- From: Dieter Fensel <dieter.fensel@deri.org>
- Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 12:19:46 +0100
- To: bonatti@na.infn.it, Dave Reynolds <der@HPLB.HPL.HP.COM>
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Dear Piero, you may be new to W3C processes. It is not in the scope of a working group to change its charter. For this we have it and it helps us to prevent endless and pointless discussions. Dieter At 12:16 PM 2/9/2006 +0100, Piero A. Bonatti wrote: >On Thursday 09 February 2006 11:09, Dave Reynolds wrote: > > 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 > >yes, but the point here is that certain functionalities are perceived by >several members as already common enough to enter phase 1. there are engines >that can use those constructs against KBs importing mid-sized DBs so we are >talking about reasonably engineered technology. even if one regards those >constructs as constraints, well, ICs can't be considered as bleeding edge. > >if your concern is that these extensions may be difficult to deal with *in >the >normative effort of RIF* (as opposed to automated reasoning) then I'd say: >let's not discard those construct a priori from phase 1. let's rather check >whether there is a natural, simple way of incorporating them from scratch, >and reconsider this approach if and when difficulties arise (a much better >use of our time, compared to the current issue being discussed) > >this is a nice way of reducing a risk, namely, adopting in phase 1 a >normative >style that does not scale to phase 2. we will also get some anticipations on >possible problems in phase 2 > >piero ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dieter Fensel, http://www.deri.org/ Tel.: +43-512-5076485/8 Skype: dieterfensel
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 11:20:16 UTC