Re: [TED] Action-188, ISSUE: production rule systems have "difficulty" with recursive rules in RIF Core

Sandro:
  First of all, the poor user is the last person who will know : 
( However, the rule vendor should be able to communicate properly to  
the user.
  Secondly, the simple answer to the question is you cannot guarantee  
that your rules will work on anybody else's engine. That is a  
different project: not a rules interchange format but a standard  
rules language. The trouble with the latter project is not that there  
have not been any, but that there are too many! And that too many  
people believe they know what such a SRL  should be like (including  
yours truly)
  Under the remit of the RIF, the best that you can hope for is that  
you get a clear and unambiguous signal that your rule set has been  
faithfully transmitted to a particular rule language. That is already  
an advance on the state of the art, by the way.
Frank


On Dec 17, 2006, at 3:02 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:

>
>
>> Yes, but the purpose of the RIF is to support the interchange of any
>> rule language. Conformance must be expressed in terms of being
>> faithful to the semantics of RIF, not whether you implement
>> everything in it. If you are faithful to the semantics, then someone
>> else can come along and reliably interpret your translated rule set.
>
> How do you suggest that I -- a user -- know what rules I can write and
> remain confident they will work on several other vendors' systems?
>
>      -- Sandro
>

Received on Sunday, 17 December 2006 23:39:24 UTC