W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > April 2006

Re: [RIFWG] [Requirements?] A vision for the RIF

From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 09:54:01 +0200
Message-ID: <444DD599.2080406@ifi.lmu.de>
To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
CC: edbark@nist.gov, public-rif-wg@w3.org

Michael Kifer wrote:
> The above must be taken in the context of my earlier message
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Mar/0161.html
> where I *proved* that the rule set for which those normative rules act as
> constraints must have some sort of closed world assumption (more precisely,
> cannot use the normal first-order semantics).
Consider for example a national regulation (eg tax regulation,
or traffic order regulation) and a suprA-national regulation on the same
subject, as eg the European Commission specifies. Both, the national and
the supra-national in some cases have to be expressed, and processed
without CWA. CXonsider eg tax regulations. If tax payers, tax
declarations, etc, ie the instance level, is not considered, then therfe
is no need for CWA, a CWA would even not make sense. Now the
supra-national regulation is a normative specification for the national

> I did not say that normative rules must be "governed" by CWA, because I
> don't know what this might mean.
> If you think that my very short proof has a bug then please point this out.
I am not at all thinking there might be a
nmistake in your proof. I am only thinking that, most ptobably, you have
been considering (explicitly or implicitley) assumptions that UI am not
thinking of. And I think my example of national and supra-national
regulations can also be seen as a proof for my argument.


Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2006 07:54:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:38 UTC