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.

Right. We have not decided to strike down CLASSIFICATION because this needs
further discussion. I, for one, could not understand the arguments against
this.

> How crucial is CLASSIFICATION to the design?

In fact, FRAME is also not crucial to the design. Depends on the definition
of "crucial". :-)


	--michael  


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

Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2007 11:36:45 UTC