorgenstern]
- zakim, ??P33 is me
- 14:58:59 [Zakim]
- +LeoraMorgenstern; got it
- 14:59:01 [csma]
- zakim, ??P34 is me
- 14:59:04 [Zakim]
- +csma; got it
- 14:59:06 [LeoraMorgenstern]
- zakim, mute me
- 14:59:06 [Zakim]
- LeoraMorgenstern should now be muted
- 14:59:08 [Zakim]
- +[Fujitsu]
- 14:59:09 [DaveReynolds]
- DaveReynolds has joined #rif
- 14:59:14 [igor]
- igor has joined #rif
- 14:59:14 [Harold]
- zakim, [NRCC] is me
- 14:59:14 [Zakim]
- +Harold; got it
- 14:59:18 [FrankMcCabe]
- zakim, fujitsu is me
- 14:59:18 [Zakim]
- +FrankMcCabe; got it
- 14:59:41 [Zakim]
- +Axel_Polleres
- 15:00:02 [Zakim]
- +??P38
- 15:00:04 [Zakim]
- +Dave_Reynolds (was ??P38)
- 15:00:06 [csma]
- zakim, who is on the call?
- 15:00:06 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Evan_Wallace, Donald_Chapin (muted), josb (muted), Harold, LeoraMorgenstern (muted), Deborah_Nichols (muted), csma, FrankMcCabe, Axel_Polleres
- 15:00:09 [Zakim]
- ... (muted), Dave_Reynolds
- 15:00:13 [Zakim]
- +??P39
- 15:00:39 [JosDeRoo]
- JosDeRoo has joined #rif
- 15:00:55 [Zakim]
- +??P40
- 15:01:03 [Zakim]
- +Allen_Ginsberg
- 15:01:07 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 15:01:23 [Allen]
- zakim, mute me
- 15:01:23 [Zakim]
- Allen_Ginsberg should now be muted
- 15:01:24 [patranja]
- patranja has joined #rif
- 15:01:26 [IanH]
- I guess that I can do it
- 15:01:30 [Uli]
- zakim, ?P40 is me
- 15:01:30 [Zakim]
- sorry, Uli, I do not recognize a party named '?P40'
- 15:01:41 [Zakim]
- +Mike_Dean
- 15:01:55 [Zakim]
- +David_Hirtle
- 15:02:03 [Uli]
- zakim, ??P40 is me
- 15:02:03 [Zakim]
- +Uli; got it
- 15:02:12 [GiorgosStoilos]
- GiorgosStoilos has joined #rif
- 15:02:14 [Zakim]
- +??P4
- 15:02:15 [Zakim]
- +??P5
- 15:02:19 [pfps]
- pfps has joined #rif
- 15:02:19 [Zakim]
- +PaulaP
- 15:02:29 [Zakim]
- +Jos_De_Roo
- 15:02:32 [Zakim]
- -??P5
- 15:02:34 [csma]
- zakim, who is on the call?
- 15:02:34 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), Evan_Wallace, Donald_Chapin (muted), josb (muted), Harold, LeoraMorgenstern (muted), Deborah_Nichols (muted), csma, FrankMcCabe,
- 15:02:38 [Zakim]
- ... Axel_Polleres (muted), Dave_Reynolds (muted), IanH, Uli (muted), Allen_Ginsberg (muted), MarkusK (muted), Mike_Dean, David_Hirtle (muted), ??P4, PaulaP (muted), Jos_De_Roo
- 15:02:40 [JosDeRoo]
- zakim, mute me
- 15:02:40 [Zakim]
- Jos_De_Roo should now be muted
- 15:02:45 [Zakim]
- +Igor_Mozetic
- 15:02:59 [igor]
- zakim, mute me
- 15:02:59 [Zakim]
- Igor_Mozetic should now be muted
- 15:03:05 [Zakim]
- +??P5
- 15:03:12 [pfps]
- zakim, ??P5 is pfps
- 15:03:12 [Zakim]
- +pfps; got it
- 15:03:20 [csma]
- zakim, who is on the call?
- 15:03:20 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Hassan_Ait-Kaci (muted), Evan_Wallace, Donald_Chapin (muted), josb (muted), Harold, LeoraMorgenstern (muted), Deborah_Nichols (muted), csma, FrankMcCabe,
- 15:03:24 [Zakim]
- ... Axel_Polleres (muted), Dave_Reynolds (muted), IanH, Uli (muted), Allen_Ginsberg (muted), MarkusK (muted), Mike_Dean, David_Hirtle (muted), ??P4, PaulaP (muted), Jos_De_Roo
- 15:03:26 [Zakim]
- ... (muted), Igor_Mozetic (muted), pfps
- 15:03:40 [johnhall]
- johnhall has joined #rif
- 15:03:42 [Zakim]
- +[IVML]
- 15:04:05 [GiorgosStoilos]
- Zakim, [IVML] is me
- 15:04:06 [Zakim]
- +GiorgosStoilos; got it
- 15:04:11 [igor]
- this is me
- 15:04:20 [igor]
- no
- 15:04:34 [igor]
- sorry
- 15:04:36 [Zakim]
- +Sandro
- 15:04:56 [Zakim]
- +[IPcaller]
- 15:05:01 [JeffP]
- JeffP has joined #rif
- 15:05:07 [johnhall]
- zakim, ipcaller is me
- 15:05:07 [Zakim]
- +johnhall; got it
- 15:05:21 [johnhall]
- zakim, mute me
- 15:05:21 [Zakim]
- johnhall should now be muted
- 15:05:21 [IanH]
- Next meeting same time same place
- 15:05:36 [IanH]
- Christian moves to accept minutes
- 15:05:42 [IanH]
- of last meeting
- 15:05:44 [PaulaP]
- +1
- 15:05:44 [Hassan]
- +1
- 15:05:49 [sandro]
- sandro has joined #rif
- 15:05:50 [josb]
- scribenick: IanH
- 15:05:56 [IanH]
- Seconded by PaulaP and Hassan
- 15:06:12 [IanH]
- Resolved to accept minutes
- 15:06:20 [Harold]
- q+
- 15:06:21 [PaulaP]
- sorry for the delay
- 15:06:32 [IanH]
- Scribes asked to distribute munutes asap and if pos within 48 hrs
- 15:06:59 [sandro]
- rrsagent, make minutes
- 15:06:59 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/04/04-rif-minutes.html sandro
- 15:07:32 [SaidTabet]
- SaidTabet has joined #RIF
- 15:07:45 [Zakim]
- +JeffP
- 15:08:05 [sandro]
- Chair: Christian de Sainte Marie
- 15:08:38 [Zakim]
- + +1.617.699.aaaa
- 15:08:44 [MalaMehrotra]
- MalaMehrotra has joined #rif
- 15:09:22 [SaidTabet]
- zakim, +1.617.699.aaaa is me
- 15:09:22 [Zakim]
- +SaidTabet; got it
- 15:09:26 [IanH]
- Any ammendments to agenda?
