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

Re: RDF (and OWL) compatibility

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:21:46 +0200
Message-ID: <47161A7A.4040108@inf.unibz.it>
To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org


Michael Kifer wrote:
>> Michael Kifer wrote:
>>> 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.
>> I added an additional note to the end of the introduction of the
>> section.  Basically, the scenario for exchange is not different.  There
>> is certainly no exchange "through" this embedding.  It just shows how
>> interchange partners can possibly process combinations.
> 
> Sorry, I cannot wrap my mind around the paragraph, which you added at the
> end of the intro. If you said that the appendix on rdf embedding defines
> one possible RDF rule language based on RIF, then I could see it this
> way. But it is not clear that this is what we are supposed to do. This
> appendix is not about interchange.

The appendix is indeed not about interchange.

> As an appendix to a section
> about interchange, it creates an impression that it has something to do
> with the main body of that section and with interchange.
> 
> I think you need to either find a place for that appendix in the grand
> schema of things or delete it.

OK, I will think about what to do with the appendix.
In the meantime, I will mention this as an open issue in the appendix.


 best, Jos

> 
> 
> 	cheers
> 	  --michael  
> 
> 
>> Best, Jos
>>
>>>
>>> 	--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

-- 
Jos de Bruijn            debruijn@inf.unibz.it
+390471016224         http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
The third-rate mind is only happy when it is
thinking with the majority. The second-rate
mind is only happy when it is thinking with
the minority. The first-rate mind is only
happy when it is thinking.
  - AA Milne


Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 14:22:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:43 GMT