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

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

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:24:03 -0400
To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Cc: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20080623152403.0cb46217@kiferdesk>



On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:08:59 +0200
Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr> wrote:

> 
> Michael Kifer wrote:
> > 
> > Everyone had an opportunity to suggest changes and improvements to the BLD
> > syntax. In particular, the group has adopted several of your suggestions.
> > So, saying that the BLD PS "has been designed without being reused for PRD in
> > mind" is inaccurate.
> 
> I am curious: how do you infer that one had re-using BLD PS syntax for 
> PRD in mind, from the premices that one contributed as one could to 
> improve BLD PS syntax and that one never suggested any changes to make 
> it more PRD friendly?
> 
> I mean, what makes you infer that rather than the contratry?

Your own words. You have been suggesting various changes to quantification and
such arguing that this is more compatible with your ideas about production
rules.  For instance,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Jun/0026.html,
but also on a number of occasions during f2fs.

> As it comes, having had a different PS syntax for PRD in mind all along, 
> I did contribute to BLD PS without ever thinking of PRD!
> 
> > It is also hard to fail to notice that the original call to you to be
> > compatible at the PS level came from PR people.
> 
> So what? Are there any more conclusions you can draw from that, than the 
> true fact that "not all PR people agree on he issue"?

it has smthg to do with the credibility of the "target audience" claim.


	--michael  
Received on Monday, 23 June 2008 19:24:42 GMT

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