W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > October 2006

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

From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:00:41 +0000
Message-ID: <454667F9.3060806@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Cc: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:
> 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? :-)

Could you clarify what are the essential ways your proposal differs from 
the current one, as separate from accidental differences of expression?

For example, looking at the abstract syntax your suggestions and the 
RuleML suggestions don't seem that different. As Axel suggests the 
RuleML one is better specified at this stage but that's fixable. The 
primary difference seems to be you are suggesting a general "modified 
expression" with a currently open ended set of modifiers.

Is that what you would see as the main difference in the abstract syntax?

If so then intuitively that seems more extensible to me, at least 
syntactically, than the RuleML proposal. But doesn't seem that big a deal.

For the expression component (setting aside rules for the moment) is 
there an intended difference in semantics? Your words suggest an 
underlying two-valued logic. Michael's semantics seems to be designed to 
permit logics with 3, 4 or more truth values. Is this an essential and 
intended difference?

Then looking at the words on rule semantics I struggle to understand 
whether you are saying "no semantics for rules, let individual parties 
decide" or whether you are saying "procedural semantics, iterate to 
fixed point". Your Rule examples and Ruleset discussion seem to be 
pulling in different directions.

I think there's an interesting proposal somewhere in here but a sharper 
expression of the primary things you are trying to do, separate from the 
philosophy, would help.

Received on Monday, 30 October 2006 21:00:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:40 UTC