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

Re: a try at defining compliance

From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 08:39:30 +0100
Message-ID: <483BBAB2.9020109@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Cc: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Michael Kifer wrote:
> following today's discussion, I put in a wiki page with a slightly more
> polished definition of compliant producers and consumers.
> Please see http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Compliance 

I have no problems with this as a definition of a conformant processor.

There are two other conformance related notions we *might* want to have.

First, we might want to define Document Conformance (c.f. 
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#docConformance). That way an editor could 
claim to produce conformant RIF documents. For RIF BLD would a 
conformant document be one that validates according the schema or one 
that validates and for which each symbol can be assigned to a unique 
partition of Const and a unique arity?  I assume the latter.

Second, we might want the notion of a "consistent D(T,E) consumer".
A RIF processor is a consistent D(?,?) consumer iff there is a 
semantically-preserving mapping from a subset of all D(?,?) formulas to 
the language L of the processor.

[A long time ago we used the terms "implements" and "conforms" for these 
two notions, but since we are now using "conforms" more strictly I 
needed a term for the weaker notion, an alternative to "consistent" 
might be "compliant".]

Dave
-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2008 07:40:13 GMT

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