Re: [RIF] [UCR]: What is the RIF (revisited)

On Thursday 09 February 2006 12:19, Dieter Fensel wrote:
> 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.

not very kind of you to define these discussions as "pointless".  on the basis 
of the circulating messages this can be considered a personal opinion

I may have read the charter too quickly, but what I saw is the following as 
far as disjunctions are concerned:

- the topics pertaining to phase 2 listed in sect. 2.2.1 don't include 
disjunctive rules, nor do the topics listed in sect 3.2.1

- apparently sect. 2.2.5 seems to exclude it, but ICs seem to be in the scope 
of phase 1

so where are disjunctions, phase 1 or 2?  especially if we consider that they 
can be used for ICs in some cases.

Edward J. Barkmeyer wrote:
> If the choice is supporting disjunctive consequents and having a RIF model 
> theory in 6 months that we can all accept, I'll take the latter. 

I guess this is the reason why some members want to postpone certain 
constructs to phase 2.  still nobody says why covering these constructs 
should be such a pain - we have pretty stable approaches to disjunction: 
solid theory and fast implementations.  if the choice is having a RIF model 
theory in 6 months with or without disjunctions, I prefer having disjunctions 
immediately...

piero

Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 12:45:36 UTC