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?

Sorry, I thought it was a rhetorical question.

The issues are integration with NAF, constraints, production and active
rules.  All these are requirements coming from the group members.


	--michael  

Received on Tuesday, 6 June 2006 16:59:46 UTC