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

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

From: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 05:34:49 -0700
Message-ID: <637B7E7B51291C48838F5AE1F2ACA1D71DC7EC@NA-PA-VBE02.na.tibco.com>
To: "Christian de Sainte Marie" <csma@ilog.fr>, "Gary Hallmark" <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
Cc: "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Interoperability between PR systems is far more important than
interoperability between PR and BLD systems (to me). 

Indeed, *if* the priority for RIF / PRD is to allow the interchange of
rules between BLD and PRD, then RIF is simply an (interesting) academic
project of little interest (or value commercially) short-term (to me)...

I'm sure PRR-PRD alignment is not of interest to some PR system
suppliers / vendors (though probably more vendors have had some
involvement in PRR than RIF, at time or other). But it is effectively
prior art and unless there is a good reason to avoid compatibility,
compatibility should be viewed as a requirement (IMHO). 

Paul Vincent
TIBCO | Business Optimization | Business Rules & CEP

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
> On Behalf Of Christian de Sainte Marie
> Sent: 01 July 2008 12:41
> To: Gary Hallmark
> Cc: RIF WG
> Subject: Re: [PRD] Issues to resolve before publication (NAU)
> 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
> >> 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
> most mainstream...". But I do not see clearly why you mention PRR
> 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
> 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
> them VS that would have to positionalize their NAU] (and the answer
> be different for logic
> languages and PR languages). My understanding is that, wrt PR
> 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
> more than I thought. Let us continue the discussion along that line.
> [1]
> Cheers,
> Christian
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2008 12:35:37 UTC

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