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

Re: [SWC] comments/review SWC - part2

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:06:37 -0400
To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20080630100637.217aaaf9@kiferserv>



On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:44:53 +0200
Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it> wrote:

> > *) "the interpretation of frame formulas s[p -> o] in the RIF-OWL DL
> > combinations is slightly different from their interpretation in RIF
> > BLD and syntactical restrictions are imposed on the use of variables,
> > function terms, and frame formulas."
> > 
> > That honestly worries me. Is it wise to do that? What are the
> > implications? Is this still FLD compatible? That means that RIF-OWL
> > is not compatible with BLD? If so, in what sense uncompatible? See
> > also my comments below.
> 
> This has been extensively discussed in a face-to-face, as well as on the 
> mailing list, sometime ago.
> 
> I honestly don't feel like repeating this discussion.

But a note explaining this thing is in order in this document.
The intended audience is not this WG, but a man from the street who has never
been to any of our f2faces.

> > Section 4.1 =======
> > 
> > * ) "DL-Document" is not so nice... I'd prefer
> > "RIF-BLD-DL-Document" or "RIF-BLD<sub>DL</sub>-Document"

Actually, it does, since the time the conformance clauses were added.
But a few days ago this is stated even more prominently. There is a numbered
definition for valid RIF-BLD documents and for conformant ones.

This is on the XML side. On the presentation syntax side there has been a
notion of a document formula for 2-3 months now.


	--michael  
Received on Monday, 30 June 2008 14:07:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:49 GMT