- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:28:53 +0100
- To: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
I withdraw this one. Following Gary's comments at the telecon I checked out the current PRD draft in more detail and indeed the syntactic overlap is much greater than I thought and is sufficient for what we've been discussing as CORE. I must have been remembering an earlier draft, my fault for not keeping up with PRD. Dave Dave Reynolds wrote: > > Dave Reynolds wrote: > >> What other issues have I missed? > > 6. Relationship to PRD > > How literally do we mean "CORE is the intersection of PRD and BLD"? > > One approach would be to make CORE a subset of BLD such that a CORE > ruleset would be a legal BLD ruleset but would also be implementable by > means of a typical production rule engine. > > An extension of that would be to provide a syntactic mapping from CORE > to PRD which preserves ground entailments. That way any PRD conformant > system could implement CORE by implementing that syntactic transformation. > > Another approach would be to modify the syntax of PRD so that a CORE > ruleset could be both a legal BLD ruleset and legal PRD ruleset. > > [My working assumption has been that we would take the middle approach - > a syntactic transform to show the relationship between CORE and PRD but > that might not right.] > > Dave
Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2008 11:30:29 UTC