Re: [TED] Action-188, ISSUE: production rule systems have "difficulty" with recursive rules in RIF Core

> Unfortunately, you continue to stick with hand-waving arguments rather than
> trying to make what you want to achieve precise. 

I find
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Dec/0072.html
precise for its length.  Bijan's version
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Dec/0089.html 
is more detailed and very clear.  Gary's and Paul's verious messages
were clear to me as well, to me.  (FWIW, I find your use of the term
"hand-waving" there offensive.)

What's so hand-waving about saying "the vendors don't want to set the
bar that high?"

> In particular, you didn't
> address my attempts at defining what you call "conformance" more precisely
> and also Frank's arguments.

Perhaps I missed them, although I think I read everything in this
thread.  Pointer?

(Your putting scare-quotes around the word "conformance" is odd, and
also kind of offensive.  I don't think I'm using it in some private way.
I'm using it, as best I can, in conformance :-) with the far-too-long
W3C Recommendation on the subject [1].)

    -- Sandro

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#conformance-clause