- From: Piero A. Bonatti <bonatti@na.infn.it>
- Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 10:53:51 +0100
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
On Thursday 09 February 2006 10:33, Dave Reynolds wrote: > Quite the reverse. We are having a discussion on how pragmatic RIF is, > whether it focuses on the 80% most common and widely implemented > capabilities or it is pushing the boundaries on richness of rule languages. there is a wide gap between the 80% most common and widely implemented capabilities and pushing the boundaries on richness of rule languages. I seem that this is the real point of disagreement I'm forwarding a previous question of mine to you: why should we be satisfied with only the most common and widely implemented capabilities, and only 80% of them? IT is evolving at a fantastic pace, and approaches and ideas often get old before they reach maturity. do you really believe we can face a standardization problem in this field with the same conservative approach taken in other fields? piero
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 09:54:14 UTC