- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:46:01 -0500
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- 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. Why should it say that? And what does it mean to "implement" RIF? I think systems should be compliant if they provide a semantic-preserving mapping to a RIF dialect (or dialects). That's all. Again, RIF is supposed to be for exchange. What is the basis for requiring your clause? Is there a theoretical underpinning to it? > 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. See above. > The fact that non-recursive Horn is too high a bar for non-rule database > vendors is okay, since this is RIF not DBIF. DB vendors is the largest market for rules. Any SQL database is rule-based. They just don't call them this way. --michael
Received on Sunday, 17 December 2006 17:46:16 UTC