- 15:09:29 [SaidTabet]
- zakim, mute me
- 15:09:29 [Zakim]
- SaidTabet should now be muted
- 15:09:40 [csma]
- q?
- 15:09:42 [Zakim]
- +Mala_Mehrotra
- 15:09:49 [csma]
- ack harold
- 15:09:56 [sandro]
- [PENDING] ACTION: chair to put design for extensibility and discussion of proposals on agenda for next telecon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/28-rif-minutes.html#action14]
- 15:09:59 [IanH]
- Harold wants to add item on new members
- 15:10:15 [Zakim]
- +Gary_Hallmark
- 15:10:39 [Zakim]
- +MoZ
- 15:10:57 [GaryHallmark]
- GaryHallmark has joined #rif
- 15:11:20 [sandro]
- Alex Kozlenkov
- 15:11:28 [sandro]
- from Betfair
- 15:11:30 [IanH]
- New member Alex Kozlenkov introduced himself
- 15:12:50 [csma]
- q?
- 15:12:58 [IanH]
- ACTION: Public membership list needs to be extended to include Alex
- 15:13:35 [IanH]
- Christian: Alex can introduce his background via mailing list
- 15:14:06 [sandro]
- http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg_participants.html
- 15:14:20 [AxelPolleres]
- Propose Alex checks intro mails in the archive and sends a similar one.
- 15:14:24 [sandro]
- http://www.w3.org/2000/09/dbwg/details?group=38457
- 15:14:45 [sandro]
- RRSAgent, drop action 1
- 15:14:52 [sandro]
- (since it's already done)
- 15:14:53 [IanH]
- Next topic: F2F meetings
- 15:15:13 [IanH]
- 2 proposals for f2f4 (one with 3 options)
- 15:15:17 [sandro]
- s/Next //
- 15:15:26 [IanH]
- deadline for decisions May 3rd/16th
- 15:15:40 [IanH]
- will therefore make decision by May 2nd mtg
- 15:15:56 [IanH]
- let us know by april 18 if you have any proposal for f2f4
- 15:16:14 [IanH]
- will review on April 18 and set up straw poll closing May 1st
- 15:16:25 [IanH]
- Decision will be taken at May 2nd mtg
- 15:16:44 [IanH]
- Process agreed by popular consent
- 15:17:17 [IanH]
- Next topic: action for Alan to put Mitre proposal on Wiki - DONE
- 15:17:35 [IanH]
- Next topic: liasons - any news?
- 15:17:57 [JosDeRoo]
- zakim. unmute me
- 15:18:08 [Donald_Chapin]
- zakim, unmute me
- 15:18:08 [Zakim]
- Donald_Chapin should no longer be muted
- 15:18:18 [csma]
- ack josde
- 15:18:20 [IanH]
- Any SPARQL participant who is more often on teleconf? Jos?
- 15:18:30 [sandro]
- [DONE] ACTION: Allen to put MITRE proposal on f2f4 wiki page [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/28-rif-minutes.html#action01]
- 15:18:47 [sandro]
- zakim, who is making noise?
- 15:18:58 [Zakim]
- sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Donald_Chapin (51%), csma (20%), IanH (4%), Jos_De_Roo (32%)
- 15:20:17 [IanH]
- JosDeRoo: SPARQL proceeding apart from small objection from Oracle
- 15:20:28 [Zakim]
- -Axel_Polleres
- 15:21:21 [IanH]
- Discussion on using UTC for telecon times
- 15:21:44 [IanH]
- ACTION: Christian will investigate
- 15:21:44 [csma]
- q?
- 15:22:04 [csma]
- q?
- 15:22:09 [IanH]
- Christian: XQuery/XPath news? Common Logic?
- 15:22:21 [Zakim]
- +Axel_Polleres
- 15:22:39 [IanH]
- Who was that?
- 15:22:41 [Donald_Chapin]
- zakim, mute me
- 15:22:41 [Zakim]
- Donald_Chapin should now be muted
- 15:24:13 [MichaelKifer]
- MichaelKifer has joined #rif
- 15:24:26 [IanH]
- Evan: no important news.
- 15:24:30 [JosDeRoo]
- zakim, mute me
- 15:24:30 [Zakim]
- Jos_De_Roo should now be muted
- 15:24:37 [EvanWallace]
- New version of ODM: http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/2006-01-01
- 15:25:01 [IanH]
- Donald: no important news on SBDR
- 15:25:13 [IanH]
- Evan: new draft on ODM
- 15:25:17 [csma]
- s/SBDR/SBVR/
- 15:25:36 [IanH]
- Christian: any other news from any other group?
- 15:25:44 [IanH]
- No news.
