<snip/> >> >> Part of my motivation for this is that the context list should be >> openly extensible. For example, I suspect the OWL-R fragment currently >> being defined in the OWLWG may be very important for RIF. We might >> even want to predefine an IRI to refer to it (so long as we can do so >> without entangling the specs). That seems easier if there isn't a >> predefined promotion hierarchy to fit into. > > The list of profiles is meant to be extensible, and I will update the > text to reflect that (probably just before the telephone conference > tomorrow :-)). > But we still need to deal with the situation where different profiles > are specified, if only in the above-mentioned scenario of rule set imports. I updated the text to say explicitly that the list of profiles is not closed [1]. I also added a clause to deal with the situation that there is not a single highest profile (basically, the ruleset should be rejected). I hope this addresses your concern. Best, Jos PS I think your concern about multiple profiles should be discussed at the face-to-face. -- debruijn@inf.unibz.it Jos de Bruijn, http://www.debruijn.net/ ---------------------------------------------- One man that has a mind and knows it can always beat ten men who haven't and don't. -- George Bernard Shaw
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:49 GMT