Agenda
See also: IRC log
<ChrisW> Scribe: Mike Dean
<ChrisW> scribenick: mdean
<cke> Christian is in IRC, but not on the phone
<DaveReynolds> Apologies but I need to leave the call early (by about 40 min)
<ChrisW>
<ChrisW> PROPOSED: accept last weeks minutes
<ChrisW> RESOLVED: accept last weeks minutes
ChrisW: contain 3 last call resolutions
ChrisW: no agenda amendments
Sandro: SPARQL working group
response and discussion about rdf:text
... need about 3 words change - mention SPARQL explicitly - all editorial
... lots of people misunderstood spec
... close to consensus
... Axel proposed change from rdf:text to rdf:plainLiteral
<josb> I would be fine with the name change
Sandro: don't expect any (other) substantiive changes
ChrisW: shouldn't require another last call by itself
Sandro: OWL 2 close to CR - one more document and internal approval - should be CR in a couple weeks
<ChrisW> close action-822
<trackbot> ACTION-822 Change subscript "l" in 6.1 to something else (not so confused with "1") and have Jos proof-read the change. closed
close action-821
<trackbot> ACTION-821 Review pending DTB actions (815-820) closed
<csma> 782 and 784 are continued
780 and 777 are continued
csma: hope for PRD last call today
ChrisW: Axel hasn't yet reviewed appendix
772 and 770 are continued
close action-770
<trackbot> ACTION-770 Review Core closed
765 is continued
<StellaMitchell> 708 continued (in progress)
<hak> continued until further notice ... (will get really serious on it when all the RIF XML vocabularies are stable - last call)
ChrisW: concludes open actions
<scribe> ... pending review: test cases, DTB treatment of casting
close action-740
<trackbot> ACTION-740 Accomodate casting functions in a well defined manner closed
close action-815
<trackbot> ACTION-815 Mark rdf:text at risk in DTB closed
close action-816
<trackbot> ACTION-816 Rename "primitive" datatypes to datatypes closed
close action-815
<trackbot> ACTION-815 Mark rdf:text at risk in DTB closed
close action-818
<trackbot> ACTION-818 Make base directive iris absolute closed
ChrisW: concludes action
review
... reviewers for PRD: Harold and Changhai (sp)
csma: English proofreading
... Adrian addressed model theoretic concerns
<sandro> Harold, do you know how to do wiki diffs? They are pretty readable these days...
<sandro> (usually)
csma: moved semantics of
conditions to appendix
... target audience more familiar with pattern-matching semantics
Harold: (forward) references to appendix are OK
<cke> Christian, your change addresses my main concern. The others are more minor
<Harold> PRD Editors, the Abstract is still a bit short.
Gary: would like pattern-matching and model theory to be equivalent, but requires talking about safeness
csma: only reference to safeness
in conformance and definition in core, which may be obscure to
non-logician
... perhaps remove pattern matching from title of section
Gary: don't require constraint solving
csma: current definitions are
equivalent
... this is an editorial change
Gary: wasn't obvious from my reading
csma: pattern matching title is
misleading
... operational definition of safeness - working on it for a while
... hesitant to make Last Call dependent on such an editorial change
<sandro> csma: This is just an editorial change; it does not affect conformance. we're clear that constraint satisfaction is not needed in consumers.
<cke> Does PRD inherit the safeness from Core??
<sandro> csma: This will make understanding PRD easier for users, but does not change definition. We should work on this later, after Last Call.
<sandro> chris: the change is: the move discussion of safeness to be earlier in document?
<sandro> csma: Not exactly: to add an operational definition of safeness. Maybe move it -- I don't know.
<AdrianP> we should try to build the PRD safety defintion upon the Core safety definition
<sandro> chris: everyone agree that an operational definition of safeness is not required for last call?
<sandro> harold: agreed
<josb> agreed
<cke> There is so far no mention of safeness in PRD.
<sandro> mdean, don't let me as stop you from scribing -- I just want additional clarity on bits which I think are crucial to minute.
<csma> Changhai: there is, in the conformance section.
<Gary> 2 issues: 1. is the model theory and pattern matching really the same? or does pattern matching imply safeness? 2. assuming equivalent, we should make it more obvious that safeness is required and can be used to simplify implementation
<csma> actions: check that the two spec of the semantics of the condition are equivalent
<ChrisW> ACTION: chris to review PRD operational and model=theoretic conditions are = [recorded in]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-824 - Review PRD operational and model=theoretic conditions are = [on Christopher Welty - due 2009-06-02].
