Re: FLD "required" vs "expected" to be used for all RIF logic dialects

Sandro Hawke wrote:
> FLD says "All logic-based RIF dialects are required to be derived from
> RIF-FLD by specialization" and several variants of that notion appear
> elsewhere in FLD and UCR (and possibly elsewhere, that I didn't notice).
> I don't really undertand what this constraint is trying to do.  Is it a
> promise that all future logic dialects from RIF-WG *will* use FLD?  Is
> it some kind of constraint on vendor extensions?  I don't think it's
> right for us to say either one here.
> I'm fine with conveying expectation, like: "Logic-based RIF dialects
> are expected to be derived from RIF-FLD by specialization".  Okay?

Absolutely. I fully concur with you on this one, Sandro. And for the
same reasons.

>       -- Sandro

Hassan At-Kaci  *  ILOG, Inc. - Product Division R&D

Received on Sunday, 25 May 2008 21:03:35 UTC