Re: [UCR] comments on Section 1 of 15 Feb draft of RIF UCR

The danger that I see is that this part of the document will be accepted from intertia.

peter


From: "Ginsberg, Allen" <AGINSBERG@imc.mitre.org>
Subject: RE: [UCR] comments on Section 1 of 15 Feb draft of RIF UCR
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:25:32 -0500

> Peter,
> 
> My understanding is that the generation of the public document involves
> another step, at which point these sections can be left out. (Sandro:
> is that correct?) 
> 
> The section are in the internal draft to allow for discussion of issues
> among the members.  
> 
> Allen
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfps@inf.unibz.it] 
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 11:22 AM
> To: Ginsberg, Allen
> Cc: pfps@inf.unibz.it; public-rif-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [UCR] comments on Section 1 of 15 Feb draft of RIF UCR
> 
> Then I strongly suggest that either the section be removed or the
> document
> status be updated to reflect this.
> 
> peter
> 
> PS:  The F2F2 agenda strongly suggests that the (non-existent) Sections
> 3 and 4
> have some non-trivial status.
> 
> From: "Ginsberg, Allen" <AGINSBERG@imc.mitre.org>
> Subject: RE: [UCR] comments on Section 1 of 15 Feb draft of RIF UCR
> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:17:52 -0500
> 
> > 
> > Peter,
> > 
> > This section is not supposed to be part of what we are voting on
> (yet).
> > I assume that the only part of the document to be released publicly
> > will be section 2. Section 1 is certainly not meant to be definitive
> of
> > anything at this point. 
> > 
> > Allen
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Peter F.
> > Patel-Schneider
> > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 11:13 AM
> > To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
> > Subject: [UCR] comments on Section 1 of 15 Feb draft of RIF UCR
> > 
> > 
> > On going through Section 1 of 15 Feb draft of RIF UCR at
> > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/ucr/draft-20060215 I came up with two
> > issues:
> > 
> > 1/ This section appears to assume that an "executable rule language"
> > uses the
> > same language for statements and queries.  I believe that this is not
> > the case
> > for most rule systems that exist today.
> > 
> > 2/ The section states
> > 
> > 	Rather the RIF includes a framework of concepts, represented as
> > tags in
> > 	a markup language
> > 
> > I do not believe that there is yet any consensus as to whether the
> RIF
> > will
> > include a "framework of concepts", let alone represent them as "tags
> in
> > a
> > markup language".
> > 
> > 
> > peter
> >

Received on Thursday, 23 February 2006 16:31:29 UTC