- 15:25:59 [IanH]
- Next Topic: UCR
- 15:26:12 [IanH]
- Christian to modify template: DONE
- 15:26:46 [IanH]
- Also made slight modificaton to structure
- 15:26:46 [sandro]
- [DONE] ACTION: csma to modify design constraint template to take into acccount what was said today [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/28-rif-minutes.html#action12]
- 15:26:50 [sandro]
- [PENDING] ACTION: Evan to publicize to ODM [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/28-rif-minutes.html#action09]
- 15:26:58 [csma]
- ack john
- 15:27:02 [johnhall]
- did it, said so last week
- 15:27:08 [sandro]
- [DONE] ACTION: John Hall to publicise to BR community [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/28-rif-minutes.html#action04]
- 15:27:26 [Zakim]
- +Michael_Kifer
- 15:27:32 [johnhall]
- zakim, mute me
- 15:27:32 [Zakim]
- johnhall should now be muted
- 15:27:33 [sandro]
- [DONE] ACTION: JosB to publicise to SPARQL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/28-rif-minutes.html#action05]
- 15:27:45 [sandro]
- [DONE] ACTION: Sandro to set up a wiki page to record dissemination actions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/03/28-rif-minutes.html#action10]
- 15:28:14 [IanH]
- Christian: any comment on dissemination?
- 15:28:24 [IanH]
- Sandro: only one comment on comments list
- 15:28:29 [sandro]
- http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Outreach
- 15:28:55 [IanH]
- Christian: not yet evaluated so will discuss next week or via email
- 15:29:07 [sandro]
- comments archive: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-comments/
- 15:29:17 [IanH]
- Next Topic: discussion of specific constraints
- 15:30:10 [IanH]
- Christian: is there a way to visualise structure if we draw dependencies between design constraints? Any visualisation tool for this?
- 15:30:25 [IanH]
- Frank: I use Omnigraffle(?) a Mac tool
- 15:30:36 [SaidTabet]
- Frank: Can you point us to it? URL?
- 15:31:04 [IanH]
- ACTION: Frank will produce an initial diagram with existing constraints
- 15:31:36 [IanH]
- Frank: it has its own format, but will generate visio, jpeg, bmp etc etc
- 15:32:20 [IanH]
- Frank: but probably need Omnigraffle to modify (maybe via visio)
- 15:33:07 [IanH]
- Christian: how do we decide which constraints to discuss, particularly when list grows
- 15:33:23 [IanH]
- Christian: proposes only to discuss constraints that have been seconded
- 15:33:40 [IanH]
- Any objections?
- 15:33:54 [IanH]
- Resolved by popular apathy/aclaim
- 15:34:31 [sandro]
- http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Design_Constraints
- 15:35:41 [IanH]
- Christian: Dave Reynolds proposed strawman goals hierarchy; I believe that it is useful and will help structure constraints
- 15:35:57 [IanH]
- Christian: wonders why almost no goals belong to existing list?
- 15:35:59 [DaveReynolds]
- ack me
- 15:36:24 [sandro]
- dave's email: http://www.w3.org/mid/44326F35.9030804@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- 15:36:33 [IanH]
- Dave: was mainly trying to get structure/level right rather than map existing list.
- 15:36:59 [IanH]
- Dave: believes that some of existing goals *are* in the list, e.g., production rules, semantics, compatibility
- 15:37:22 [IanH]
- Dave: list focuses on high level goals
- 15:38:10 [IanH]
- Dave: wanted to avoid swamping with detail
- 15:38:10 [sandro]
- +1 coherent presentaiton in e-mail vs putting this particular hierarchy on the wiki as is
- 15:38:52 [IanH]
- Christian: encourages people to react to email and comment and add to requirements if believed to be important
- 15:39:19 [IanH]
- Christian: Is clear and precise semantics realy a requirement.
- 15:39:25 [pfps]
- q+
- 15:39:28 [sandro]
- FrankMcCabe
- 15:39:30 [JosDeRoo]
- Sandro: I was wrong with fixed utc start times for rdfcore and webont; is only dawg that has fixed utc start time and I generalized; sorry
- 15:39:34 [IanH]
- Frank: Probably not if we can't measure it
- 15:40:08 [sandro]
- Good, Jos -- I didn't think I'd misunderstood common practice here so badly.
- 15:40:22 [sandro]
- q?
- 15:40:23 [IanH]
- Frank: Wording could be improved - e.g., success will depend on having clear semantics of a RIF rule set
- 15:40:56 [IanH]
- Frank: should be sharpened up and made a requirement
- 15:41:16 [pfps]
- q-
- 15:42:11 [DaveReynolds]
- q+
- 15:42:22 [DaveReynolds]
- ack me
- 15:42:52 [LeoraMorgenstern]
- zakim, unmute me
- 15:42:52 [Zakim]
- LeoraMorgenstern should no longer be muted
- 15:42:54 [IanH]
- Dave: what does it mean for a proposal to be seconded?
- 15:42:56 [LeoraMorgenstern]
- q+
- 15:43:15 [IanH]
- Christian: agrees that dependency on another constraint constitutes support for that constraint
- 15:43:41 [IanH]
- Leora: constraints all seem straightforward and uncontroversial.
- 15:43:45 [sandro]
- http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/RIF_Core_must_cover_pure_Prolog
- 15:43:57 [sandro]
- q?
- 15:43:59 [IanH]
- Christian: may not be true w.r.t. phasing
- 15:44:15 [igor]
- +1
- 15:44:24 [JosDeRoo]
- +1
- 15:44:27 [AxelPolleres]
- Do you mean full ANSI prolog?
- 15:44:35 [IanH]
- Christian: second for pure prolog use case?
