W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-comments@w3.org > April 2010

Re: how to observe RIF BLD consumer conformance?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:21:16 -0500
To: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
Cc: public-rif-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <1271269276.4466.3165.camel@pav.lan>
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 12:01 -0500, Chris Welty wrote:
> Dan,
> 
> We struggled with this point based on RIF's status as an interchange format, not a rule language per se.  Thus the conformance refers to the ability to translate in a way that does not change the semantics, which includes entailments.
> 
> It is not, as you say, directly observable in a positive way, however it is negatively observable
>  through sets of tests, ie you can test if it did not happen. 

I don't see how you could test that it did not happen either.

Do any of the existing RIF test cases show how it can be done?

> 
> -Chris
> 
> 
> Dan Connolly wrote:
> > I see:
> > 
> > "A RIF processor is a conformant BLDΤ,Ε consumer iff it implements a
> > semantics-preserving mapping, μ, from the set of all BLDΤ,Ε formulas to
> > the language L of the processor (μ does not need to be an "onto"
> > mapping)."
> >  -- http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-bld/#Conformance_Clauses
> > 
> > I don't see how this property is observable/testable; i.e. why
> > this product class is defined at all.
> > 
> > A conformant RIF-BLD consumer isn't required to compute entailment?
> > 
> > This much is observable: "A conformant RIF-BLD consumer must reject all
> > inputs that do not match the syntax of BLD." But that's just syntax
> > checking.
> > 
> > editorial: why "conformant" rather than "conforming"?
> > 
> > 
> 


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 14 April 2010 18:21:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 14 April 2010 18:21:19 GMT