<csma> ... clarify that safeness is required to guarantee that constraint solving is not required for RIF-PRD
<ChrisW> ACTION: csma to clarify in PRD that safeness is required to guarantee that constraint solving is not needed [recorded in]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-825 - Clarify in PRD that safeness is required to guarantee that constraint solving is not needed [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-06-02].
csma: should satisfy Gary's comment
<csma> ... add, if possible, an operational definition of safety
<ChrisW> ACTION: csma add, if possible, an operational definition of safety [recorded in]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-826 - Add, if possible, an operational definition of safety [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-06-02].
csma: definition would probably go in appendix
ChrisW: Last Call dependent on completion of actions 824 and 825
csma: also need to remove appendix 13 - currently incomplete
<ChrisW> ACTION: csma to fix or remove appendix 13 [recorded in]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-827 - Fix or remove appendix 13 [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-06-02].
<ChrisW> ACTION: gary review csma changes to PRD [recorded in]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-828 - Review csma changes to PRD [on Gary Hallmark - due 2009-06-02].
csma: Last Call dependent on completion of 824, 825, 827, 828
<ChrisW> PROPOSED: Publish PRD as Last Call, contingent on completion of actions 824, 825, 827, and 828
<Harold> +1
<AdrianP> +1
<cke> +1
<StellaMitchell> +1
<Gary> +1
+1
<DaveReynolds> +1
<hak> +1
<ChrisW> Axel: +1 (on phone)
<MichaelKifer> +1
<josb> 0 [since I could not review it]
<ChrisW> +1
<sandro> +1
<apollere2> +1
<ChrisW> Leora: +1 (on phone)
<ChrisW> RESOLVED: Publish PRD as Last Call, contingent on completion of actions 824, 825, 827, and 828
ChrisW: 2 reviews, from Axel and
Gary
... PRD checklist includes - check syntactic list restriction from core
<ChrisW> ack csma.a
Adrian: done for presentation syntax and XML
ChrisW: back to SWC
Axel: import for OWL, but OWL
doesn't have import for RIF (e.g. DL Safe RIF Rules)
... a couple editorial items
... XML Schema namespace prefix terminology
ChrisW: not fixed?
Axel: no email from Jos
Jos: not yet incorporated
ChrisW: make concrete list and action, so vote can be contingent
Axel: multi-structures look different from BLD
).
ChrisW: changed a couple months ago
MichaelKifer: lack of uniformity
entailing formulas that are not documents
... could adorn any structure with any formula
... now more restrictive
... role of each item in semantic structure is now clear
<csma> (Re lists in PRD: I just checked, and the abstract syntax includes the restriction)
MichaelKifer: also allows more uniformity in FLD
ChrisW: SWC still has old multi-structure definition
MichaelKifer: ... not needed there, kind of artificial
Axel: recursive imports needs to be clarified
Jos: recursive imports addressed in section 5.2
ChrisW: imports closure
<ChrisW> ACTION: josb to update SWC to new BLD definition of multi-structures [recorded in]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-829 - Update SWC to new BLD definition of multi-structures [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2009-06-02].
<ChrisW> ACTION: to review jos' edits to SWC [recorded in]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - to
<ChrisW> ACTION: axel to review jos' edits to SWC [recorded in]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-830 - Review jos' edits to SWC [on Axel Polleres - due 2009-06-02].
Gary: all known issues have been taken care of
Jos: suggest publishing SWC without proofs
Sandro: haven't asked for publication date yet - probably June 2 or 4, but could probably push off to June 9
ChrisW: proofs are non-normative
Jos: might require small changes
<sandro> bug-fixed after Last Call are okay.
Sandro: worth waiting for
proofs?
... but extra week would also help for rdf:text
Chris: get well soon
<ChrisWW> ACTION: josb to finish the SWC proofs or remove them [recorded in]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-831 - Finish the SWC proofs or remove them [on Jos de Bruijn - due 2009-06-02].
<ChrisW> PROPOSED: publish SWC as Last Call, pending completion of actions 829, 831, and 830
<AdrianP> +1
<ChrisW> +1
<josb> +1
<Harold> +1
<cke> +1
<sandro> +1
<StellaMitchell> +1
<hak> +1
<Gary> +1
<MichaelKifer> +1
+1
<apollere2> +1
<ChrisW> Leora: +1 (on phone)
<ChrisW> RESOLVED: publish SWC as Last Call, pending completion of actions 829, 831, and 830
ChrisW: reviewed by Stella and Chris
StellaMitchell: all comments have been addressed
<ChrisW> "All logic RIF dialects are required to be derived from RIF-FLD by specialization, as explained..."
