- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:05:00 +0100
- To: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
- CC: Rule Interchange Format Working Group WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Thanks. Apologies for not spotting that one. Dave Chris Welty wrote: > > > Thanks Dave for opening these issues. One bookkeeping note, I closed > issue 73 and merged the text with the existing issue-48. > > -Chris > > Rule Interchange Format Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> >> ISSUE-73 (Membership/subclass in Core?): Should Core support the >> membership and subclass syntax and semantics? [Core] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/73 >> >> Raised by: Dave Reynolds >> On product: Core >> >> We've previously suggested membership and subclass be omitted form >> CORE on the grounds that CORE is minimal and those can regarded as >> largely syntactic sugar. >> >> Many PR systems have a notion of object with a type and class >> hierarchy and so there is some support for member and subclass in PRD >> which suggests they should be in Core. However, since such systems >> often can't support assertion of membership or subclass relations, >> only query of it, then PRD currently doesn't permits rules to conclude >> (assert) a member or subclass relation. >> So the maximal intersection of BLD and PRD would only permit query not >> derivation of these properties. Such a limitation complicates the >> presentation of Core and restricts implementations of Core from using >> them to export type relations which don't meet those constraints. >> Should we err on the side of simplicity (just leave them out) or >> maximal intersection (include them along with constraints on usage)? >> >> >> >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 21 August 2008 13:06:46 UTC