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

Re: proposal for resolving deadlock

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:20:23 -0500
To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <26246.1197926423@cs.sunysb.edu>

> 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?

Yes, it makes sense. Unfortunately, we do not have a lot. What we have is

1. The profile mechanism and the rif framework
2. The datatype extensibility mechanism
3. Sandro's ideas on what to do when a rif interpreter hits an unknown tag
   and such (this one is very preliminary)

This is far cry from what some people (e.g., Christian) seem to want: a way
of *adding* features to an existing dialect without doing too much work.

This latter feature could be very cool, but I doubt we will be able to come
up with something interesting here.

> >> 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.
> However:
> (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.

I would be overjoyed if this solved the problem. :-)


> Dave
> -- 
> Hewlett-Packard Limited
> Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
> Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Monday, 17 December 2007 21:20:38 UTC

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