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

Re: [PRD] Action 659 (on hak) completed

From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:07:14 -0800
Message-ID: <493FF742.3030605@ilog.fr>
To: Hassan Ait-Kaci <hak@ilog.com>
CC: rif-wg <public-rif-wg@w3.org>


I fully appreciate, and agree with, your review of PRD. Sorry if I may have sounded like I dismissed your comments: my point was that improving the document in the (very valid and useful) directions that you propose, cannot be done in the short time span before the next batch of publications.

Hence my repeated question about this or that specific comment being or not being a showstopper. Only the minor improvements that you suggest can be implemented before the next publications: the question was, thus, whether you believe we should defer publishing WD2 or whether it can be published with only the minor changes done?

Hassan Ait-Kaci wrote:
>  > >   - This definition is way too complex and impossible to comprehend 
>  > >     [...]
>  >
>  > I am not quite sure which definition your are talking about, [...]
>  > The current one (which is essentially, I think, the first three bullets
>  > of the one you did review), seems rather straightforward to me.
> I am referring to the section starting with, "In the remainder of this
> section, as in the section on the operational semantics of actions,
> ...".  (It comes right after your whimsical chicken example in Section
> 2.3.2 Operational semantics of rules and rule sets.

The organisation of your comments (per section numering, conveniently following the organisation of the document) made it look like this comment was about the section Operational Semantics of Actions. Hence my wondering if we were talking about the same definition: that one (operational semantics of actions) seems rather straightforward to me, indeed.

> If this is your idea of straightforward, I then do not considen myself
> competent. Can anyone else in this WF take a look and explain it to me?
> (Do not worry - as CSMA wrote it, it is straightforward - to him!)

No, the operational semantics of rule and rulesets is not straightforward, not even to me (I understand it, but I also understand that other may not understand it :-)


Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2008 17:08:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:54 UTC