W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: ACTION-430, Move specialization sections to appendices

From: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:27:20 -0400
Message-ID: <47F18168.60407@gmail.com>
To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>



Michael Kifer wrote:
> At the last telecon I  was tasked to explain why ACTION-430,
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/430
> should be scrapped and the following resolution reconsidered:
> 
>     RESOLVED: make "specialization of FLD" sections (of BLD) appendices, leaving standalone sections in place, and making both standalone and specialization normative.
> 
> 
> 1. I was surprised to actually see this as a resolution. (I missed it when
>    reading the minutes).
>    There was no vote on this proposal -- only a discussion. During the
>    discussion I only said that I'll think how to best address CSMAs
>    concerns.

Michael,

You were there during the meeting, and there was a discussion and of course 
there was a vote.  Since the vote was unanimous, we didn't record anything other 
than the resolution.  As you can see from the IRC log below, the discussion was 
about 10 minutes.  My recollection is that the wording of the proposed 
resolution was changed during the discussion because *you* wanted to be sure the 
section was normative.  Furthermore, I would not have given you an action unless 
you agreed to it.

The discussion began from a comment from Jos that the document defined BLD in 
two ways, and it was confusing.  DaveR also pointed that out in his review, 
though his original suggestion was to make it the other way around.

11:12:49 [GaryHallmark]
     topic: BLD reviews
11:14:27 [GaryHallmark]
     josb: need single defn of
11:14:33 [GaryHallmark]
     ... BLD
11:15:44 [GaryHallmark]
     csma: specialization of BLD from FLD should be appendix
11:16:29 [GaryHallmark]
     mkifer: direct (standalone) spec should be normative
11:17:01 [GaryHallmark]
     sandro: both can be normative
11:17:07 [ChrisW]
     proposed: make "specialization of FLD" sections (of BLD) appendices
11:17:32 [ChrisW]
     proposed: make "specialization of FLD" sections (of BLD) appendices, with 
both normative
11:19:43 [ChrisW]
     proposed: make "specialization of FLD" sections (of BLD) appendices, 
leaving standalone sections in place, and making both normative
11:21:06 [josb]
     proposed: make "specialization of FLD" sections (of BLD) appendices, 
leaving standalone sections in place, and making both standalone and 
specialization normative
11:21:35 [sandro]
     Axel: example -- many people use RDF non-normative rule-based semantics.
11:21:37 [ChrisW]
     resolved: make "specialization of FLD" sections (of BLD) appendices, 
leaving standalone sections in place, and making both normative
11:21:49 [ChrisW]
     correction ---
11:21:51 [josb]
     RESOLVED: make "specialization of FLD" sections (of BLD) appendices, 
leaving standalone sections in place, and making both standalone and 
specialization normative
11:22:10 [sandro]
     csma: And that shows why they should both me normative, so if there is an 
error, it's the spec that is in error, not those folks and their implementation.
11:22:17 [ChrisW]
     action: mkifer to move specialization sections to appendices
11:22:17 [trackbot-ng]
     Created ACTION-430 - Move specialization sections to appendices [on Michael 
Kifer - due 2008-02-28].



> 
> 2. The conditions that existed when we were discussing this issue do not
>    exist any more.
> 
>    The draft we discussed was a first reasonable draft after a COMPLETE
>    rewrite of the BLD (of the October document).  After that I addressed
>    over 60 major and medium-grade comments by Stella, Igor, Leora, Jos,
>    Harold, and others (not counting minor things). As a result, several
>    sections had to be moved, merged, raised level, etc. -- all without any
>    resolutions. I spent enormous amount of time thinking about the
>    structure of the document and implementing changes (several full days).
>    Insisting on sticking to a resolution, which was not properly voted on
>    and whose premises do not really exist any more is not proper.


Indeed, you have tremendous freedom of action as editor.  Not all changes 
require a resolution, though they all must be reviewed and approved by the WG. 
The fact that there are very few resolutions constraining the content and form 
of the document should be construed as a good thing.  But the fact that changes 
are made without resolutions doesn't invalidate those that are.


> 
> 3. None of the three formal reviewers of the draft requested this change
>    and one (Igor) explicitly said that he prefers the dual way BLD was
>    presented.

Irrelevant, the decision was made by the WG.

So I'm dismissing your points 1-3.

> 4. As I said, the new documents are the result of serious thinking about the
>    grand schema of things. I think all logic (and later non-logic also)
>    dialects should be presented as a specialization of FLD or of a similar
>    framework. FLD drastically lowers the bar for the introduction of new
>    dialects, and it is easy to envision that some dialects will be specified
>    *only* as specializations of BLD. For instance, an LP dialects based of
>    the well-founded semantics or stable models does not need direct
>    specification because their audience is sufficiently sophisticated in
>    various logical approaches.
> 
>    The BLD specialization from FLD is thus more important for the grand
>    schema of things because it shows, by example, how other dialects can be
>    defined. Delegating this to an appendix blurs this important message.
>    This will also lead to great variance between the specifications of
>    different dialects. Some will place the specialization part in the
>    appendix, some will have only the specialization part, and some will not
>    bother to include it at all, thereby breaking the RIF framework.

OK, this is a reasonable argument.  I am willing to revisit the resolution.  The 
discussion will be restricted to this line of reasoning and not the previous three.


-Chris



-- 
Dr. Christopher A. Welty                    IBM Watson Research Center
+1.914.784.7055                             19 Skyline Dr.
cawelty@gmail.com                           Hawthorne, NY 10532
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty
Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2008 00:28:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:48 GMT