W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > May 2008

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

From: Hassan At-Kaci <hak@ilog.com>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 14:03:15 -0700
Message-ID: <4839D413.1030800@ilog.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:07:44 UTC