- From: Dave Reynolds <der@HPLB.HPL.HP.COM>
- Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 10:09:50 +0000
- To: bonatti@na.infn.it
- CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Piero A. Bonatti wrote: > On Thursday 09 February 2006 10:33, Dave Reynolds wrote: > >>Quite the reverse. We are having a discussion on how pragmatic RIF is, >>whether it focuses on the 80% most common and widely implemented >>capabilities or it is pushing the boundaries on richness of rule languages. > > > there is a wide gap between the 80% most common and widely implemented > capabilities and pushing the boundaries on richness of rule languages. I > seem that this is the real point of disagreement Agreed. > I'm forwarding a previous question of mine to you: why should we be satisfied > with only the most common and widely implemented capabilities, and only 80% > of them? IT is evolving at a fantastic pace, and approaches and ideas often > get old before they reach maturity. do you really believe we can face a > standardization problem in this field with the same conservative approach > taken in other fields? This comes back to the phase 1/2 split again. I am perfectly happy that phase 2 might well include extensions which are close to the bleeding edge. However, the task of phase 1 is to define a simple common, but extensible, core and even when we get to phase 2 it might be reasonable to prioritize the extensions which are most widely implemented and needed first. Dave
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 10:10:47 UTC