scope of public-rule-workshop-discuss

> > To take a concrete example. One might wish to have a rule that says that 
> > any user who is not in "this" specific set of authorization statements 
> > is not authorized and should be rejected. This could be expressed as NAF 
> > negation "scoped" to statements from the authorization list, or as 
> > general negation over an authorization predicate which is definitively 
> > defined by the closed list of assertions or as a set non-membership 
> > predicate acting over a closed set of authorized users derived from the 
> > list. I'd agree these are different but they all seem to be within the 
> > spirit of what was mentioned at the workshop (at least to the extent 
> > that I was aware of such discussions).
> > 
> > [Not sure this is the right place for this discussion, but then I'm 
> > confused about the purpose of this list.]
> 
> [ This list is the right place for this discussion, I think, yes. ]

Oops, I didn't really address your confusion.  The point of this list
is to give us a place to talk about rules and stuff.  :-)
"www-rdf-rules" may not work for some topics because of the RDF angle.
And we didn't want to make a general rules-talk list until it's more
clear what future rules work has at W3C.  So this list gives us a
place to talk with a post-workshop scope, probably as an interim
measure.
 
    -- sandro