- 15:44:45 [IanH]
- Seconded by Igor
- 15:44:59 [sandro]
- Extended RIF must cover FOL
- 15:45:00 [MoZ]
- +1
- 15:45:10 [EvanWallace]
- +1
- 15:45:15 [LeoraMorgenstern]
- Ian, see http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Design_Constraints
- 15:45:24 [IanH]
- 2nd constraint: must cover 2nd order logic
- 15:45:33 [IanH]
- Seconded by NoZ and Evan
- 15:45:33 [MalaMehrotra]
- MalaMehrotra has joined #rif
- 15:45:34 [Allen]
- q+
- 15:45:37 [LeoraMorgenstern]
- q-
- 15:45:50 [IanH]
- 3rd constaint: must be sound
- 15:46:07 [csma]
- ack leora
- 15:46:10 [Allen]
- zakim, unmute me
- 15:46:10 [Zakim]
- Allen_Ginsberg should no longer be muted
- 15:46:14 [IanH]
- Harold: not sure this makes sense - all logics are sound
- 15:46:44 [IanH]
- Allen: soundness may be a requirement on systems rather than RIF
- 15:47:03 [josb]
- How can you reason with something which is unknown?
- 15:47:32 [IanH]
- Christian: requirement should be rephrased to clearly be a requirement on RIF and not on systems
- 15:47:58 [sandro]
- q+
- 15:47:59 [IanH]
- Allen: agreed; also, do we want requirements/constraints on systems?
- 15:48:07 [sandro]
- ack Allen
- 15:48:12 [LeoraMorgenstern]
- Ian, in your scribing, you say 2nd constraint mentions 2nd order logic; actually, it mentions first order logic!
- 15:48:33 [LeoraMorgenstern]
- (confusion of seconding the constraint and the order of logic ;)
- 15:48:40 [IanH]
- CORRECTION: second constraint refers to 1st order logic (thaks)
- 15:49:13 [Allen]
- zakim, mute me\
- 15:49:13 [Zakim]
- sorry, Allen, I do not see a party named 'me\'
- 15:49:14 [Allen]
- zakim, mute me
- 15:49:14 [Zakim]
- Allen_Ginsberg should now be muted
- 15:49:30 [GiorgosStoilos]
- s/must cover 2nd order logic/must cover 1st order logic
- 15:49:35 [Allen]
- q+
- 15:49:41 [sandro]
- ack sandro
- 15:49:52 [IanH]
- Christian: nobody has yet seconded the soundness constraint; should be clarified and discussed on email before being discussed on teleconf
- 15:51:03 [IanH]
- Sandro: disagrees with procedure; teleconf is good place to discuss focus of constraint (RIF -v- systems)
- 15:51:12 [Allen]
- zakim, unmute me
- 15:51:12 [Zakim]
- Allen_Ginsberg should no longer be muted
- 15:51:54 [IanH]
- Christian: agrees in general, but w.r.t. specific constraint 2 clarifications needed: what does "sound" mean; is it a RIF or system constraint
- 15:52:13 [IanH]
- ACTION: sandro to clarify meaning of sound and what is the requirement on RIF
- 15:53:17 [IanH]
- ???: requirements often reflect proposed/imagined applications
- 15:53:19 [sandro]
- (I'll probably rename it: RIF Core must allow sound reasoning with unknown dialects
- 15:53:19 [sandro]
- )
- 15:53:31 [josb]
- s/???/Allen/
- 15:53:58 [IanH]
- Allen: but this may lead to revealing constraints/requirement on RIF
- 15:54:37 [AxelPolleres]
- -1 (sorry very late) to RIF_Core_must_cover_pure_Prolog: Prolog is not declarative, I don't like that in RIF core
- 15:54:38 [csma]
- q?
- 15:54:47 [IanH]
- Allen: So may be useful to talk about applications w.r.t. critical success factors and/or goals
- 15:55:38 [IanH]
- Harold: Asks clarrification question that I didn't understand w.r.t. "soundness"
- 15:56:10 [GaryHallmark]
- -1 to RIF_Core_must_cover_pure_Prolog -- this implies that every prolog ruleset must be able to be translated to every rule dialect we support. I'm not sure that's possible with production rules
- 15:56:21 [IanH]
- Sandro: rephrase requirement 3 as RIF core must allow sound reasoning with mixed dialects
- 15:56:59 [Allen]
- zakim, mute me
- 15:56:59 [Zakim]
- Allen_Ginsberg should now be muted
- 15:57:25 [Harold]
- Sandro, Re candidate DC "Sound reasoning with unknown dialects" from the RIF perspective we could say "Permit heterogeneous rules in a single ruleset".
- 15:57:28 [JosDeRoo]
- use case?
- 15:57:39 [josb]
- +1
- 15:57:40 [IanH]
- zakim, unmute me
- 15:57:40 [Zakim]
- IanH should no longer be muted
- 15:57:41 [Allen]
- skipped one
- 15:57:44 [ChrisW]
- ChrisW has joined #rif
- 15:57:53 [DaveReynolds]
- You skipped one, the next one was The RIF Core must be able to accept RDF triples as data
- 15:58:21 [IanH]
- ACTION: to clarify whether sound reasoning constraint with unknown dialects is a requirement or a critical success factor
- 15:58:25 [AxelPolleres]
- +q
- 15:58:32 [csma]
- q?
- 15:58:32 [JosDeRoo]
- +1
- 15:58:37 [Allen]
- q-
- 15:58:37 [AxelPolleres]
- Zakim, unmute me
- 15:58:38 [sandro]
- You want "q+" Alex.
