Re: A proposal for a unitary RIF phase 1

On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 09:07 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> On May 27, 2006, at 6:34 PM, Michael Kifer wrote:
> > Peter,
> >
> > It is no big deal to be unitary by restricting the language to Datalog.
> > You don't even need to limit it to a function-free sublanguage. In our
> > roadmap the language was unitary also up to this point.
> >
> > The issue is how to build such a system in an extensible way so that it
> > could be extended to satisfy most of the RIF requirements.
> 
> Which requirements?

I'd really appreciate an answer, please.

Which (candidate) requirement(s) do you have in mind
there, Michael?

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Tuesday, 6 June 2006 16:50:47 UTC