W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: ATTENTION: Revisiting a resolution

From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 09:16:49 +0100
Message-ID: <47F1EF71.9050901@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
Cc: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Hi Chris,

I did scan through your response and I'm happy with that. So long as the 
sections are sufficiently separate and clearly marked then I don't 
object to both being in the main text and have no problem with repealing 
the resolution.

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

Chris Welty wrote:
> RIFWG (Jos and DaveR, in particular),
> In case you didn't scan through the entirety of my previous response to 
> Michael, this is to alert you that I have decided to revisit the 
> following resolution from F2F9 :
> RESOLVED: make "specialization of FLD" sections (of BLD) appendices, 
> leaving standalone sections in place, and making both standalone and 
> specialization normative
> In a nutshell, the reason for revisiting this resolution is that the 
> relationship between BLD and FLD and the role of FLD itself in the 
> future of RIF is still evolving somewhat, and Michael feels we, and 
> indeed he himself, did not consider fully the impact of this resolution 
> on that.  See his reasoning below.
> Note that this does not mean we are repealing the resolution, only that 
> it is now fair game for discussion.  I will add it to the agenda for 
> tomorrow, however I will ensure we do not vote on it until next week.
> Michael's reasoning:
>    As I said, the new documents are the result of serious thinking about 
> the
>    grand schema of things. I think all logic (and later non-logic also)
>    dialects should be presented as a specialization of FLD or of a similar
>    framework. FLD drastically lowers the bar for the introduction of new
>    dialects, and it is easy to envision that some dialects will be 
> specified
>    *only* as specializations of BLD. For instance, an LP dialects based of
>    the well-founded semantics or stable models does not need direct
>    specification because their audience is sufficiently sophisticated in
>    various logical approaches.
>    The BLD specialization from FLD is thus more important for the grand
>    schema of things because it shows, by example, how other dialects can be
>    defined. Delegating this to an appendix blurs this important message.
>    This will also lead to great variance between the specifications of
>    different dialects. Some will place the specialization part in the
>    appendix, some will have only the specialization part, and some will not
>    bother to include it at all, thereby breaking the RIF framework.
Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2008 08:17:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:50 UTC