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

ACTION-315: Start discussion on implementation guidance for translating from Core to PR systems.....

From: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:23:58 -0700
Message-ID: <8F4A4531BB49A74387A7C99C7D0B0E0502BE1439@NA-PA-VBE02.na.tibco.com>
To: "W3C RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Started my interpretation of this action at
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core_mapping_to_PR 

Technically this action is complete (the discussion is started) and on
time (the Wiki page was created last Fri, albeit I lost most of the
content when my PC crashed before "saving"). Apologies to the chairs for
not announcing this in good time for today's call which unfortunately I
will miss anyway. 

I plan to complete a "fuller contribution" on this topic by end of Fri
on the wiki page above (unless I receive advice to move it elsewhere eg
to Core ch4). 

Ref 
[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/315 

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 Gary Hallmark
> Sent: 15 June 2007 22:28
> To: W3C RIF WG
> Subject: Re: [TED] ACTION-306: suggestions for abstract syntax
> 
> 
> I'm ok with this proposal.  +1
> 
> Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:
> 
> >
> > Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:
> >
> >> Gary Hallmark wrote:
> >>
> >>> I don't like the ability to have free variables (not scoped in a
> >>> forall)
> >>
> >>
> >> This is specifically excluded in the definition I propose.
> >
> >
> > Actually, I got carried away with the argument, when I proposed the
> > "footnote" to require that all variables MUST be within the scope of
a
> > forall.
> >
> > What had been discussed, and on which there was a consensus, is that
> > quantifiers must be explicit in RIF; that is, that "concrete" rule
> > languages that allow implicit ones would have to make them explicit
in
> > RIF. There was consensus on that [1] at the telecon 17Oct06 [3] and
> > Harold announced that he had modified the draft accordingly at the
> > telecon 24Oct06 [4].
> >
> > So, I corrected my proposal to reflect that consensus and nothing
more
> > [5] ([6]is the diff with previous version).
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Christian
> >
> > [1] Without a formal resolution, though. The only resolution I found
> > on the Horn Rule abstract syntax is from F2F5, to "use diagram in
[2]
> > in Core WD1, labeled "stillo under discussion".
> >
> > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Feb/0134
> >
> > [3]
> >
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Oct/att-0098/2006-
> 10-17-rif-minutes.html#item04
> >
> >
> > [4]
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Oct/att-
> 0104/meeting-2006-10-24.html#item04
> >
> >
> > [5] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/Horn_Rules_Alternative
> >
> > [6]
> >
>
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/Horn_Rules_Alternative?action=
di
> ff&rev2=12&rev1=7
> >
> >
> >
> 
> --
> 
> 
> Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
> Gary Hallmark | Architect | +1.503.525.8043
> Oracle Server Technologies
> 1211 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 800
> Portland, OR 97204
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 05:24:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:39 GMT