- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:36:10 -0500
- To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu (Michael Kifer)
- Cc: "Paul Vincent" <pvincent@tibco.com>, "Gary Hallmark" <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>, "W3C RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> > Some guidance about writing conformance clauses (which I'll re-read now)
> > is at http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/ .
>
> I am not concerned with conformance clauses right now, but rather with
> defining what might be a reasonable set of features (for lack of a better
> word) that should allow us to call something a core or a dialect extending
> the core.
I think the difference in what we are talking about is in the
conformance clause -- that's why I want to focus there.
I think RIF's conformance clause will say that for a rule system to
implement RIF it has to handle all RIF Core.
Do you want to force all rule systems to handle full recursive Horn? If
RIF tries to do that, I think a lot of rule system vendors will tell us
"no" and not adopt RIF. It seems to set the bar too high.
The fact that non-recursive Horn is too high a bar for non-rule database
vendors is okay, since this is RIF not DBIF.
-- Sandro
Received on Sunday, 17 December 2006 17:37:16 UTC