Re: [RIFRAF] ho to proceed? Part 2: open points on discriminators to be added

Hi Axel,

thanks for your analysis!

> 2) Paula suggests:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Nov/0090
>
> please see my comments inline:
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> (New discriminator to be added to 5.1)
> What kind of rules are used for realizing the reactive behaviour?
>  * Event-Condition-Action (ECA) rules
>  * Event-Condition-Action-Postcondition (ECAP) rules
>  * Production rules
>
> [Axel] Can we add the acronym  "(CA)" here, to keep the same notation,
> or what else did you mean with Production rules ?

We can, of course, add the acronym CA here to have a uniform description 
of the types of reactive rules. (A note for the other WG participants: 
the term 'Production rules' remains here; adding the suggested acronym 
doesn't mean that we also write instead of production rules 
Condition-Action rules.)

>
>  * Other (Please specify!)
>
> (Update of discriminator 5.1.2; add the possibility to answer with
> 'Mixed' to the question)
> Are the different parts of a rule (e.g. Event, Condition, Action parts
> for a ECA rule) clearly separated (separation of concerns)?
>  * Yes
>  * No
>  * Mixed (some rules in the language follow such a separation of
> concerns, some not)
>
> The comments to the question 5.2.3 'Does the language support only
> atomic events or also composite events (combinations of more than one
> event such as temporal or events)?' could be considered as basis for a
> new discriminator for the (concrete) types of composite events
> supported. The problem is that there are two many possibilities for such
> concrete composite events supported by a reactive language. Moreover,
> the questionnaire already contains similar discriminators but more
> abstract (see 5.2.6 and 5.2.7). Thus, I propose not to add a new
> discriminator for types of composite events.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> [Axel] I propose to follow these suggestions.

Thank you for your support!

>  As for one, we could even go into more detail
> adding subdiscriminators on the allowed events, conditions and actions.

We can do this in a second phase...or after we decide in favour of a RIF 
dialect based on reactive rules. I think for the moment the specified 
discriminators for reactive behavior are a good basis for deciding on 
the need for such a RIF dialect.

Regards from Munich,
Paula