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

RE: [Admin] Agenda for RIF telecon 11 November

From: Changhai Ke <cke@ilog.fr>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:16:24 +0100
Message-ID: <3E5E1A634BBD5C4A94C4D4A6DE0852E701CB02C5@parmbx02.ilog.biz>
To: "Christian de Sainte Marie" <csma@ilog.fr>, "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>


I hope we can reserve an opportunity to discuss about the precise names
for the tags.

Your main point here is that the "so called keyword" is in fact a value
for an XML tag, and this is very good. My proposal for the name (for the
value of the tag) is to call it "forward chaining" or "inference". (But
please avoid "standard", it may give arise to additional thoughts).


-----Original Message-----
From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Christian de Sainte Marie
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 1:47 PM
To: Sandro Hawke
Subject: Re: [Admin] Agenda for RIF telecon 11 November


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:
          <ConflictResolution> xsd:anyURI </ConflictResolution>?
          <Priority> -10,000 =< xsd:int =< 10,000 </Priority>?
       <sentence> [ RULE | Group ] </sentence>*
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".


Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 18:17:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:53 UTC