- From: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
- Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 13:12:38 -0400 (EDT)
- To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Allen Ginsberg wrote: >Requirement: > The RIF standard presupposes that given sets of > rule-language families are provided. > Initially, these sets may be specified purely > extensionally (i.e., by enumerating the > specific rule-langugage members). Also, it is possible > that intially (in phase 1 of > the RIF activity) that only one such set is provided. What is the requirement here and on what/whom? Is it that the RIF specification must define the rule-language families that it supports? >Requirement: > For each rule-language family (that the RIF supports) > the RIF must provide a vendor/platform-independent > canonical format for representing rules in that family. Why must the format be canonical? An alternative would allow various representation forms for the same rule content as long as the meaning was unambiguous (as in OWL and RDF)? I don't object to this added constraint, but it should be explicitly justified. -Evan Evan K. Wallace Manufacturing Systems Integration Division NIST
Received on Thursday, 18 May 2006 17:12:51 UTC