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

Re: [Admin] Agenda for RIF telecon 11 November

From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 13:46:35 +0100
Message-ID: <491AD02B.7070803@ilog.fr>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

All,

Sorry, my cellphone was off, as usual, yesterday.

Here below, my comments re the two issues raised by Sandro re the proposed resolution (btw, I am fine with the actual resolutions :-).

The first point is my use of the term "keyword". Maybe poor choice; blame my poor command of the english language. I mean something like: reserved value or whatever.

My understanding is that the indication of the intended conflict resolution strategy cannot be an attribute, for extensibility reasons; so, it has to be an element. My current proposal [1] is to extend the syntax for group as follows:
    <Group>
       <behavior>
          <ConflictResolution> xsd:anyURI </ConflictResolution>?
          <Priority> -10,000 =< xsd:int =< 10,000 </Priority>?
       </behavior>?
       <sentence> [ RULE | Group ] </sentence>*
    </Group>
where a specific value (proposed: rif:standardForward) would be reserved to indicate that standard forward chaining strategy we propose. Hence the term "keyword" (because "rifstandardForward" would be a keyword indicating that strategy, wouldn't it? Or does "keyword" mean something completely different from what I think?).

Same for the second point (I mean: same blame): yes, "not being a conformance point" was meant to mean "suggested, not required for conformant implementation".

Cheers,

Christian
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 12:47:24 GMT

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