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

Re: Reference vs import <-- RIF Core shortened

From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:22:50 +0100
Message-ID: <492580CA.3020403@ilog.fr>
To: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
CC: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>, kifer@cs.sunysb.edu, Patrick Albert <palbert@ilog.fr>, Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>, Adrian Paschke <Adrian.Paschke@gmx.de>, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Paul Vincent wrote:
> 
> Christian's comment is simply (?) that RIF needs to play well alongside
> externally-defined fact definitions (for example external Java object
> models used to define production rules in BREs). 

Thanx for translating from the csma-ese, Paul :-)

> Maybe the qu is whether it is compulsory that all relevant facts and
> class relationships need to be represented in RIF for RIF rules to be
> defined against them?

It is compulsory that they need be representable; so, yes, they could be represented.

But it is not compulsory that they be represented, as far as I understand.

That is, by the way, what I understand Gary says in his reply to you [1], and this is, anyway, what I have been trying to say all along.

> Or have I missed the point (again)? :)

I do not think so.

Cheers,

Christian

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Nov/0127.html
Received on Thursday, 20 November 2008 15:31:27 GMT

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