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

The whole purpose is to impose a standard on how logic extensions are going to
be defined. Otherwise, we will have open season for introducing all kinds of
kludges. Note that the document says that, if necessary, FLD will be extended
to accommodate other logic-based dialects. But this should be done with extra
care and not on a whim.


	--michael


On Sun, 25 May 2008 15:20:37 +0100
Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> 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?
> 
>       -- Sandro
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 26 May 2008 09:36:17 UTC