The combined semantics part is now motivated well. But the embedding part is not motivated. I am not sure about the overall scenario for exchange through this embedding and what is the use case. --michael > Michal, > > I added a note to the top of the RDF section, which hopefully clarifies > how rules using RDF are envisioned to be exchanged. > If there is still some unclarity, please let me know and I will update > the text accordingly. > > Best, Jos > > Michael Kifer wrote: > > Jos, > > continuing the discussion that was started at the end of F2F, the RDF > > compatibility document makes no sense unless it is preceded by a clear > > explanation of how the exchange of rules that use RDF is supposed to happen. > > > > You mentioned two possibilities, where one requires the combined semantics > > and the other the embedding. You have to spell them out clearly. > > Without such a clear statement it is hard to tell which part of the rif-rdf > > document is to be made normative. > > > > > > --michael > > -- > debruijn@inf.unibz.it > > Jos de Bruijn, http://www.debruijn.net/ > ---------------------------------------------- > In heaven all the interesting people are > missing. > - Friedrich Nietzsche >Received on Friday, 12 October 2007 23:43:19 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:43 GMT