W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > May 2009

FLD Review part 0.1

From: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 23:07:19 -0400
Message-ID: <4A0CDC67.30508@gmail.com>
To: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Working on my FLD review.  In general I don't think any of my comments are that 
major or will require any discussion, except potentially:

In the abstract and overview, I think the standard-speak used is too 
constraining regarding the requirement of future dialects to implement FLD:

 >Abstract: "The actual dialects are required to specialize this framework to 
produce their syntaxes and semantics. "

 >Overview: "All logic RIF dialects are required to be derived from RIF-FLD by 
specialization, "


I suggest this be slightly weakened to use "should" instead of the implied 
"must", ie "...dialects should be derived from RIF-FLD by specialization..."

In general, the text is pretty good about saying that FLD may need to be updated 
  in light of new dialects, but I still think our message is that FLD *should* 
be used, not *must* be used, in the specification of new dialects.

Of course one could argue that FLD is only making this requirement of dialects 
that wish to be called "logic" dialects, but as with the naming of "not", which 
came down to sort of "who gets the right to call their negation 'not'", I can 
imagine some group wishing to say they have a "logic" dialect even though it is 
incompatible with FLD.

-Chris


-- 
Dr. Christopher A. Welty                    IBM Watson Research Center
+1.914.784.7055                             19 Skyline Dr.
cawelty@gmail.com                           Hawthorne, NY 10532
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty
Received on Friday, 15 May 2009 03:08:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:08 GMT