RE: [RIF] Extensible Design --> RIF semantics

Francois - I interpret this as:
- the rules being interchanged have semantics
- the actual interchange mechanism itself does not.

This is presumably a problem for those who identify RIF itself as a future semantic web rule language, rather than an interchange mechanism for whatever that language turns out to be. 

Or am I missing something here?

Cheers,
Paul Vincent for Fair Isaac



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Francois Bry
> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 3:24 PM
> To: W3C RIF WG
> Subject: Re: [RIF] Extensible Design
> 
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >>> That there is no formal role for semantics in the RIF - it is just an
> >>> interchange syntax.
> >>>
> 
> If I understand well, the above statement aims at provoking reactions.
> (I apologize, if I am wrong!)
> 
> Are there in this WG members thinking the RIF should habve no semantics?
> 
> François

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, proprietary
and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please delete it immediately.

Received on Thursday, 4 May 2006 15:43:55 UTC