- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:21:16 -0500
- To: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-rif-comments@w3.org
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 12:01 -0500, Chris Welty wrote: > Dan, > > We struggled with this point based on RIF's status as an interchange format, not a rule language per se. Thus the conformance refers to the ability to translate in a way that does not change the semantics, which includes entailments. > > It is not, as you say, directly observable in a positive way, however it is negatively observable > through sets of tests, ie you can test if it did not happen. I don't see how you could test that it did not happen either. Do any of the existing RIF test cases show how it can be done? > > -Chris > > > Dan Connolly wrote: > > I see: > > > > "A RIF processor is a conformant BLDΤ,Ε consumer iff it implements a > > semantics-preserving mapping, μ, from the set of all BLDΤ,Ε formulas to > > the language L of the processor (μ does not need to be an "onto" > > mapping)." > > -- http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-bld/#Conformance_Clauses > > > > I don't see how this property is observable/testable; i.e. why > > this product class is defined at all. > > > > A conformant RIF-BLD consumer isn't required to compute entailment? > > > > This much is observable: "A conformant RIF-BLD consumer must reject all > > inputs that do not match the syntax of BLD." But that's just syntax > > checking. > > > > editorial: why "conformant" rather than "conforming"? > > > > > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 14 April 2010 18:21:19 UTC