Response to DM2

From RIF
Revision as of 13:29, 28 August 2009 by ChrisWelty (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

HI David,

Thanks for the comment. Note that the feature is present because of its clear usefulness in rules, which you note. It is *at-risk* due to its perceived difficulty to implement in rule engines. We await implementor feedback on that point.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-rif-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.


David Mott wrote:
> I believe that the use of equality in the conclusion of a rule implication should 
> be retained, since there are situations where as a result of reasoning once wishes 
> to infer that 2 entities are in fact the same.