- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 16:45:02 +0100
- To: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
- CC: "Ginsberg, Allen" <AGINSBERG@imc.mitre.org>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
Paul Vincent wrote: > > It seems to me that my email is broken – I was expecting some of our > fellow RIF members, not usually shy with an opinion or observation, to > arbitrate and/or point out the obvious flaws in my (or your) arguments > by now. J What about: "We note that in this document we deliberately refrain from defining the notion of "coverage" in a rigorous manner, since precisely what it means for diverse rule languages to be "covered" by RIF may vary from case to case. Intuitively, when we say that "RIF covers rule language L" we mean that there is at least one standard dialect of RIF into which and from which rules written in L can be translated"? The controversial part of Allen's definition: "that the resulting RIF rules can be used by software designed to work with RIF to achieve essentially the same functionality as enabled by the original L rules." is implied by the requirement that RIF dialects have "a precise semantics", isn't it? (Chair's hat off) Which is the reason why I do not like that requirement, btw: it is a solution, not a requirement - the corresponding requirement would be more like, imho: "rules retrieved from RIF must behave equivalently to the rules from which the RIF document was created"; but that's a different question (chair's hat on). Christian
Received on Tuesday, 5 December 2006 15:44:16 UTC