- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:15:42 -0500
- To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> Michael Kifer wrote: > > > > Christin says that we should hand-waive in defining the semantics, while I > > am saying that we should hand-waive in defining compliance. > > > > The result is pretty much the same, but the difference is big: people > > expect that the semantics is formal and the compliance clause is not. > > Depends what people you are talking to, of course :-) > > So, in making a decision, we must also consider the alternative. > > Especially since I would expect - but I may be wrong - that the people > who are our primary target, that is, people who want to implement a > standard format for interchanging rules between "established or new rule > languages", would have some expectation wrt the compliance clause. So, if it is a compliance clause, then we pushed the problem to the next level. Does it mean that I can now go back to work on the document? --michael > Christian > >
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2008 19:15:52 UTC