- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:19:35 +0100
- To: "pat hayes <phayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>, www-rdf-rules@w3.org
PatH: [sorry to remove some context :)] > Fine: then do whatever you wish in your domain of application. But when > PUBLISHING your rules, I think it is not unreasonable to have a global > requirement (or at any rate a code of good practice) that whatever you > publish, you are responsible for saying what it means clearly enough for > others to use it. If you publish rules that only work in an unstated > context and which fail elsewhere, without any indication that this is > true, then you are acting at best irresponsibly; and I would like the > overall SW specs to say that you are acting in way that fails to conform > and is deprecated. For the fun, well, during test case work, I've often done test runs with assumptions (rule sets, rdf triples, owl ontologies) I used elsewhere (for totally different applications) and I always found a "no proof found" for the test case's conclusion parts. I observe that it is the unification of absoluteized URI's that is not succeeding in such cases. -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Thursday, 18 December 2003 19:19:46 UTC