- 15:58:38 [josb]
- yes
- 15:58:38 [Zakim]
- Axel_Polleres should no longer be muted
- 15:58:41 [MichaelKifer]
- regarding RIF_Core_must_cover_pure_Prolog: Pure prolog = Horn. I understand that we are committed to that
- 15:58:50 [IanH]
- Constraint: RIF must be able to accept RDF as data
- 15:59:03 [csma]
- ack allen
- 15:59:05 [sandro]
- You want "q+" Axel
- 15:59:12 [Allen]
- q-
- 15:59:36 [JosDeRoo]
- yes
- 15:59:45 [DaveReynolds]
- +1 to The RIF Core must be able to accept RDF triples as data
- 15:59:49 [AxelPolleres]
- Zakim, mute me
- 15:59:49 [Zakim]
- Axel_Polleres should now be muted
- 15:59:58 [AxelPolleres]
- +1 to RDF
- 16:00:01 [IanH]
- Seconded DaveReynolds
- 16:00:03 [josb]
- I will second this as well
- 16:00:12 [IanH]
- And seconded by Axel
- 16:00:47 [IanH]
- Sandro/Christian: seconding should be via web page
- 16:01:04 [IanH]
- Christian: you have to add your name on the wiki page for that constraint
- 16:01:10 [AxelPolleres]
- Will there also be the possiblity to *object* on the Wiki page?
- 16:01:42 [josb]
- q+
- 16:01:42 [sandro]
- http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/RIF_Core_must_cover_pure_Prolog
- 16:01:45 [IanH]
- Christian: open discussion on pure prolog
- 16:01:51 [sandro]
- q?
- 16:01:51 [GaryHallmark]
- q+
- 16:01:58 [csma]
- q?
- 16:01:59 [AxelPolleres]
- I think jos will clarify this...
- 16:02:05 [Uli]
- can we refine constraints? If yes, what happens to the secondings?
- 16:02:05 [pfps]
- q+
- 16:02:05 [IanH]
- Christian: Axel didn't support?
- 16:02:09 [sandro]
- ack josb
- 16:02:11 [csma]
- ack josb
- 16:02:34 [IanH]
- Josb: problem is that prolog doesn't have declarative semantics; would require procedural semantics for RIF
- 16:02:39 [Allen]
- that depends what you mean by "cover"
- 16:02:39 [IanH]
- Christian: too weak?
- 16:02:43 [MarkusK]
- An interesting link considering declarativity in Prolog: http://www.cs.sunysb.edu/~warren/xsbbook/node2.html
- 16:02:51 [AxelPolleres]
- IanH: I didn't support prolog in the sense of jos
- 16:02:58 [IanH]
- Josb: no, too strong; would requirem procedural semantics.
- 16:03:08 [AxelPolleres]
- q+
- 16:03:17 [holger]
- holger has joined #rif
- 16:03:21 [Harold]
- MichealK, I agree in the sense that Pure Prolog 'realizes' Horn, which is the language of the Charter's Phase 1.
- 16:03:25 [Harold]
- q+
- 16:03:30 [FrankMcCabe]
- I think that jos is misunderstanding the situation
- 16:03:37 [IanH]
- Josb: semantics only defined in terms of algorithm; if this is a req. then we would need this kind of algoritm to define semantics for RIF core
- 16:03:47 [AxelPolleres]
- q-
- 16:03:56 [IanH]
- Sandro: e.g. requiring SLD resolution or some such
- 16:04:00 [csma]
- ack gary
- 16:04:39 [IanH]
- Gary: Agree, it is too big, and this would mean that every prolog rule set would need to be translated into production rules.
- 16:04:51 [IanH]
- Gray: believes that this would lead to problems
- 16:05:04 [FrankMcCabe]
- q+
- 16:05:07 [sandro]
- q+ Alex
- 16:05:13 [AxelPolleres]
- I was just about to mention the example that "pure" Prolog doesn't terminate on queries that can be fulfiled and depends on the rule order, so a ruleset, is actually not a set there.
- 16:05:13 [sandro]
- ack pfps
- 16:05:13 [csma]
- ack
- 16:05:59 [MoZ]
- +1 to define pure prolog
- 16:06:10 [IanH]
- Peter: two issues. 1) what is defn of pure prolog? idealisation of prolog without negation etc. This is effectively horn clauses which is better. 2) this is only semi decidable, which is bad for core
- 16:06:32 [GaryHallmark]
- s/Gray/Gary
- 16:06:43 [IanH]
- Sandro: believes that by pure prolog he really meant Horn
- 16:06:47 [MichaelKifer]
- q+
- 16:06:55 [josb]
- q+
- 16:07:03 [IanH]
- Sandro: thinks that procedural semantics may be needed in real world examples.
- 16:07:12 [sandro]
- ack Harold
- 16:07:13 [IanH]
- Sandro: needs clarification; we are getting there.
- 16:07:14 [csma]
- ack harold
- 16:07:15 [Uli]
- ...and perhaps even function-free Horn?!
- 16:07:20 [igor]
- pure Prolog = logic program (Horn) with defined order of goals and clauses
- 16:07:56 [Allen]
- q+
- 16:08:01 [IanH]
- Harold: believes that RP realises prolog; can imagine lex. ordering not taken into account; needs some procedural stuff
- 16:08:09 [MoZ]
- i imagine with have to settle an action to define the subset of Prolog we cover in RIF language
- 16:08:18 [josb]
- +1 to start with Datalog
- 16:08:22 [MoZ]
- s/with/we/
- 16:08:27 [josb]
- Datalog also has a declarative semantics
- 16:08:30 [IanH]
- Harold: decided in charter to specify Datalog
- 16:08:31 [AxelPolleres]
- +1 to igor's definition and thus -1 to the requirement! :-)
- 16:08:41 [IanH]
- Sandro: pure prolog covers Datalog
- 16:08:51 [sandro]
- q?
- 16:08:52 [AxelPolleres]
- Datalog is declarative, i.e. rule order does not matter!
- 16:09:04 [IanH]
- Harold: was discussed 1 year ago and we decided to start with Horn and not just datalog
- 16:09:16 [IanH]
- Christian: reason was to have functions in phase 1
- 16:09:26 [IanH]
- Harold: this makes it undecidable
- 16:09:41 [csma]
- q?
