- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 12:10:51 -0400 (EDT)
- To: PaulVincent@fairisaac.com
- Cc: bry@ifi.lmu.de, public-rif-wg@w3.org
Is Fair Isaac actually asserting such strong property rights over this message? If so, perhaps W3C should take it off their web site. peter From: "Vincent, Paul D" <PaulVincent@fairisaac.com> Subject: RE: [RIF] Extensible Design --> RIF semantics Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 08:43:29 -0700 > > 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 16:11:04 UTC