Re: bld vs. rif

kifer@cs.sunysb.edu (Michael Kifer) writes:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > It seems to me that many of the things we could disagree about in the
> > short term are difficult to settle because they are based on ideas about
> > what "RIF" will be, rather than just what "BLD" will be.
> > 
> > I think we might be able to get consensus on a lot of issues with a
> > certain caveat, however.  Something like this:
> > 
> >      The design of BLD expressed in this document is (except where noted
> >      in the document) deemed by the Working Group to be stable and is
> >      not likely to be changed without new information.  The group has,
> >      however, not yet designed a way for dialects to fit together to
> >      form a coherent greater RIF.  It is fairly likely that as it does
> >      so, the Working Group will discover new information which will
> >      cause changes in BLD.
> 
> Right. This is why we need another dialect, like production rules, to get going.

Yeah, the question is how to make decisions between now and then...

So are you comfortable with this approach and this text?  Making
decisions at F2F7 and for the next BLD draft without trying too hard to
think into the future, because we're allowed to backtrack if necessary?
This isn't actually a change in normal WG policy (where Resolutions can
be revisited if there is new information), but it seems helpful to make
clear our expectation here.

> 
> 	--michael  
> 
> > 
> > [ In prolog terms, I'm saying we should be clear that we're not doing a
> > cut after the design of BLD; we may need to backtrack and come up with a
> > new BLD in order to find a suitable all-of-RIF.  :-)   We want to print
> > out the current BLD solution, though.... ]
> > 
> >     -- Sandro
> > 
> > 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 19:51:43 UTC