Difference between revisions of "PER Transition Request"
(copy from PR Transiton and update)
Revision as of 23:38, 20 November 2012
This is a transition request, and also serves as an agenda for the upcoming Transition Meeting with the Director. The official version is in email: sent @@.
We propose to publish the following documents as Proposed Edited Recommendation:
|rif-core||Core||rif-core||RIF Core Dialect|
|rif-bld||BLD||rif-bld||RIF Basic Logic Dialect|
|rif-prd||PRD||rif-prd||RIF Production Rule Dialect|
|rif-dtb||DTB||rif-dtb||RIF Datatypes and Builtins 1.0|
|rif-rdf-owl||SWC||rif-rdf-owl||RIF RDF and OWL Compatibility|
|rif-fld||FLD||rif-fld||RIF Framework for Logic Dialects|
The anticipated publication date is 4 December.
2 Abstracts and Status Sections
The abstract of each document is below, unchanged from the Recommendation:
|Core||This document, developed by the Rule Interchange Format (RIF) Working Group, specifies RIF-Core, a common subset of RIF-BLD and RIF-PRD based on RIF-DTB 1.0. The RIF-Core presentation syntax and semantics are specified by restriction in two different ways. First, RIF-Core is specified by restricting the syntax and semantics of RIF-BLD, and second, by restricting RIF-PRD. The XML serialization syntax of RIF-Core is specified by a mapping from the presentation syntax. A normative XML schema is also provided.|
|BLD||This document, developed by the Rule Interchange Format (RIF) Working Group, specifies the Basic Logic Dialect, RIF-BLD, a format that allows logic rules to be exchanged between rule systems. The RIF-BLD presentation syntax and semantics are specified both directly and as specializations of the RIF Framework for Logic Dialects, or RIF-FLD. The XML serialization syntax of RIF-BLD is specified via a mapping from the presentation syntax. A normative XML schema is also provided.|
|PRD||This document, developed by the Rule Interchange Format (RIF) Working Group, specifies the production rule dialect of the W3C rule interchange format (RIF-PRD), a standard XML serialization format for production rule languages.|
|DTB||This document, developed by the Rule Interchange Format (RIF) Working Group, specifies a list of datatypes, built-in functions and built-in predicates expected to be supported by RIF dialects such as the RIF Core Dialect, the RIF Basic Logic Dialect, and the RIF Production Rules Dialect. Each dialect supporting a superset or subset of the datatypes, built-in functions and built-in predicates defined here shall specify these additions or restrictions. Some of the datatypes are adapted from [XML-SCHEMA2]. A large part of the definitions of the listed functions and operators are adapted from [XPath-Functions]. The rdf:PlainLiteral datatype as well as functions and operators associated with that datatype are adopted from [RDF-PLAINLITERAL].|
|SWC||Rules interchanged using the Rule Interchange Format RIF may depend on or be used in combination with RDF data and RDF Schema or OWL ontologies. This document, developed by the Rule Interchange Format (RIF) Working Group, specifies the interoperation between RIF and the data and ontology languages RDF, RDF Schema, and OWL.|
|FLD||This document, developed by the Rule Interchange Format (RIF) Working Group, defines a general RIF Framework for Logic Dialects (RIF-FLD). The framework describes mechanisms for specifying the syntax and semantics of logic RIF dialects through a number of generic concepts such as signatures, symbol spaces, semantic structures, and so on. The actual dialects should specialize this framework to produce their syntaxes and semantics.|
The Status sections are assembled automatically from maturity-specific and working-group specific boilerplate, indicating the document is part of the set of six RIF specifications, with pointers to each, along with changes since the last publication.
3 Decision to Request PER
Twenty five votes were received from Working Group participants: 19 approve, 6 abstain, no objections.
4 Changes since Recommendation
All changes have been minor, editorial in nature, and would not invalidate earlier reviews.
The preview drafts, linked above, have color-coded diffs to the drafts the group saw during the review period. Those drafts have color-coded diffs to the RECs.
5 Satisfies Group's Requirements
The requirements have not changed. None of the reviews have raised any concern about the documents failing to satisfy the group's requirements.
The main purpose of this revision was to change the dependency on XSD 1.1 Part 2, which was only at Last Call when these documents went to REC, so the dependency could not be normative. Now there are no normative references to documents not at REC.
7 Received Wide Review
Within the group: see vote results.
Public review is not done for PERs.
8 Issues Formally Addressed
The reported errata have been addressed.
To date, there have been no formal objections.
The group has not been tracking implementations since REC. At the time, it produced a table of implementations.
11 Patent Disclosures