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

> 
> > Unfortunately, you continue to stick with hand-waving arguments rather than
> > trying to make what you want to achieve precise. 
> 
> I find
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Dec/0072.html
> precise for its length.  Bijan's version
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Dec/0089.html 
> is more detailed and very clear.  Gary's and Paul's verious messages
> were clear to me as well, to me.  (FWIW, I find your use of the term
> "hand-waving" there offensive.)

Are you going to feed these messages to a machine so it will do the
exchange accordingly?

> What's so hand-waving about saying "the vendors don't want to set the
> bar that high?"

Is it how you would define "conformance".

> > In particular, you didn't
> > address my attempts at defining what you call "conformance" more precisely
> > and also Frank's arguments.
> 
> Perhaps I missed them, although I think I read everything in this
> thread.  Pointer?

This was the main point of the message to which you were replying.

Anyway, here it goes again.

Conformance is to be defined by a semantics-preserving 1-1 mapping from a
rule system (RS) to a (possibly subset of a) RIF dialect (RIFD). To avoid a
misunderstanding, 1-1 means into, not onto. The mapping may only map a
subset of the RL for a whole number of reasons.

To exchange a ruleset, R, between RL1 (with mapping f1) and RL2 (with mapping
f2), you do inverse-of-f2(f1(R)). If f1(R) is not in the co-domains of f2, you
get an exception.

If the vendors of RL1 and RL2 have sufficiently good technical people, then
they should be able to describe precisely what the co-domains of f1 and f2,
then it would also be possible to describe the co-domain of f1 composed
with the inverse of f2. In this way you, as a user, would know what you can
or cannot exchange. But if those vendors don't have good technical people
then no big deal. Getting an exception is good enough.

This answers one of your questions in another email.


> (Your putting scare-quotes around the word "conformance" is odd, and
> also kind of offensive.  I don't think I'm using it in some private way.
> I'm using it, as best I can, in conformance :-) with the far-too-long
> W3C Recommendation on the subject [1].)

I am putting the quotes not in order to scare or insult you but in order to
distinguish a technical word whose meaning we are trying to define (for
RIF) from the same word with its informal English meaning.


	--michael  


>     -- Sandro
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#conformance-clause
>

Received on Monday, 18 December 2006 18:23:58 UTC