Re: [DTB] Most editor's notes addressed

<snip/>

>>>> If I use BLD with non-strict conformance, and decide I want to use the
>>>> xsd:int datatype, am I using BLD or am I using a dialect? Is this
>>>> dialect a W3C dialect or a third-party dialect?
>>>> And suppose now that I want to use a guard predicate. Does the above
>>>> text or does the above text not allow me to use the name pred:isInt?
> 
> 
>> I would be very interested in your response to my questions....
> 
> Ok:
> it does not, for your own dialect, it does if it is a W3C endorsed
> dialect. (and: no, I do not have a formal definition of "W3C endorsed
> dialect" in mind yet, and yes "it should be discussed again.")

You did not answer my first and my second question. And could you please
include an editor's note so that we can track the issue?

<snip/>

> 
> I was hoping we could get BLD a usable rules language for RDF,
> compatible with SPARQL. (And similar problems will arise if we pursue to
> suggest RIF to the RDB2RDF people: If we as a working group approach
> them and say: look at RIF, we should then not be in the position that,
> if they agree to do so, having to answer them: "BUT, BTW RIF doesn't
> work for that, you need to do your own dialect from scratch, your
> problem...")
> 
> I see some very fundamental issues here.

I would be very interested to see whether there are any features
required by RDB2RDF that are not provided by RIF.

<snip/>