- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:32:37 -0400
- To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Cc: jos.deroo@agfa.com, public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org
> You probably didn't understand the essence of my previous message.
>
> The thing you are talking about doesn't exist -- hasn't been defined yet as
> far as I know. It is certainly not any form of the NAF that I am familiar
> with. This is why I compared "unscoped NAF" with the Unicorn.
>
> If you define it rigorously then I could look at it and give you my
> subjective opinion as to whether this new notion is useful or not.
Let me try this differently. There are some features which you seem
to think should be in scope for the Working Group, but are not
according to the current draft and what I've been saying. Can you
define one (or all) of these features (all which I suspect are related
to non-monotonicity), in terms every prospective member of the Working
Group can understand, and give me a simple, specific, motivating use
case for one of these features?
-- sandro
Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2005 23:32:44 UTC