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 10:21:30 -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: <20080630102130.3f7562b8@kiferserv>



On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:16:26 +0200
Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it> wrote:

> 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".

I see. Actually, it is called "document formula" or "RIF-BLD document formula".


	--michael  
Received on Monday, 30 June 2008 14:22:31 GMT

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