[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#Profiles_of_Imports Jos de Bruijn wrote: > <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