- From: Ed Barkmeyer <edbark@nist.gov>
- Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:10:06 -0400
- To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
- CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Michael, I can agree with everything you say. (OK, one caveat below.) I'm only pointing out that although our job was only to see that the missiles go up, some are (rightly) concerned about where they may come down. you wrote: > We were NOT chartered to invent a universal syntax for a large number of widely > used dialects AND make this syntax acceptable to everybody. This is an > *impossible* task. I completely agree. > We were chartered to create an exchange framework and a language to facilitate > this exchange. If people teach this, they must understand WHAT they are > teaching. It was never clear to me that the PS was part of that charter. You are absolutely right that people who use the PS for instructive purposes SHOULD understand WHAT they are teaching. But we can't guarantee "must", and some, perhaps many, won't. That has been the experience in other such activities, e.g. CL, and that is why it was carefully avoided in OWL. > If RIF PS becomes a de facto standard for authoring rules then be it. > People will just have to accept that it is different in some details from their > favorite language. Yes. Some important details, in fact. -Ed -- Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@nist.gov National Institute of Standards & Technology Manufacturing Systems Integration Division 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694 "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2008 21:11:16 UTC