Re: [RIF] Extensible Design

• From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@inf.unibz.it>
• Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 13:25:57 -0400 (EDT)
• To: bry@ifi.lmu.de
• Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
• Message-Id: <20060504.132557.29089701.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
Subject: Re: [RIF] Extensible Design
Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 16:24:06 +0200

> 
> 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!)

It is instead an attempt to find out what RIF WG members think the RIF
should look like, which may turn outin the end to be the same thing.

> Are there in this WG members thinking the RIF should have no semantics?

I don't know for sure, but I have been getting the feeling that there are.

> François

peter

Received on Thursday, 4 May 2006 17:26:11 UTC