Re: Action 299 - removing sorts

Michael Kifer wrote:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/299 has been completed.  Part
> of the title of this action says: "handle datatypes as in RDF."  This was
> *not* what was resolved at the F2F and was put in there by mistake (I
> hope).  Certainly, I would not have agreed to such an action, since I do
> not know what this might mean in logic.
> 
> Other than that, the main changes are in 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/Positive_Conditions
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/Slotted_Conditions (to a much
> lesser extent).

Just looking at the latter I see that still includes CLASSIFICATION as 
well as FRAME.

Whilst we did not vote to remove CLASSIFICATION there was opposition to 
it whereas we did resolve to adopt FRAME.

How crucial is CLASSIFICATION to the design?

Dave
-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2007 10:30:48 UTC