- 16:09:48 [IanH]
- Sandro: maybe we should separate requirements into Datalog and pure prolog
- 16:10:08 [IanH]
- Harold: what about charter?
- 16:10:18 [sandro]
- ack FrankMcCabe
- 16:10:19 [IanH]
- Christian: again, because we wanted functions
- 16:10:28 [IanH]
- Frank: Harlold said it all.
- 16:10:47 [IanH]
- Frank: Most people believe that PP means Horn with no procedural semantics
- 16:10:50 [Hassan]
- q+
- 16:10:55 [csma]
- ack alex
- 16:10:57 [IanH]
- Frank: has been a religious argument for many years
- 16:10:58 [josb]
- Let's use an unambiguous terminology!
- 16:11:36 [IanH]
- Alex: In RIF core will there be any way to mark rules as using a different semantics, or will there be a uniform semantics for all rules?
- 16:11:57 [josb]
- q-
- 16:12:20 [MarkusK]
- What does it mean to "implement the RIF core", for a semi-decidable core?
- 16:12:27 [IanH]
- Christian: every implementation must implement at least RIF core, but not all implementations will be able to implement multiple semantics - big burden on implementors
- 16:12:40 [csma]
- q?
- 16:12:45 [IanH]
- Alex: but what about provision for plug-in semantics?
- 16:12:54 [Uli]
- ...but how will this be an implementation for their combination? We would need to define what their combination means?!
- 16:12:58 [sandro]
- ack MichaelKifer
- 16:13:02 [FrankMcCabe]
- Semi-decidable = soundness and completeness and decidable equality?
- 16:13:06 [IanH]
- Christian: believes this is for extended RIF, but could be discussed
- 16:13:07 [MarkusK]
- +1 to Uli
- 16:13:08 [Allen]
- zakim, unmute me
- 16:13:08 [Zakim]
- Allen_Ginsberg was not muted, Allen
- 16:13:22 [IanH]
- Michael: believes PP is equivalent to Horn rules
- 16:13:26 [sandro]
- zakim, who is talking?
- 16:13:37 [LeoraMorgenstern]
- am I the only one hearing french on the line?
- 16:13:38 [Zakim]
- sandro, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Sandro (10%), Michael_Kifer (80%), MoZ (47%), Allen_Ginsberg (19%)
- 16:13:39 [IanH]
- Michael: is there a requirement for decidability of Core?
- 16:13:48 [sandro]
- zakim, mute MoZ
- 16:13:48 [Zakim]
- MoZ should now be muted
- 16:13:58 [IanH]
- Michael: what is wrong with core being undecidable?
- 16:14:00 [Uli]
- Semi-decidable: "yes" will be answered correctly, "no" might not terminate
- 16:14:02 [sandro]
- no, LeoraMorgenstern, me too
- 16:14:06 [MoZ]
- sorry
- 16:14:21 [IanH]
- Michael: at f2f we proposed semantic tagging of rule sets for extensibility
- 16:14:34 [IanH]
- Michael/Alex: this is needed for extensibility
- 16:14:36 [MarkusK]
- Semi-decidable: all "yes" are recursively enumerable
- 16:14:37 [csma]
- q?
- 16:14:41 [FrankMcCabe]
- there is a completeness proof for SLD logic
- 16:15:13 [sandro]
- q?
- 16:15:17 [IanH]
- Machael: only question is whethere core needs to be decidable; what about production rules? not compatible with Horn
- 16:15:19 [MichaelKifer]
- q-
- 16:15:35 [Zakim]
- -MoZ
- 16:15:45 [IanH]
- Allen: Agrees with Michael; no need to be decidable.
- 16:16:33 [IanH]
- Allen: notion of representation without being able to reason
- 16:16:58 [IanH]
- Christian: what do we do with non-requirements?
- 16:17:15 [IanH]
- Frank: good idea to have non-requirements
- 16:17:17 [josb]
- q+
- 16:17:34 [IanH]
- Sandro: we can just decide this; can be written up on wiki page
- 16:17:55 [Leora_Morgenstern]
- Leora_Morgenstern has joined #rif
- 16:18:04 [IanH]
- Christian: this may apply to decidability (it may be a non-requirement)
- 16:18:17 [Allen]
- q-
- 16:18:41 [Allen]
- zakim, mute me
- 16:18:41 [Zakim]
- Allen_Ginsberg should now be muted
- 16:19:14 [IanH]
- Christian: wants write up as to why RIF core should *not* cover pure prolog
- 16:19:33 [IanH]
- Sandro: would like to separate this from decidability (non-)requirement
- 16:19:37 [josb]
- q-
- 16:19:50 [GaryHallmark]
- does anyone know how to characterize the intersection of production rules and pure prolog?
- 16:20:12 [IanH]
- Sandro: question as to definition/semantics also needs to be clarified
- 16:20:16 [AxelPolleres]
- If it was about specifying the criticicm, I can do that. In the document?
- 16:21:22 [IanH]
- ACTION: MickaelK to extend page on pure prolog and give a precise definition (according to standard publications)
- 16:22:09 [sandro]
- page is http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Pure_Prolog
- 16:22:32 [IanH]
- Christian: volunteer to clarify (non)decidability?
- 16:22:56 [Uli]
- q+
- 16:23:04 [IanH]
- Sandro: proposes that decidability is not a requirement
- 16:23:06 [sandro]
- ack Uli
- 16:23:07 [csma]
- ack uli
- 16:23:17 [AxelPolleres]
- We should of course define the decidable fragments and give them a name. Or no?
- 16:23:31 [IanH]
- Uli: could we be clearer about what kind of reasoning problems we are talking about?
