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

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