- From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:16:26 +0200
- To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
- CC: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
>>> *) "the interpretation of frame formulas s[p -> o] in the RIF-OWL DL >>> combinations is slightly different from their interpretation in RIF >>> BLD and syntactical restrictions are imposed on the use of variables, >>> function terms, and frame formulas." >>> >>> That honestly worries me. Is it wise to do that? What are the >>> implications? Is this still FLD compatible? That means that RIF-OWL >>> is not compatible with BLD? If so, in what sense uncompatible? See >>> also my comments below. >> This has been extensively discussed in a face-to-face, as well as on the >> mailing list, sometime ago. >> >> I honestly don't feel like repeating this discussion. > > But a note explaining this thing is in order in this document. > The intended audience is not this WG, but a man from the street who has never > been to any of our f2faces. I meant repeating the discussion whether it is wise to do so. There is a discussion in the introduction to section 4 about why there is a difference, and roughly what the difference is: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#OWL_Compatibility > >>> Section 4.1 ======= >>> >>> * ) "DL-Document" is not so nice... I'd prefer >>> "RIF-BLD-DL-Document" or "RIF-BLD<sub>DL</sub>-Document" I assume you were referring to my reply: >> I was trying to stay in line with the terminology used in BLD. BLD >> does not specify anything like an RIF- BLD -document or an RIF >> document. that seemed a good idea at the time, and I would prefer >> sticking with that unless anyone can come up with a convincing >> argument to diverge . > Actually, it does, since the time the conformance clauses were added. > But a few days ago this is stated even more prominently. There is a numbered > definition for valid RIF-BLD documents and for conformant ones. > > This is on the XML side. On the presentation syntax side there has been a > notion of a document formula for 2-3 months now. I am staying on the presentation syntax side. My point was that the thing in the BLD presentation syntax is called "document" and not "RIF-BLD-document" or "RIF document". Best, Jos > > > --michael -- Jos de Bruijn debruijn@inf.unibz.it +390471016224 http://www.debruijn.net/ ---------------------------------------------- If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them. - Isaac Asimov
Received on Monday, 30 June 2008 14:15:29 UTC