- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:25:18 +0100
- To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- CC: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Michael Kifer wrote: > > Christin says that we should hand-waive in defining the semantics, while I > am saying that we should hand-waive in defining compliance. > > The result is pretty much the same, but the difference is big: people > expect that the semantics is formal and the compliance clause is not. Depends what people you are talking to, of course :-) So, in making a decision, we must also consider the alternative. Especially since I would expect - but I may be wrong - that the people who are our primary target, that is, people who want to implement a standard format for interchanging rules between "established or new rule languages", would have some expectation wrt the compliance clause. Christian
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2008 18:26:10 UTC