- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 11:19:14 -0400
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org
> > To take a concrete example. One might wish to have a rule that says that
> > any user who is not in "this" specific set of authorization statements
> > is not authorized and should be rejected. This could be expressed as NAF
> > negation "scoped" to statements from the authorization list, or as
> > general negation over an authorization predicate which is definitively
> > defined by the closed list of assertions or as a set non-membership
> > predicate acting over a closed set of authorized users derived from the
> > list. I'd agree these are different but they all seem to be within the
> > spirit of what was mentioned at the workshop (at least to the extent
> > that I was aware of such discussions).
> >
> > [Not sure this is the right place for this discussion, but then I'm
> > confused about the purpose of this list.]
>
> [ This list is the right place for this discussion, I think, yes. ]
Oops, I didn't really address your confusion. The point of this list
is to give us a place to talk about rules and stuff. :-)
"www-rdf-rules" may not work for some topics because of the RDF angle.
And we didn't want to make a general rules-talk list until it's more
clear what future rules work has at W3C. So this list gives us a
place to talk with a post-workshop scope, probably as an interim
measure.
-- sandro
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2005 15:19:20 UTC