- From: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 09:29:43 -0400
- To: David Mott <MOTTD@uk.ibm.com>
- CC: public-rif-comments@w3.org
HI David, Thanks for the comment. Note that the feature is present because of its clear usefulness in rules, which you note. It is *at-risk* due to its perceived difficulty to implement in rule engines. We await implementor feedback on that point. Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-rif-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment. David Mott wrote: > I believe that the use of equality in the conclusion of a rule implication should > be retained, since there are situations where as a result of reasoning once wishes > to infer that 2 entities are in fact the same.
Received on Friday, 28 August 2009 13:30:37 UTC