- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:59:42 -0500
- To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Cc: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>, Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>, Patrick Albert <palbert@ilog.fr>, Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>, Adrian Paschke <Adrian.Paschke@gmx.de>, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
ok. But I am trying to make this more concrete so that we'll understand. I would like things to be expressed in the context of RIF-Core and of the concrete problem for which Gary was seeking a solution. I don't see how Java objects and external schemas relate to allowing # and ## in RIF-Core facts. I would like to see a clarification from you on that issue and Gary's view. michael On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:22:50 +0100 Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr> wrote: > Paul Vincent wrote: > > > > Christian's comment is simply (?) that RIF needs to play well alongside > > externally-defined fact definitions (for example external Java object > > models used to define production rules in BREs). > > Thanx for translating from the csma-ese, Paul :-) > > > Maybe the qu is whether it is compulsory that all relevant facts and > > class relationships need to be represented in RIF for RIF rules to be > > defined against them? > > It is compulsory that they need be representable; so, yes, they could be represented. > > But it is not compulsory that they be represented, as far as I understand. > > That is, by the way, what I understand Gary says in his reply to you [1], and this is, anyway, what I have been trying to say all along. > > > Or have I missed the point (again)? :) > > I do not think so. > > Cheers, > > Christian > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Nov/0127.html > >
Received on Thursday, 20 November 2008 18:08:36 UTC