- From: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:01:06 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: public-rif-comments@w3.org
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. -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"? > > -- 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 Monday, 1 March 2010 17:09:14 UTC