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

Re: where to hang the metadata?

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:04:55 -0400
To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <10021.1209402295@cs.sunysb.edu>

> Michael Kifer wrote:
> >>
> >>Just thinking about what is a reasonable scope for this WG, and where to 
> >>stop...
> > 
> > Why are you talking with riddles? Are you proposing to junk FLD? 
> Hey, wait! No, not for a second!
> I was just wondering how far we should go to make FLD cover... Well, 
> that is exactly the question: FLD could potentially cover many things, 
> and I wondered where we should just stop worrying about dialects that 
> some people may want to develop in the future and whether FLD would be 
> appropriate for their purpose (including wrt naming such as 'rule' vs 
> 'group', 'item' or what else)...
> More specifically: I wonder if we should not just stop right where we 
> are, add a Rule construct, maybe even a Fact one, and leave FLD 1.0 be 
> FLD 1.0 until we need a FLD 2.0 that corrects it and/or go further.

But I did not propose to extend what we have. I am just saying that
dialects must match (the existing) FLD. If rules in BLD must have a special
wrapper, then they should also have it in FLD. But in FLD, there are other
top-level formulas, which are not rules. By the same logic, they should
also have a wrapper. It makes little sense to proliferate these wrappers,
so we should converge on some neutral name (if at all to have a wrapper for

Sandro proposed "element". Could be "unit", "formula", "singleton",
"solitaire" :-)
This was a separate thread of discussion, which got mixed in with the
thread of whether to have such a rule wrapper at all.


> Christian
Received on Monday, 28 April 2008 17:05:48 UTC

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