- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:19:54 +0100
- To: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
- CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Paul Vincent wrote: > 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]. Yes, sorry, I should have made that explicit. > 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 Yes, this is a correct summary. > If so: +1 in that this approach is likely to be simpler + quicker; however I would be interested in a comparison table (Harold?). Making the opposition simplistic: Harold et al. propose to start with specifying completely how to interchange rule within a very simple rule language and then extend by specifying how to interchange rules within less simple languages. A natural alternative seems to be to start with specifying how to interchange very simple rules between any language and then extend by specifying how to interchange less simple rules. The purpose of my proposal is, mostly, to make sure that the WG gives serious and fair consideration to such an approach. I am aware that they may be only apparently different, and that Harold's is really the only one. But I feel important that we make an educated choice. Christian
Received on Tuesday, 31 October 2006 15:18:58 UTC