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

Re: [PRD] Further proposals to help move PRD towards FPWD

From: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 08:52:50 -0700
Message-ID: <486A52D2.7080308@oracle.com>
To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

I think this is a reasonable compromise for FPWD.  Let's publish!

Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:
>
> All,
>
> 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. 3.4.2.1) 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.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christian
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2008 15:55:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:50 GMT