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

[PRD] Further proposals to help move PRD towards FPWD

From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:23:23 +0200
Message-ID: <486A21BB.2030106@ilog.fr>
To: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>


Based on Gary's replies to my first list of proposals, I propose the 
following (the numbers refer to [1]:

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Jun/0191.html

#1-2: I will replace the informal rule-like presentation of the rule by 
plain english. Specifically, I will remove the informal rule-like 
presentation in example 1.1 and I will replace the informal rule-like 
presentation of the running example by plain english.

#3: I changed jim: to http://rif.examples.com/2008/jim# in XML content 
everywhere in the draft.

#4: include NAU in PRD FPWD, add an editor's note and raise an issue 
(was: option 2 in [1]).

#5: as is.

#6 (Assign and Execute): remove Assign and Execute from PRD FPWD, adding 
an editor's note.

#7: Change the RULE production to RULE ::= [ Forall | Implies | ASSERT ]

Explanation in [2]. We can also add text to explain why this the syntax 
is different from BLD, but instances will be undistinguishable wherever 
they need not be distinguished.

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Jul/0002.html

#8 (Forall): as is. I think I will insist on that one. At least for 
FPWD. There is already an editor's note that makes it pretty clear why 
this is under discussion. We can also make that a formal issue.

#9: see 6.

#10: (matching theory): as is (or change CIR04 for another reference if 
somebody has a prefered one).

#11 (PICK): I will see if I can figure a consensual proposal for 
no-repeat before the telecon. If not, I propose to remove the spec of 
no-repeat from the definition of fireableINSTANCES (sect. and 
modify the editor's note accordingly.

I think that with these proposals, all the conditions set on the 
publication of PRD FPWD at F2F10 are satisfied and beyond, and I 
propose, therefore, that we go ahead with publication.


Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2008 12:22:53 UTC

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