Re: towards a resolution on RIF BLD classification

Dave Reynolds wrote:
> 
> Chris Welty wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > RIF WG,
> > 
> > We have been discussing this issue for a few weeks now, and while it is 
> > a small minority who prefers not having rif:subclass in the language, 
> > some probing revealed that some people who have stated their support are 
> > "going along with it" out of indifference or without fully understanding 
> > the issue.  I think we need some more community feedback.
> > 
> > Also, discussion of this issue is delaying the production of a next 
> > public WD, which I would like to release ASAP.
> > 
> > My proposal is that we publish a WD with the current classification 
> > scheme as it is in the editors draft on the wiki, suitably labeled as 
> > "under discussion" with a specific call for feedback on that proposed 
> > feature of RIF BLD, and a better design rationale description for the 
> > feature, including the pros and cons.
> > 
> > I would like to call this resolution at tomorrows telecon, if possible, 
> > with actions on perhaps Michael and Dave to draft the pro and con sections.
> > 
> 
> I think we should resolve the question of whether and why we want to 
> carry a data model at all first. Asking for feedback on the specific 
> case of classification without presenting the rationale for this overall 
> capability or the whole picture of the other things that would come 
> along with it (domain/range stuff) seems unhelpful to me.


Mixing the data model in rules is quite common in all F-logic based
systems, because it is so convenient to define and query the meta model in
such systems.


	--michael

Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2007 13:25:56 UTC