- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:55:37 -0500
- To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu (Michael Kifer)
- Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, Gary Hallmark <GARY.HALLMARK@oracle.com>, W3C RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> > > In particular, you didn't > > > address my attempts at defining what you call "conformance" more precisely > > > and also Frank's arguments. > > > > Perhaps I missed them, although I think I read everything in this > > thread. Pointer? > > This was the main point of the message to which you were replying. > > Anyway, here it goes again. > > Conformance is to be defined by a semantics-preserving 1-1 mapping from a > rule system (RS) to a (possibly subset of a) RIF dialect (RIFD). Can you rephrase that into a constraint on products? That's where you lost me the first time through. > To avoid a > misunderstanding, 1-1 means into, not onto. The mapping may only map a > subset of the RL for a whole number of reasons. I'm okay with saying only a subset needs to be mapped -- every rule language is likely to have features that go beyond the nearest RIF Dialect -- but I think users need to be warned (at least in "standards mode") when they create rules outside the mapping. Are you okay with that? > To exchange a ruleset, R, between RL1 (with mapping f1) and RL2 (with mapping > f2), you do inverse-of-f2(f1(R)). If f1(R) is not in the co-domains of f2, yo > u > get an exception. > > If the vendors of RL1 and RL2 have sufficiently good technical people, then > they should be able to describe precisely what the co-domains of f1 and f2, > then it would also be possible to describe the co-domain of f1 composed > with the inverse of f2. In this way you, as a user, would know what you can > or cannot exchange. But if those vendors don't have good technical people > then no big deal. Getting an exception is good enough. I don't think getting an exception is good enough. I think users need to know when they buy a product which RIF dialects it fully implements. You'd agree, at least, that users would like that, right? (Better to know the limitations at purchase time instead of run-time...) - Sandro
Received on Monday, 18 December 2006 18:56:43 UTC