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

RE: FLD "required" vs "expected" to be used for all RIF logic dialects

From: Boley, Harold <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 06:21:45 -0400
Message-ID: <E4D07AB09F5F044299333C8D0FEB45E904FFE0E6@nrccenexb1.nrc.ca>
To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>, <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Cc: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

The difference is that with the "requires" language Bob will be
forced to pinpoint the places where he thinks his BLD-B cannot
conform to FLD: This will enable a process of effectively finding
out if he is right and -- in this case -- checking if and how FLD
would need to be revised.

Harold


-----Original Message-----
From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Sandro Hawke
Sent: May 26, 2008 7:10 AM
To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: FLD "required" vs "expected" to be used for all RIF logic
dialects 



> The whole purpose is to impose a standard on how logic extensions are
> going to be defined. Otherwise, we will have open season for
> introducing all kinds of kludges. Note that the document says that, if
> necessary, FLD will be extended to accommodate other logic-based
> dialects. But this should be done with extra care and not on a whim.

Ah, so this is about regulating third party extensions.

Alice defines a dialect BLD-A which uses FLD.  Bob defines a dialect
BLD-B which does not use FLD.  They each implement them in their
translators, and use them inside their own organizations.   They each
try to get other folks to adopt them, and use them on the web.  They
each submit them to W3C for RIF-WG to standardize.

I don't see much harm here.   Bob will know that his dialect is at a
disadvantage -- the Working Group is unlikely to bless it -- but perhaps
he is confident he can get us to change FLD.  

How will things be different with the "requires" language?  The only
difference I see is that Bob ignores that clause, perhaps telling folks
his language isn't what FLD calls a "logic" dialect.  I think our only
power in this kind of situation is to persuade people that FLD is
useful.  The only sense I can think of in which we can "outlaw" Bob's
work is to say it's non-standard -- but Alice's work is also
non-standard, until RIF-WG blesses it.

      -- Sandro


> On Sun, 25 May 2008 15:20:37 +0100
> Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
> > 
> > FLD says "All logic-based RIF dialects are required to be derived
from
> > RIF-FLD by specialization" and several variants of that notion
appear
> > elsewhere in FLD and UCR (and possibly elsewhere, that I didn't
notice).
> > 
> > I don't really undertand what this constraint is trying to do.  Is
it a
> > promise that all future logic dialects from RIF-WG *will* use FLD?
Is
> > it some kind of constraint on vendor extensions?  I don't think it's
> > right for us to say either one here.
> > 
> > I'm fine with conveying expectation, like: "Logic-based RIF dialects
> > are expected to be derived from RIF-FLD by specialization".  Okay?
> > 
> >       -- Sandro
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
Received on Monday, 26 May 2008 10:22:33 GMT

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