- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:30:13 +0200
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
Sandro Hawke wrote: > > So the proposed compromise (which Chris also sent the list - we talked > about it on the phone with Christian) is to have both the <Group> and > <Rule> wrappers. I'd also like metadata everywhere else, too, but I > think I can life with this compromise if everyone else can. Just for clarification: what would be the argument against allowing metadata on all objects, that is, allowing a <meta> role element as a child of any class (capitalized tag) element (this question is othogonal to that of identifying rules vs groups)? Also, since there is a consensus that metadata do not impact the semantics, why do we need a presentation syntax for the metadata? More precisely: there seem to be a consensus that metadata about rule groups and individual groups still need have a presentation syntax. Does that indicate that some metadata about them should be part of the BLD dialect (e.g. group/rule name/IRI etc)? And, of course, having a PS for the metadata on some Groups and Rules does not imply that we need one for metadata on other classes, even if we agree to allow metadata on any object; not for BLD, at least. Or does it? Cheers, Christian
Received on Monday, 28 April 2008 15:31:12 UTC