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

Re: [Admin] Agenda for RIF telecon 11 November

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:18:53 -0500
To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
cc: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4034.1226416733@ubuhebe>


> 6. PRD [8] (5 mn)
> 
> - Resolution proposed by the PRD task force:
> 
> *PROPOSED:* In RIF-PRD, the conflict resolution strategy for a set of
> *rules will be indicated using keywords, attached to the top-level
> *group. RIF-PRD 1.0 will specify only one normative conflict
> *resolution strategy, as specified in csma's email [9] (essentially:
> *refraction+priority+recency). RIF-PRD 1.0 MAY specify other conflict
> *resolution strategies (and corresponding keywords) for suggested use,
> *but these will not be conformance points. This resolution and the
> *complementary resolutions from the minutes of the PRD TF telecon on
> *November 4 [10] close ISSUE-64 [11]. 

I'm confused about the level of this proposal.  "keywords" seems to
suggest this is about Presentation Syntax.  I assume it's not.  Do you
mean to be constraining the XML?  Or is "keywords" meant in a generic
sense, like "flag" or "indicator"?  

My interest is in making sure the XML for RIF keeps its fallback
properties, and (while I'm somewhat swapped out on this right now) I'm
pretty sure it's important to use a different element name (like eg
<RPR_Group>) instead of an XML attribute (like <Group strat="RPR">).

Also, I think "not be conformance points" means that these other
strategies will not be required of PRD 1.0 implementations.  Is that
right?

       -- Sandro
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 15:19:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:58 GMT