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

RE: updated RAK response

From: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 09:24:06 -0800
Message-ID: <A92210407BA7004199621BE5F0AC5D8B3B0D9D@NA-PA-VBE04.na.tibco.com>
To: <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, "Chris Welty" <cawelty@gmail.com>
Cc: "Public-Rif-Wg \(E-mail\)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Very diplomatic response! 

<<Indeed, the operational semantics of RIF-PRD is intended to cater to
the basic requirements wrt rule interchange between the production rule
systems used in business rules kinds of applications, and forward
chaining is largely the norm, there, in terms of usage (even though
most, or all, the PR engines they use offer some kind of backward
chaining and/or truth maintenance).>>

Might be better rewritten as

<<Indeed, the operational semantics of RIF-PRD is intended to cater to
the basic requirements wrt rule interchange between the production rule
systems used in applications that automate business rules. In these,
forward chaining is largely the norm. Some PR engines of course also
offer some kind of backward chaining and/or truth maintenance.>>

I do wonder if the standard response to comments like this should also
make it clear that W3C RIF membership remains open, especially for those
with an interest in new dialect development?

Paul Vincent
TIBCO | Business Optimization | Business Rules & CEP
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Michael Kifer
> Sent: 16 December 2008 16:41
> To: Chris Welty
> Cc: Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: updated RAK response
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:42:31 -0500
> Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > I updated the response to RAK, in particular removing any questions
as
> that
> > invites further comment, and addressed the "why didn't you cite my
work"
> comment.
> >
> > Please read and I will send tomorrow.
> 
> I made further changes to it. In particular, I find the talk about the
use
> of
> production rules for goal reduction counter-productive and factually
> incorrect.
> RAK is thinking about the Prolog language, and the current response
does
> not
> make it clear that BLD is not Prolog.
> 
> I tried to clarify these points.
> 
> michael
Received on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 17:25:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:00 GMT