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

Re: [PRD] is in a freezable state

From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 14:48:12 +0200
Message-ID: <486E1C0C.4020808@ilog.fr>
To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
CC: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@Oracle.com>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:
> 
>> 2.2.1.1, editor's note -- we already have a way to make an assertion 
>> PRD or BLD specific.  E.g.
>> P(?x) :- Q(?x)  // core
>> Do(P(?x)) :- Q(?x)  // PRD only
>> And(P(?x)) :- Q(?x) // BLD only
> 
> 
> The question is meant to be the other way around: do yo uwant an 
> explicit Assert? I will rephrase the note.

I made the note more precise. But it was already specifically mentioning 
XML markup, where we have no way to make an assertion PRD or BLD 
specific, as far as I can see.

>> Throughout -- I would prefer American over British spellings, e.g. 
>> labeled not labelled, serialized not serialised, etc.
> 
> I will check that a consistent spelling is used. I believe, indeed, that 
> American spelling is the norm for W3C specs: I will try to check as far 
> as I can.

I fixed all the "ise" -> "ize". I did not change anything else, for fear 
of just adding spelling errors :-)

I fixed the doc wrt all your other comments as well, I think (and I also 
fixed the UML-like diagram, which had still the explicit Assert).

Cheers,

Christian
Received on Friday, 4 July 2008 12:48:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:50 GMT