- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:27:52 +0200
- To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
Michael, You are right (of course :-) and rule do not have any kind of special first-class existence in logic. But shouldn't they, nonetheless, have some kind of first-class existence in a rule interchange format? Michael Kifer wrote: > > The Rule wrapper is unacceptable from the FLD point of view. > I am glad that there is FLD to keep us honest :-) > And this extra wrapper is just bloat that gives nothing. > > All this mess indicates to me that the only good solution is our original > proposal to use Group only. All the talk about the first-class existence > for rules reminds me medieval disputations about how many devils can fit on > a needle point. Or, couldn't "all this mess" indicate that trying to have RIF-FLD cover FOL is just trying to embrace too much at this stage? I can envision that there could be a future LIFE WG (logic interchange format for everyone) chartered to develop a logic dialect framework that would encompass RIF-FLD (the framework for logic dialects of the rule interchange format) as a special case for the kind of formulae that some user/developer communities call "rules"... Just thinking about what is a reasonable scope for this WG, and where to stop... Christian
Received on Monday, 28 April 2008 16:29:16 UTC