- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:56:59 +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 Kifer wrote: >> >>Just thinking about what is a reasonable scope for this WG, and where to >>stop... > > Why are you talking with riddles? Are you proposing to junk FLD? Hey, wait! No, not for a second! I was just wondering how far we should go to make FLD cover... Well, that is exactly the question: FLD could potentially cover many things, and I wondered where we should just stop worrying about dialects that some people may want to develop in the future and whether FLD would be appropriate for their purpose (including wrt naming such as 'rule' vs 'group', 'item' or what else)... More specifically: I wonder if we should not just stop right where we are, add a Rule construct, maybe even a Fact one, and leave FLD 1.0 be FLD 1.0 until we need a FLD 2.0 that corrects it and/or go further. Christian
Received on Monday, 28 April 2008 16:57:56 UTC