W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > December 2007

Re: proposal for resolving deadlock

From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:58:26 +0000
Message-ID: <47665652.3010009@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Cc: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Michael Kifer wrote:

>> If we are not going to deliver an extensibility mechanism then we won't 
>> hit that last call requirement. That is vastly more serious than the 
>> boundaries of what is or isn't in BLD.
>> To be clear, the notion of a profile mechanism to support partial 
>> conformance with a dialect is a reasonable one. However, it is no a 
>> substitute for the extensibility mechanism.
> Would you task yourself to develop an acceptable extensibility mechanism?

A fair question. The time I have available for things like RIF is small 
and going down so possibly not but I would like to understand where we 
are on this before committing either way.

Would it be appropriate to make a status review of the extensibility 
work the primary topic for one of the first telecons in the new year?

>> Given that we have an committed requirement to deliver an extensibility 
>> mechanism then surely BLD can be an extension of this Core in the way we 
>> have discussed it up till now.
> So, do you agree to the proposed plan or not?

I don't understand it.

We've been discussing whether certain features are required in BLD. Your 
proposal is to put these features into BLD but say that they need not go 
into Core. I don't understand how that is a resolution, we weren't 
arguing about Core. The question of whether Core/BLD are related by 
extension or restriction is important but separate. I think I must be 
missing the point.

(1) it is clear that several WG members would like classification in BLD
(2) we (HP) aren't going to be able to support BLD anyway
(3) Chris' proposal resolves part of my objection by specifying the 
relationship between these two RIF predicates and rdf:type/rdfs:subClassOf

I haven't checked with colleagues yet but I think we'd be prepared to 
withdraw our objection to classification in BLD (but not Core) on the 
basis of Chris' proposal.

Hewlett-Packard Limited
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Monday, 17 December 2007 10:58:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:48 UTC