- 16:23:32 [AxelPolleres]
- q+
- 16:23:43 [IanH]
- Christian: agrees; this needs to be discussed and clarified
- 16:23:47 [AxelPolleres]
- Zakim, unmute me
- 16:23:47 [Zakim]
- Axel_Polleres should no longer be muted
- 16:23:52 [csma]
- ack axel
- 16:24:24 [sandro]
- +1 define somewhere the decidable fragments, w.r.t. particular reasoning tasks, like query answering
- 16:24:26 [IanH]
- Axel: even if we decide against decidability, would be useful to identify known decidable fragments (w.r.t. particularl reasoning tasks)
- 16:24:30 [Harold]
- Uli, right: issue is decidability of conjunctive queries
- 16:24:34 [Uli]
- +1
- 16:24:53 [Harold]
- Axel, yes: standard sublanguage Datalog is a good idea.
- 16:25:04 [pfps]
- A counter to Michael's claim that PP is always Horn (only) can be found in http://www.cs.nyu.edu/courses/spring02/G22.2560-001/horn.html
- 16:25:10 [AxelPolleres]
- Zakim, unmute me.
- 16:25:10 [Zakim]
- Axel_Polleres was not muted, AxelPolleres
- 16:25:14 [AxelPolleres]
- Zakim, mute me.
- 16:25:14 [Zakim]
- Axel_Polleres should now be muted
- 16:25:43 [IanH]
- Christian: would like someone to propose decidability (non-)requirement so we can discuss something more precisely defined
- 16:26:02 [IanH]
- Harold: Charter says Horn, and this is undecidable
- 16:26:05 [josb]
- +1 to pfps; we should be unambiguous in the terminology
- 16:26:11 [csma]
- ack hassan
- 16:26:22 [Zakim]
- +MoZ
- 16:26:23 [AxelPolleres]
- +1 to Hassan
- 16:26:27 [sandro]
- q+
- 16:26:28 [josb]
- +1 to Hassan
- 16:26:28 [MarkusK]
- +1 to avoid the term Horn
- 16:26:30 [PaulaP]
- +1 to Hassan's comment
- 16:26:34 [sandro]
- zakim, mute moz
- 16:26:34 [Zakim]
- MoZ should now be muted
- 16:26:35 [Uli]
- +1
- 16:26:38 [MarkusK]
- s /Horn/Prolog/
- 16:26:43 [sandro]
- Moz, I muted you because you were being noisy
- 16:26:46 [AxelPolleres]
- MArkusK, you meant Prolog?
- 16:26:48 [IanH]
- Hassan: hears a lot of confusion; shouldn't use prolog, should use Horn; not clear what pure prolog means - should just cast out this term
- 16:26:52 [sandro]
- q?
- 16:27:00 [MarkusK]
- Axel: yes
- 16:27:10 [IanH]
- Hassan: any interesting rule language will be undecidable, so its a non-requirement
- 16:27:52 [MichaelKifer]
- +1 to Hasan's proposal (especially since this obviates my action item :-)
- 16:28:02 [IanH]
- Hassan: need rule annotations that can specify semantics (which may be declarative or procedural)
- 16:29:24 [sandro]
- ack sandro
- 16:29:26 [IanH]
- ACTION: Christian to send email to propose resolution that decidability is a non-requirement and gather relevant arguments before next telecon
- 16:29:27 [csma]
- ack sandro
- 16:29:37 [sandro]
- Extended RIF must cover jrules
- 16:30:10 [IanH]
- Sandro: Imagines each participant requires that extended RIF covers their rule language of choice
- 16:30:35 [Zakim]
- -Gary_Hallmark
- 16:30:38 [MichaelKifer]
- q+
- 16:30:40 [IanH]
- Sandro: thought that pure prolog was, however, small enough to be covered in core, but is a real language that is widely used and well understood
- 16:30:40 [csma]
- q?
- 16:30:41 [josb]
- -1 to Sandro
- 16:31:03 [IanH]
- Harlod: agrees; can extend such an implementation in many directions.
- 16:31:07 [Uli]
- ...but prolog doesn't have a declarative semantics!
- 16:31:15 [sandro]
- +1 extend 10 minutes
- 16:31:18 [MoZ]
- +1
- 16:31:19 [DaveReynolds]
- -1 continue by email
- 16:31:27 [josb]
- -1: continute by email
- 16:31:38 [josb]
- s/continute/continue/
- 16:31:39 [sandro]
- resolved 5 minutes
- 16:31:40 [AxelPolleres]
- If we agree to Sandro then we implicitly should agree to drop the term rule-"set" odr no?
- 16:31:42 [IanH]
- At *most* 10 minutes for me!
- 16:31:44 [csma]
- ack hassan
- 16:31:56 [Zakim]
- +Gary_Hallmark
- 16:32:03 [josb]
- Few people agree with Sandro!
- 16:32:04 [csma]
- q?
- 16:32:18 [josb]
- +1 to Hassan again
- 16:32:36 [Harold]
- ...Pure Prolog (with annotation: no textual order, breadth-first, occurs check) has declarative semantics of Herbrand models.
- 16:32:38 [IanH]
- Hassan: pure prolog is not a language; it is a set of rules and you need to say how they will be used; let's not be ambiguous.
- 16:32:46 [GaryHallmark]
- q+
- 16:33:21 [josb]
- ++++++++1
- 16:33:29 [Uli]
- Harold, I thought "Pure prolog" is depth first, and order-dependent?!
- 16:33:36 [csma]
- Q?
- 16:33:36 [MichaelKifer]
- q-
- 16:33:37 [IanH]
- MichaelK: Peter points our varioations on meaning of pure prolog. May mean terminating prolog rules. Michael agrees; suggests we only talk about Horn. He will clarify on wiki.
- 16:33:46 [csma]
- ack gary
- 16:33:48 [AxelPolleres]
- I thought the same as uli.
