Re: RIF: A thought about requirements --> PRR

From: "Vincent, Paul D" <PaulVincent@fairisaac.com>
Subject: RE: RIF: A thought about requirements --> PRR
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 04:03:30 -0500

[...]

> Qu: What are your arguments *AGAINST* PRR support for the widespread
> adoption [goal]?

>From viewpoint that I espouse: 

1/ PRR support opposes alignment with the Semantic Web, because it requires
   concepts that are alien to the Semantic Web, and alignment with the
   Semantic Web supports widescale adoption.
2/ PRR support opposes low cost of implementation, because it requires a
   complex, non-coherent formalism.
3/ PRR support opposes no surprises, because PRRs are inherently
   surprising.
4/ PRR support opposes the support of logical rules, because PRRs are
   non-logical.

Most of the above arguments depend on the PRR support being interpreted as
support of the inherently operational aspects of PRRs.  If instead, PRR
support can be done from a simple, standard logical language, then these
arguments have much less weight.

> Qu: What alternative to PRs will fulfil the widespread adoption CSF?

The diagram has already several alternatives.

[...]

Peter F. Patel-Schneider