Re: [RIF] Extensible Design

Frank McCabe wrote:
> If you buy the primary goals of the RIF (to exchange rules, in a 
> widely deployable way), then you will *not* accept the multiple 
> languages approach.
>
> It is way too complicated. And it strikes me as a cop-out (to use an 
> Englishism).
>
> There is a balance to be struck between enabling exchange and 
> respecting the original. It does not mean that that balance has to be 
> on the respecting end of the spectrum.
>
> An alternative approach is to focus on the kinds of rule information 
> that needs to be exchanged (leaving on one side for the moment the 
> question of semantics) and then doing so in the simplest possible way.

I think, there are different kinds of rules (eg deduction rules and
productuion rules). Therefore, the RIF should make it possible to
express b oth. I am convinced that this cannot be done with a single
language.
> For example, I suspect that there would be very little argument on 
> the need for exchanging ground facts.
I belewive that such assumpotions are dangerous. FGround facts just are
a special kind of (very simple) rules. Not supportinmg their
interchsange would surely be a limitation in some cases.

Francois