- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 08:39:30 +0100
- To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Cc: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Michael Kifer wrote: > following today's discussion, I put in a wiki page with a slightly more > polished definition of compliant producers and consumers. > Please see http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Compliance I have no problems with this as a definition of a conformant processor. There are two other conformance related notions we *might* want to have. First, we might want to define Document Conformance (c.f. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#docConformance). That way an editor could claim to produce conformant RIF documents. For RIF BLD would a conformant document be one that validates according the schema or one that validates and for which each symbol can be assigned to a unique partition of Const and a unique arity? I assume the latter. Second, we might want the notion of a "consistent D(T,E) consumer". A RIF processor is a consistent D(?,?) consumer iff there is a semantically-preserving mapping from a subset of all D(?,?) formulas to the language L of the processor. [A long time ago we used the terms "implements" and "conforms" for these two notions, but since we are now using "conforms" more strictly I needed a term for the weaker notion, an alternative to "consistent" might be "compliant".] Dave -- Hewlett-Packard Limited Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2008 07:40:13 UTC