- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 03:14:15 -0400 (EDT)
- To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu> Subject: Re: A proposal for a unitary RIF phase 1 Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 04:00:10 -0400 > > > > > Even though this might seem unnecessary in > > > the unitary world, this same rule set will have to live in a Phase 2 > > > world with other semantics, so it must be prepared to declare its > > > characteristics in that larger context. > > > > Well, this assumes, for starters, that there will be other, divergent, > > semantics in Phase 2. I do not conceed this point. However, even if this > > were the case, how do divergent semantics in Phase 2 require divergent > > semantics in Phase 1? > > I didn't say that Phase 1 will necessarily have multiple semantics. > I said that Phase 1 must already have a plan for Phase 2. I don't see how this follows. Yes, Phase 1 should be performed in a way that should not make Phase 2 too much harder, but this is certainly much less than a full plan for Phase 2. > But if we include constraints in Phase 1 then we might need to deal with > multiple semantics already in Phase 1. (As we discussed, the semantics of > constraints is not first-order.) Yes, in some sense. > --michael peter
Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 07:14:44 UTC