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

Re: [PRD] Issues to resolve before publication (NAU)

From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 13:40:44 +0200
Message-ID: <486A17BC.5080508@ilog.fr>
To: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Gary Hallmark wrote:
>> One a more argumentative note: "it is in BLD so it must be in PRD" 
>> strikes me as a particularly non-technical argument (ideological, I 
>> would say, if I had to qualify it).
> I can prove that case B has measurably greater interoperability than 
> case A:

Yep. But your proof is besides my point:  although you insist on 
ignoring it, my argument is that we have to balance PRD-BLD 
interoperability with usability by (legacy) PR systems.

>> Whereas: "most mainstream production rule languages do not have them" 
>> sounds like a rather technical argument to me, when it comes to 
>> standardising the XML srialisation of production rule languages.
> As Harold and Adrian have pointed out, Clips (and Jess) have named 
> argument uniterms.  Your argument sounds like "PRR doesn't have it".  
> Alignment with PRR is not something I care about.  It looks like a 
> committee-produced syntax with no semantics.  Hopefully we can do better.

Apologies. I should have written: "as far as I know (and I know little), 
most mainstream...". But I do not see clearly why you mention PRR here.

As I said in earlier email, the question about NAU in PRD might be 
different from the answers it got in BLD, because the balance between PR 
systems that have them and PR system that do not have them may be different.

The real question is therefore (as I stated it in [1]): "what is the 
respective weight of "all the
languages" on each side [that would have to implement NAU but do not use 
them VS that would have to positionalize their NAU] (and the answer may 
be different for logic
languages and PR languages). My understanding is that, wrt PR languages,
the balance is heavily tilted towards positional only. But I may be wrong."

I was aware only of CLIPS. You mention Jess as well. Ok. That is already 
more than I thought. Let us continue the discussion along that line.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Jun/0082.html


Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2008 11:40:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:51 UTC