- From: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:32:59 -0500
- To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Michael, Where can we find a description of this "profile mechanism" you refer to? -Chris Michael Kifer wrote: > Gang: > > We have been deadlocked on a number of issues, including class hierarchies, > equality, named arguments in predicates, with no end in sight. We have > wasted a lot of time in email conversations and F2Faces and still have not > reached a solution. > > We need to move on with our work, so let me reiterate in a more articulate > form what I believe is a way out of this deadlock. > > 1. Define BLD to include the features that make technical sense (free of > political considerations). This should include everything that we have > right now: equality, frames, classification, slotted terms. > > This dialect makes perfect sense not only technically but also > pragmatically. One feature (equality) is a bit challenging to implement, > but not insurmountable. > > 2. Use the profile mechanism to define the core and other dialects (if > necessary). > > I already explained that profiles give us a simple mechanism to define > subdialects. The dual approach advocated by some people, i.e., > developing an extensibility mechanism, is currently pie in-the-sky. It > is a research issue, which is very interesting, but we have nothing > concrete and we should not base our decisions on a **very remote** (IMO) > possibility that a useful extensibility mechanism will become available > in the future. > > 3. The CORE would be essentially a Datalog profile of BLD, plus or minus. > - not sure if function symbols will be allowed (I think yes) > - no equality > - no slotted predicates/functions > - frames? Do not know - either way is fine > - classification: I am fine with not including it in the core > - this minus function symbols is also probably acceptable as a core of PRD > > > Benefits: > - it is technically well-founded > - accommodates most of the preferences, which were expressed by the > various people in this group > - once these issues are off the table, we will be able to > o save a lot of time > o our telecons will become shorter > o we will be able to accomplish much more during our face-2-faces > o we will be able to move on and think about cool stuff like > extensibility, modules, OWL compatibility. > o we will be friends again :-) > > Drawbacks: > - none that I can see > > > Am I too naive to think that this is acceptable to everyone? > > > --michael > > -- Dr. Christopher A. Welty IBM Watson Research Center +1.914.784.7055 19 Skyline Dr. cawelty@gmail.com Hawthorne, NY 10532 http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2007 03:33:14 UTC