- From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
- Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 08:39:27 +0100
- To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Axel Polleres wrote: >+1, rather RIF should IMHO >a) determine which combinations of semantic "features" are combinable, >and which not, and >b) define what the allowed combinations of particular features mean >semantically, and >c) define these features around a least-common-denominator core plus >extensability mechanism, which is to be determined in phase 1. > > Do I correctly infer this to be the agreement? > > I am missing in the list above an explicit reference to classes of web-based applications or use cases that RIF aims at supporting. IMO RIF should support: - exchanging business rules (requires to be made more precise) - exchanging RDF- and OWL-related rules (requires also to be made modre precise) - exchanging database viewsd and integrity constraints expressed in a high-level specification formalisms (I am not meaning here expressed in SQL) and maybe others I am not thinking of. Francois
Received on Friday, 10 February 2006 07:39:29 UTC