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

The problem with nested rulesets (aka groups)

From: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:47:11 -0700
Message-ID: <4811705F.7010309@oracle.com>
To: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

is that people will reasonably expect that they serve some more useful 
purpose than merely a device to put a comment on a collection of rules.  
For example, at least one real product (Haley) supports nested rulesets 
(groups) and allows one to attach a condition to the group, with the 
semantics that the condition is ANDed with the condition of each of the 
group members.  This is useful because often a group of rules will all 
be about the same frames or relations and you don't have to repeat that 
in each group member. In PRD, one might also reasonably expect to attach 
a priority or mutual exclusion constraint to the group.

If the sole purpose of groups in RIF is to avoid repeating a comment, 
surely we can do that by putting the comment at the document (non-nested 
ruleset) level, giving it an IRI or id, and then referring to it from 
several rules.
Received on Friday, 25 April 2008 05:49:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:50 UTC