- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 09:00:12 +0100
- To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- CC: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Jos de Bruijn wrote: > I drafted a conformance section: > > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#Conformance_Clauses > > This section contains clauses for both BLD and Core. Please have a look. Looks good. My main reservation is the restriction to not have rdf:first, rdf:rest, rdf:nil in the rule conclusions since that prevents conformant processors supporting construction of RDF lists, even though they can construct RIF lists. Can we say that this vocabulary is permissible in conclusions so long as the entailed RDF graph meets the restrictions on well-formedness of RDF lists? Minor editorial comments: o The term "RDF Name" used to describe object values isn't one I'm familiar with and isn't explicitly defined. Perhaps just say "IRI, RDF literal"? o The ∈ doesn't display for me in Firefox (used in a couple places when describing the profile). > I did not include strict conformance, because it did not make too much > sense to me in combinations with RDF and OWL. Agreed. Dave
Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2009 08:01:02 UTC