Re: http://www.w3.org/2006/11/04-rif-minutes.html#action04: Notes from UCR breakout of 11/04 --> coverage

Paul Vincent wrote:
> 
> It seems to me that my email is broken – I was expecting some of our 
> fellow RIF members, not usually shy with an opinion or observation, to 
> arbitrate and/or point out the obvious flaws in my (or your) arguments 
> by now. J

What about:
"We note that in this document we deliberately refrain from defining the 
notion of "coverage" in a rigorous manner, since precisely what it means 
for diverse rule languages to be "covered" by RIF may vary from case to 
case.  Intuitively, when we say that "RIF covers rule language L" we 
mean that there is at least one standard dialect of RIF into which and 
from which rules written in L can be translated"?

The controversial part of Allen's definition: "that the resulting RIF 
rules can be used by software designed to work with RIF to achieve 
essentially the same functionality as enabled by the original L rules." 
is implied by the requirement that RIF dialects have "a precise 
semantics", isn't it? (Chair's hat off) Which is the reason why I do not 
like that requirement, btw: it is a solution, not a requirement - the 
corresponding requirement would be more like, imho: "rules retrieved 
from RIF must behave equivalently to the rules from which the RIF 
document was created"; but that's a different question (chair's hat on).

Christian