- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:52:54 -0400
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> > Michael Kifer wrote: > >> Michael Kifer wrote: > >>> Following up on the issue of whether RIF needs its own subclassOf thingie, > >>> I would argue that in order to support exchange of data models (strongly > >>> argued for by Gary and, as I understood at the last f2f, favored by > >>> Christian) > >> and objected to by me as being out of scope of RIF > > > > Not clear how you determined that. Others seem to feel it is not out of scope. > > The chairs were crystal clear at the last f2f that RIF is not supposed > to create yet another W3C data modelling language, it even got written > on the flip chart. > > Dave Well, there were a number of decisions, which we voted on and then reversed. On the matter of yet another modeling language we did not even vote. What we discussed was that we do not want yet another modeling language IF an existing one can be made to work for us. --michael
Received on Friday, 17 August 2007 14:53:05 UTC