RE: [TED] An alternative proposal for the technical design

Christian: 

1. Your TED is presumably an alternative to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Extensible_Design 
[I am noting that there are new members of this group, so emails should really include their context to assist them].

2. Would a summary of your proposal be?
- RIF does not need to have the rigor of a rule language itself
- RIF is an interchange format 

If so: +1 in that this approach is likely to be simpler + quicker; however I would be interested in a comparison table (Harold?).

Cheers

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 Christian de Sainte Marie
Sent: 27 October 2006 15:00
To: RIF WG
Subject: [TED] An alternative proposal for the technical design


All,

([TED] stands for TEchnical Design)

I have hinted and ranted and hoped that somebody would come forward with 
a counter-proposal to Harold's et al, and, indeed, some came. But none 
of the kind that I hoped for. So, I took "mon courage a deux mains" and 
my limited competence in the other, and I tried it myself...

You will find the result on the Wiki: 
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Alternative_Extensible_Design

Do not hesitate to ask if something is not clear (or, should I say: do 
not hesitate to ask? :-)

Christian