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

[PRD] PRD ready to review

From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:28:20 +0200
Message-ID: <484EB9B4.3060200@ilog.fr>
To: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Adrian, Gary, all,

I finished updating the draft of PRD (except for the "compatibility with 
BLD" appendix): as far as I am concerned, you can start reviewing the 
changes in http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/PRD.

I modified section 1 (Overview) quite a lot, to make it more palatable 
for the outside reader (hopefully).

In section 2 (Syntax), I mostly updated the syntax, to align it with 
BLD. I also removed all the editor notes that were for internal use, and 
added some to ask for feedback or to warn about the syntax being still 
in flux.

Re the action part, I left only Assert, Retract and Execute: we 
discussed removing Execute, but it is used in the running example, and 
it is quite typical of production rules, so I decided unilaterally to 
leave it in. Also, I removed the 'Assert'+'target' wrapper around the 
'Atom' or 'Frame' to be asserted, with an editor note asking for feedback.

Re nested 'Forall' and 'pattern', I added an editor note asking for 
feedback, as discussed. And I removed the Ruleset construct, pointing to 
the Group construct instead (and added an editor note asking for 
feedback :-)

Finally, I added a subsection for Document, Groups and metadata.

In section 3, the diff will show a lots of differences, so you should 
probably not care about it and read the new text directly.

Beside removing internal-purpose editor notes, I added an editor note re 
the semantics of actions (3.3), as discussed, and I corrected and 
simplified the semantics of Rulesets (3.4), and I added textual 
explanations.

Regarding the specification of PICK, it was not much easier to specify 
the "no-repeat"+"random" default than to go a bit farther (as I had to 
go a bit farther to understand how to do it properly, anyway), so I 
included the more complete specification. I stopped short of specifying 
the "priority", "recency" and "all at once" strategies completely, 
because they do not make sense if the syntax does not provide a way to 
indicate that they are intended, and this is something that we did not 
discuss.

Here again, I added an editor note asking for feedback, as discussed.

And I added a default specification for FINAL, with an editor note 
asking for feedback, as we discussed.

What remains to be done (before publication; that is, assuming you do 
not require anymore changes :-):
- add the links and the references. I will do that by next week;
- raise the issues that are mentioned in editor notes (and add the ones 
that are raised by those of your comments that are not addressed in the 
new version, as well as some that were raised in internal-purpose editor 
notes that I commented out). I will do that by next week, at least for 
the ones that are mentioned in the doc;
- Finalize the compatibility with BLD section. I have most of it done, 
but I must check it wrt to the changes I made when aligning the syntax. 
I should be able to have a version that is consistent with this version 
of the draft by Friday night;
- The UML-like diagram. I have the one that corresopnds to the previous 
version of the draft, so it should not take me more than 10mn. But I 
will do that last...

Cheers,

Christian
Received on Tuesday, 10 June 2008 17:28:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:49 GMT