W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > December 2007

RE: Reminder: pending discussion "membership" (pending discussion on ACTION-350)

From: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 09:47:32 -0800
Message-ID: <8F4A4531BB49A74387A7C99C7D0B0E050365549F@NA-PA-VBE02.na.tibco.com>
To: <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, "Dave Reynolds" <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "Public-Rif-Wg \(E-mail\)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

> We have agreed at the last F2F that BLD is **not** core and that a
profile
> mechanism should be developed. The core will be a subset of RIF BLD.

Michael: just to be clear :) I fully agree with the following facts
- BLD is not core
- a profile mechanism should be developed
...although I think the statement "core is a profile of BLD" will lead
to problems (ie a dialect should always be considered as a development
of Core, even if in this case we are considering extricating core from
BLD). 

Dave: would something like
- BLD includes a notion of class membership
- Core does not include a notion of class membership
...solve your objections? 
Or would that depend on other differences between Core and BLD? 
Or is there a requirement for 2 dialects: one with a strong notion of
including data models (say BLD) and a profile thereof that excludes such
notions? 
 

Paul Vincent
TIBCO | ETG/Business Rules 
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu [mailto:kifer@cs.sunysb.edu]
> Sent: 07 December 2007 17:37
> To: Paul Vincent
> Cc: Dave Reynolds; Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: Reminder: pending discussion "membership" (pending
discussion
> on ACTION-350)
> 
> 
> 
...
> >
> > Most PR engines are implemented in a 3GL / import XML (etc) into a
Java
> > representation, which allows them some flexibility over object model
> > definitions. So subclassing an XML-derived class is not a big issue.
But
> > it is NOT of interest to try and standardize these mechanisms (I
> > suggest) in RIF. Hence I fully concur with Christian (PRD should not
> > bother with such a mechanism).
> >
> > However, I can fully understand why an AI-type / knowledgebase
> > application would want to include / embed schema info into its
> > knowledgebase. Its just that this is not "core" to "RIF" IMHO.
> 
> We have agreed at the last F2F that BLD is **not** core and that a
profile
> mechanism should be developed. The core will be a subset of RIF BLD.
> 
> 
> 	--michael
> 
> 
> > Paul Vincent
> > TIBCO | ETG/Business Rules
> >
...
Received on Sunday, 9 December 2007 17:48:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:44 GMT