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

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

From: Adrian Paschke <Adrian.Paschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:45:32 +0200
Message-ID: <20080702104532.51210@gmx.net>
To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>, public-rif-wg@w3.org

Hello Christian,

As I had announced in my email (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Jun/0187.html), I'm currently in full-day meetings in Rome, so could not attend today's telecon.

I agree with a lot of what was said about PRD, but would like to come back to those of my still open major points (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Jun/0187.html) which are not addressed by the recent "Further proposals to help move PRD towards FPWD" or by yesterday's telecon IRC.

* XPath expressions e.g. see Example 2.5 in section (we have not discussed that at all and would need a general approach)
* non-standard built-in types and functions (here we significantly differ from BLD and DTB and currently also do not have a clear semantics)
* special nested Forall with pattern constraints (section (yes pattern constraints are common, but we would need a general approach; nested Forall is not common and should be removed)

Beside that there are the semantics issues of PRD (http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues)

- Adrian

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:23:23 +0200
> Von: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
> An: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> Betreff: [PRD] Further proposals to help move PRD towards FPWD

> 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. 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

Ist Ihr Browser Vista-kompatibel? Jetzt die neuesten 
Browser-Versionen downloaden: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/browser
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2008 10:46:15 UTC

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