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

Re: [PRD] ACTION-531 Update PRD examples complete

From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:16:46 +0200
Message-ID: <485FBE5E.3020309@ilog.fr>
To: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Gary Hallmark wrote:
> 
> [...] Now I have both a 
> technical argument and a "crowd pleasing" argument.

I still fail to see what, in your argument that the PS of
PRD must be the same as that of BLD, is any more technical than my own
argument that it must not, and I still fail to understand why only
technical arguments should be accepted, anyway: "wide adoption" is a 
design objective we agreed on, after all, even if a non technical one!

(Btw: the BLD PS has not been designed for use with PRD. Is that a
technical argument?)

Anyway, there is one point on which we will agree, I assume: to publish
PRD FPWD asap. So, we should be able to find a compromise.

I made a couple modifications in the introduction (section Overview):

- I moved the introductory paragraph about the different kinds and
representations of the syntax (that was at the very beginning of the
Syntax section) into the introduction section (section 1.1): So, at
least the notion that there is a presentation syntax and that it is
essentially the same as BLD PS, and why, is introduced before any
example of it. I also added an editor's note asking for feedback about
that (and, if we agree on that, we may open an issue to keep track of
the debate until it is resolved);

- I added a one sentence introduction to what is a production rule, and
a simple example, in plain english, informal pseudo-code, and the
presentation syntax (that still to be completed: I wanted to check
whether it worked with the group before going too far);

- I removed the plain english introduction of the CMP rule, and replaced
that with an informal pseudo-code description, and I commented the PS 
representation of it (although I am not sure this is a good idea: it 
sure does not make it look any simpler :-).

I did not change anything except that, at this point (I mean, wrt to 
that PS issue): I wanted to check whether it worked for everybody before 
going any further.

Btw, why did you (or was it Adrian?) remove Jim's DayOfWeek data type 
from the example and replaced it with xs:string?

Cheers,

Christian
Received on Monday, 23 June 2008 15:18:10 GMT

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