<ChrisW> "MUST"
<csma> +1 that non-conformance is not well defined, if it is a MUST
<ChrisW> "All RIF dialects SHOULD be derived from RIF-FLD by specialization, as explained..."
ChrisW: SHOULD implies that you should say why if you can't do something
<Harold> End of first paragraph: "Therefore, any logic dialect being developed to become a standard should either be a specialization of FLD or justify its extensions to (or, deviations from) FLD"
<Harold> Could be changed to: "Therefore, any dialect being developed to become a standard should either be a specialization of FLD or justify its extensions to (or, deviations from) FLD"
MichaelKifer: prefer MUST and
keeping logic
... but not a showstopper
<ChrisW> ack csma.a
<Harold> At later points "logic" could be kept.
csma: +1 for SHOULD, afraid of consequences of removing logic on PRD
<sandro> ChrisW, let's just use SHOULD and leave in "logic".... okay?
ChrisW: still went through process, but not documented - grandfathered in
<sandro> PROPOSED.... ?
<sandro> ChrisW, we don't have a lot of time!!
<Harold> What about: "Therefore, the development of any dialect to become a standard should start as a specialization of FLD or justify its extensions to (or, deviations from) FLD"
csma: removing logic throughout would be very painful
<ChrisW> ACTION: to update wording in intro & abstract to use "SHOULD" [recorded in]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - to
<ChrisW> PROPOSED: go for another 10 mins?
<hak> -1
<sandro> +1 extend 10+ minuntes
<csma> +1
<Harold> +1
+1
<AdrianP> +1
ChrisW: disjointness of variables and constants
MichaelKifer: special syntax for constants would make this a mess and require disambiguation rules, e.g. open formulas
<csma> ACTION: mkifer to update wording in intro & abstract to use "SHOULD" [recorded in]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-832 - Update wording in intro & abstract to use "SHOULD" [on Michael Kifer - due 2009-06-02].
ChrisW: don't require all dialects, but in allow free variables in framework
MichaelKifer: would require
substantial revisions
... need to think of what changes would require, but don't see much value
ChrisW: don't have particular use case, but note that it is allowed in Common Logic
MichaelKifer: if it's quantified, you know it's a variable
<sandro> MichaelKifer: because it's an exchange language, you always apply some sort of transformation anyway.
Harold: some editorial
edits
... introduced extension points - now also in schema
MichaelKifer: haven't looked at Stella's message today
<ChrisW> PROPOSED: Publish FLD as Last Call pending completion of action 832
StellaMitchell: clarification regarding XML serialization
<ChrisW> +1
<sandro> +1
<MichaelKifer> +1
<StellaMitchell> +1
<Harold> +1
+1
<josb> +1
<ChrisW> Leora: +1 (on phone)
<AdrianP> +1
<apollere2> +1
<Gary> +1
<cke> +1
<ChrisW> RESOLVED: Publish FLD as Last Call pending completion of action 832
<csma> clap! clap! clap!
ChrisW: good work!
... long road
ChrisW: glossed over several
issues in normative exchange syntax
... task force will meet regularly during Last Call, finish modularization, etc.
<cke> How long will be task force be?
<csma> I will send an email tomorrow
ChrisW: csma will be leading the task force
<AdrianP> have not received any invite for the task force?
ChrisW: expecting a telecon next week and the week after that
<csma> ACTION: csma to send email about the XML schemas TF [recorded in]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-833 - Send email about the XML schemas TF [on Christian de Sainte Marie - due 2009-06-02].
ChrisW: then reduce to at least
once a month to respond to LC comments as needed
... still reserve time slot but don't need every week
Sandro: any problems with replacing rdf:text with rdf:plainLiteral?
<sandro> rdf:PlainLiteral (capital P)
ChrisW: adjourned
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/Liason/Liaison/ Succeeded: s/Shanghai/Changhai/ Succeeded: s/safety/safeness/ Succeeded: s/safety/safeness/ Succeeded: s/.../restriction/ Succeeded: s/can now/could/ Succeeded: s/addressed/recursive imports addressed/ Succeeded: s/Chris/ChrisW/ Succeeded: s/weel/well/ Succeeded: s/all/in all/ Succeeded: s/require would/would require/ Found Scribe: Mike Dean Found ScribeNick: mdean Default Regrets: PaulVincent Agenda: Got date from IRC log name: 26 May 2009 Guessing minutes URL: People with action items: axel changes chris csma edits gary jos josb mkifer review to[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]