- From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
- Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 13:21:25 +0100
- To: Dieter Fensel <dieter.fensel@deri.org>
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Dieter Fensel wrote: >>2. RIF could allow for rules the processing of which goes beyond what >>currently is widespread. Eg rules with disjunctive conclusions. >> >> > >Why? We do not need a rule language that covers any possible feature but >one that covers 80% of the stuff that is used and useful. > Good point. But if RIF is not coming along weith (the definitioon of) a processor, this gives room for a bit of look ahead, does not it? -- Francois
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2006 12:21:41 UTC