Re: [TED] Is RIF Core a RIF dialect?

Paul Vincent wrote:

> Christian: if the definition of a dialect is something that extends the core
> then RIF Core <> RIF dialect.

My definition was, rather, that a dialect is something that extends 
another dialect. The RIF Core is thus a RIF dialect.

But, to make my point clear, I understood that dialects extending Core 
would extend (and thus include) the syntax and semantics of Core for the 
single components of a rule (currently we have 4 components that could 
be named variable quantification, constraints, antecedent and 
consequent); possibly add new components; and, possibly, specify a 
different semantics for rules and rule sets.

 From some of Michael postings, I understand that, in his view, RIF 
dialects may not include RIF Core syntax, e.g. [1]:
> The core
> should contain the means to enable the definitions of dialects, but it cant
> be a syntactic subset of all of them.

So, it seems that there is no precise consensus in the WG about what is 
Core wrt dialects, and maybe, more generally, about what it is exactly 
for one dialect to extend another one.

We need to have a precise common understanding on that, if we want to 
have meaningful discussions... Hence my question.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Dec/0063.html

Christian