RE: [UCR] comments on Section 1 of 15 Feb draft of RIF UCR

Peter,

My understanding is that the generation of the public document involves
another step, at which point these sections can be left out. (Sandro:
is that correct?) 

The section are in the internal draft to allow for discussion of issues
among the members.  

Allen


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfps@inf.unibz.it] 
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 11:22 AM
To: Ginsberg, Allen
Cc: pfps@inf.unibz.it; public-rif-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [UCR] comments on Section 1 of 15 Feb draft of RIF UCR

Then I strongly suggest that either the section be removed or the
document
status be updated to reflect this.

peter

PS:  The F2F2 agenda strongly suggests that the (non-existent) Sections
3 and 4
have some non-trivial status.

From: "Ginsberg, Allen" <AGINSBERG@imc.mitre.org>
Subject: RE: [UCR] comments on Section 1 of 15 Feb draft of RIF UCR
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:17:52 -0500

> 
> Peter,
> 
> This section is not supposed to be part of what we are voting on
(yet).
> I assume that the only part of the document to be released publicly
> will be section 2. Section 1 is certainly not meant to be definitive
of
> anything at this point. 
> 
> Allen
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Peter F.
> Patel-Schneider
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 11:13 AM
> To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
> Subject: [UCR] comments on Section 1 of 15 Feb draft of RIF UCR
> 
> 
> On going through Section 1 of 15 Feb draft of RIF UCR at
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/ucr/draft-20060215 I came up with two
> issues:
> 
> 1/ This section appears to assume that an "executable rule language"
> uses the
> same language for statements and queries.  I believe that this is not
> the case
> for most rule systems that exist today.
> 
> 2/ The section states
> 
> 	Rather the RIF includes a framework of concepts, represented as
> tags in
> 	a markup language
> 
> I do not believe that there is yet any consensus as to whether the
RIF
> will
> include a "framework of concepts", let alone represent them as "tags
in
> a
> markup language".
> 
> 
> peter
>

Received on Thursday, 23 February 2006 16:25:52 UTC