RE: A not on types (was Re: [RIF] homework for 10/17 telecon) --> interchange rule lang...

+1 to Frank's original comment, with the following note as a suggested explanation (with apologies for loose terminology).

Paul Vincent
TIBCO - ETG/Business Rules 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael Kifer
Sent: 16 October 2006 21:21
To: Francis McCabe
Cc: Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)
Subject: Re: A not on types (was Re: [RIF] homework for 10/17 telecon) 

> In any case, the RIF is supposed to be an *interchange* format, not  
> yet another rule language. That means that it is not enough to come  
> up with a single type system (a point solution in the multi- 
> dimensional type space) but a way of capturing types and type systems  
> that are already in use.

You must have gotten a wrong impression because loose terminology may have
been used in this discussion.


[PV>] I assume Chris' call <<To prepare, please try to use the XML syntax to encode some rules.  ...  If the syntax is acceptable (it has been there for some time), we will decide at this telecon to accept it as our syntax.>> 

should be interpreted as:

We are currently in step 1. of the following generalized RIF process:
1. To interchange rules, one needs to prove that the interchange language can represent rules from various (member) rule languages / semantics
2. Once this is achieved, one must then be able to prove that rules in different languages / semantics can be translated (by computer eg by transformation rules) to and from the interchange language
3. The final step is to prove that rules can be interchanged between different languages with "similar" (required) or "differing" (optional) semantics...

Received on Tuesday, 17 October 2006 11:12:04 UTC