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

Re: [SWC] comments/review SWC - part2

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:16:26 +0200
Message-ID: <4868EABA.1060803@inf.unibz.it>
To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
CC: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

>>> *) "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.

I meant repeating the discussion whether it is wise to do so.

There is a discussion in the introduction to section 4 about why there 
is a difference, and roughly what the difference is:

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

I assume you were referring to my reply:

>> I was trying to stay in line with the terminology used in BLD.  BLD
>> does not specify anything like an RIF- BLD -document or an RIF
>> document. that seemed a good idea at the time, and I would prefer
>> sticking with that unless anyone can come up with a convincing
>> argument to diverge .

> 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.

I am staying on the presentation syntax side.

My point was that the thing in the BLD presentation syntax is called 
"document" and not "RIF-BLD-document" or "RIF document".

Best, Jos

> 	--michael  

Jos de Bruijn            debruijn@inf.unibz.it
+390471016224         http://www.debruijn.net/
If knowledge can create problems, it is not
through ignorance that we can solve them.
   - Isaac Asimov
Received on Monday, 30 June 2008 14:15:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:51 UTC