Re: [UCR] comment on reference to charter definition of "rule language"

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

>I am puzzled by the following section of 
>http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/RIF_Use_Cases_and_Requirements
>
>
>This does not sound to me like the WG is prohibited from specifying a rule
>language.  In fact, one of the Phase 1 deliverables of the WG is 
>
>	A W3C Recommendation providing technical specifications of the
>	interchange format, suitable for implementers of rule engines and rule
>	language translation software.
>  
>
I fully agree with Peter. IMHO, RIF should be a (parsable) formal 
language than can (but must not) have processors (either for the full 
language or for fragment of it).
I hardly  see a rational in  stating that RIF should not be machine 
processable.
-- 

Francois

Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2006 14:14:02 UTC