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: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 11:23:58 +0100
To: "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
Cc: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu, public-rif-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <29222.1211797438@ubuhebe>

> 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.

Yeah -- it sounds like the solution is to spell out in FLD what we
really have in mind for this process.

   -- Sandro

> 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=20
> 
> 
> 
> > 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. =20
> 
> 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:
> > >=20
> > > 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).
> > >=20
> > > 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.
> > >=20
> > > I'm fine with conveying expectation, like: "Logic-based RIF dialects
> > > are expected to be derived from RIF-FLD by specialization".  Okay?
> > >=20
> > >       -- Sandro
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > >=20
Received on Monday, 26 May 2008 10:24:36 GMT

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