Re: bld vs. rif

> 
> 
> It seems to me that many of the things we could disagree about in the
> short term are difficult to settle because they are based on ideas about
> what "RIF" will be, rather than just what "BLD" will be.
> 
> I think we might be able to get consensus on a lot of issues with a
> certain caveat, however.  Something like this:
> 
>      The design of BLD expressed in this document is (except where noted
>      in the document) deemed by the Working Group to be stable and is
>      not likely to be changed without new information.  The group has,
>      however, not yet designed a way for dialects to fit together to
>      form a coherent greater RIF.  It is fairly likely that as it does
>      so, the Working Group will discover new information which will
>      cause changes in BLD.

Right. This is why we need another dialect, like production rules, to get going.


	--michael  

> 
> [ In prolog terms, I'm saying we should be clear that we're not doing a
> cut after the design of BLD; we may need to backtrack and come up with a
> new BLD in order to find a suitable all-of-RIF.  :-)   We want to print
> out the current BLD solution, though.... ]
> 
>     -- Sandro
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 19:26:56 UTC