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

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

From: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:50:25 -0700
Message-ID: <485FE261.7060403@oracle.com>
To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

I think it looks OK for PWD1 (I will fix a few typos today but that is all).
We have much work and discussion to resolve all these editor's notes!  
Would you consider an arm-wrestling contest instead? :-)

It was I who removed your user-defined data type because we haven't 
defined that yet, I didn't want to invent PS for it, and I wanted to 
focus on the ACTIONs as being what distinguishes PRD from BLD.  I think 
UDTs are an orthogonal feature that could be added to the intersection 
of PRD and BLD (i.e. it should be in DTB)

Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:
>
> 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 17:53:04 GMT

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