- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:52:13 +0100
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Bijan Parsia wrote: > > What's wrong, from your perspective, in saying that the default > semantics are (a), but implementations might not conform to the > semantics for formulae with built-ins when there is an error? Well, from a perspective where RIF is meant as a standard, I would prefer if the rule would be that implementations conform rather than the reverse... This would be my preference; but, again, most of all, I want us to consider the question for all the relevant perspectives before we make a decision. And, to me, not considering how widely used rule languages handle the case would be missing an important point. Christian
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 15:53:57 UTC