- 16:34:30 [IanH]
- GaryH: Agrees with Sandro about favourite language; core must be common to everyones favourites; is "pure prolog"/Horn small enough to be in this intersection?
- 16:34:39 [pfps]
- The pointer I gave does define Pure Prolog as L-R evaluation, and other deviations from "Horn" semantics.
- 16:34:40 [FrankMcCabe]
- we must decide on declarative vs procedural semantics
- 16:34:46 [IanH]
- Sandro: will be interested in outcome of discussion.
- 16:35:05 [IanH]
- Christian: aob?
- 16:35:23 [PaulaP]
- bye
- 16:35:25 [Zakim]
- -FrankMcCabe
- 16:35:25 [IanH]
- Christian: hearing none, meeting is closed.\
- 16:35:26 [Zakim]
- -Hassan_Ait-Kaci
- 16:35:26 [Zakim]
- -josb
- 16:35:27 [Zakim]
- -pfps
- 16:35:28 [Deborah_Nichols]
- bye
- 16:35:28 [Zakim]
- -JeffP
- 16:35:29 [Zakim]
- -Igor_Mozetic
- 16:35:30 [Zakim]
- -Uli
- 16:35:31 [Zakim]
- -PaulaP
- 16:35:32 [Uli]
- bye
- 16:35:32 [JeffP]
- bye
- 16:35:32 [Zakim]
- -Deborah_Nichols
- 16:35:34 [Zakim]
- -MarkusK
- 16:35:35 [Allen]
- bye
- 16:35:36 [Zakim]
- -??P4
- 16:35:37 [SaidTabet]
- bye'
- 16:35:38 [Zakim]
- -Dave_Reynolds
- 16:35:38 [igor]
- bye
- 16:35:40 [Zakim]
- -GiorgosStoilos
- 16:35:42 [Zakim]
- -Gary_Hallmark
- 16:35:44 [Zakim]
- -MoZ
- 16:35:44 [MoZ]
- bye
- 16:35:46 [Zakim]
- -David_Hirtle
- 16:35:48 [Zakim]
- -LeoraMorgenstern
- 16:35:49 [MalaMehrotra]
- bye
- 16:35:50 [Zakim]
- -Jos_De_Roo
- 16:35:52 [Zakim]
- -Evan_Wallace
- 16:35:53 [Harold]
- Uli, in John Lloyd's "Foundations of Logic Programming" depth first is labeled as a search strategy that leads to implementation incompleteness.
- 16:35:54 [Zakim]
- -Donald_Chapin
- 16:35:56 [Zakim]
- -SaidTabet
- 16:35:56 [IanH]
- zakim, unmute me
- 16:35:58 [Zakim]
- -Axel_Polleres
- 16:36:00 [Zakim]
- -Allen_Ginsberg
- 16:36:02 [Zakim]
- -Michael_Kifer
- 16:36:04 [Zakim]
- IanH was not muted, IanH
- 16:36:06 [Zakim]
- -Mike_Dean
- 16:36:08 [Zakim]
- -Harold
- 16:36:11 [csma]
- make minutes
- 16:36:13 [AxelPolleres]
- because, he seems to neglect the difference...
- 16:36:15 [sandro]
- zakim, who is on the call
- 16:36:15 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'who is on the call', sandro
- 16:36:19 [AxelPolleres]
- ooops
- 16:36:22 [sandro]
- zakim, who is on the call?
- 16:36:22 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see csma, IanH, Sandro, johnhall (muted), Mala_Mehrotra
- 16:36:25 [Zakim]
- -johnhall
- 16:36:38 [sandro]
- RRSAgent, make minutes
- 16:36:38 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2006/04/04-rif-minutes.html sandro
- 16:37:11 [Zakim]
- -Mala_Mehrotra
- 16:38:17 [sandro]
- RRSAgent, pointer?
- 16:38:17 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2006/04/04-rif-irc#T16-38-17
- 16:38:51 [Zakim]
- -IanH
- 16:39:26 [ChrisW]
- looks like an interesting call!
- 16:40:06 [sandro]
- zakim, who is on the call?
- 16:40:06 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see csma, Sandro
- 16:47:01 [Zakim]
- -Sandro
- 16:47:02 [Zakim]
- -csma
- 16:47:04 [Zakim]
- SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended
- 16:47:05 [Zakim]
- Attendees were Hassan_Ait-Kaci, Leora_Morgenstern, Evan_Wallace, Donald_Chapin, josb, Deborah_Nichols, LeoraMorgenstern, csma, Harold, FrankMcCabe, Axel_Polleres, Dave_Reynolds,
- 16:47:10 [Zakim]
- ... IanH, Allen_Ginsberg, MarkusK, Mike_Dean, David_Hirtle, Uli, PaulaP, Jos_De_Roo, Igor_Mozetic, pfps, GiorgosStoilos, Sandro, johnhall, JeffP, SaidTabet, Mala_Mehrotra,
- 16:47:12 [Zakim]
- ... Gary_Hallmark, MoZ, Michael_Kifer
- 17:11:13 [ChrisW]
- zakim?
- 17:11:17 [ChrisW]
- hello?
- 17:11:43 [ChrisW]
- zakim, who is on the phone?
- 17:11:43 [Zakim]
- apparently SW_RIF()11:00AM has ended, ChrisW
- 17:11:44 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see Leora_Morgenstern, holger, ChrisW, sandro, JeffP, IanH, Uli, Harold, RRSAgent, Zakim, csma, LeoraMorgenstern, FrankMcCabe, EvanWallace, MoZ, Keeper
- 17:41:30 [csma]
- csma has left #rif
- 19:23:55 [MoZ_]
- MoZ_ has joined #rif
- 19:24:57 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #rif
- 19:25:29 [MoZ__]
- MoZ__ has joined #rif