RE: [RIF] Agenda 2 May RIF Telecon

I strongly support the kind of approach suggested here.  From a standards
point of view the reference should be to something regarded as
semi-official.  In MathML we used a specific edition of a well known and
heavily referenced text.  I suspect that no matter how good, at this stage,
WikiPedia would be still regarded as Informative rather than normative.

E.g.,  "... This element represents the exponentiation function as described
in Abramowitz and Stegun, section 4.2"  (from appendix C)

Stan

-----Original Message-----
From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Francois Bry
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 9:08 AM
To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [RIF] Agenda 2 May RIF Telecon


I the WG goes to inculding such defs in documents, I would striongly
recommend to explicitel;y refer to well established logic text books instead
of citing Wikipeadia, how good it might be, or proposing yet another  text
similar to those found in good logic text books, eg Kees Doets. From Logic
to Logic Programming, The MIT Press, 1994)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0262041421/sr=8-1/qid=1146724851/ref=pd_bbs
_1/104-1241285-2467909?%5Fencoding=UTF8**

Francois