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

Re: Reference vs import <-- RIF Core shortened

From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:26:29 +0000
Message-ID: <4926C515.8080903@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
CC: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu, Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>, Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>, Patrick Albert <palbert@ilog.fr>, "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>

Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:

> Dave Reynolds wrote:
>> The proposal we discussed some weeks ago (but seem never to have 
>> formally adopted) was to only have # and only in rule conditions. That 
>> is appealing to be me because then I don't have to implement anything 
>> (if you can't assert data you can't test it!).
> The semantics of PRD is specified with respect to a data source. But, as 
> far as I understand, it does not require the data to be explicitely 
> asserted as facts (as opposed to being imported by reference to the data 
> source). So that, as soon as we will have specified that import, it will 
> be possible, in PRD at least, to have facts to test class membership, 
> whether PRD allows to assert facts or not...

So presumably Core (and therefore BLD) needs to support that import 
profile in order to be useful for PR systems, right?

That raises an interesting question. Should the conformance clauses for 
BLD and Core explicitly mention import profiles? Currently 
producers/consumers in the conformance clauses are only parametrized by 
datatypes and by builtins.


Hewlett-Packard Limited
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Friday, 21 November 2008 14:28:24 UTC

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