Re: RDF (and OWL) compatibility

Michael Kifer wrote:
> The combined semantics part is now motivated well.  But the embedding part
> is not motivated. I am not sure about the overall scenario for exchange
> through this embedding and what is the use case.

I added an additional note to the end of the introduction of the
section.  Basically, the scenario for exchange is not different.  There
is certainly no exchange "through" this embedding.  It just shows how
interchange partners can possibly process combinations.

Best, Jos

> 
> 
> 	--michael  
> 
> 
>> Michal,
>>
>> I added a note to the top of the RDF section, which hopefully clarifies
>> how rules using RDF are envisioned to be exchanged.
>> If there is still some unclarity, please let me know and I will update
>> the text accordingly.
>>
>> Best, Jos
>>
>> Michael Kifer wrote:
>>> Jos,
>>> continuing the discussion that was started at the end of F2F, the RDF
>>> compatibility document makes no sense unless it is preceded by a clear
>>> explanation of how the exchange of rules that use RDF is supposed to happen.
>>>
>>> You mentioned two possibilities, where one requires the combined semantics
>>> and the other the embedding. You have to spell them out clearly.
>>> Without such a clear statement it is hard to tell which part of the rif-rdf
>>> document is to be made normative.
>>>
>>>
>>> 	--michael  
>> -- 
>>                          debruijn@inf.unibz.it
>>
>> Jos de Bruijn,        http://www.debruijn.net/
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> In heaven all the interesting people are
>> missing.
>>   - Friedrich Nietzsche
>>

-- 
                         debruijn@inf.unibz.it

Jos de Bruijn,        http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
In heaven all the interesting people are
missing.
  - Friedrich Nietzsche