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

Re: RIF Core, and how much is PRD allowed to diverge from BLD [Was: Re: [PRD] Issues to resolve before publication]

From: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:14:48 -0700
Message-ID: <486930A8.3060303@oracle.com>
To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

To maximize rule interchange between production rule engines and logic 
rule engines, clearly Core should be "as big as possible".  We can, 
should, and must decide that now.  I don't even know why I have to keep 
arguing this point.  The bias to keep BLD and PRD aligned with a large 
common core should be so high that the burden of proof is on you to show 
why NAU  should not be in Core.  You have provided no such proof.

I am much more interested in making PRD useful for exchange with a 
variety of rule engines than I am in tailoring PRD to any one or two 
vendors products.

Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:
>
> Gary Hallmark wrote:
>>>
>>> #4. Sections 2.1.1.3 (External) and 2.1.2.1 (Atom): Named Arguments
>>> Uniterm (NAU). [...]
>>
>> We should be consistent with BLD on this point.  Simply support them, 
>> and no editor's note!
>> I think having a case-by-case ad hoc voting strategy for a spec is 
>> not a good idea.  I think we need to
>> establish an architectural principle that PRD should not deviate from 
>> BLD without very strong technical arguments.
>> What would those arguments be in this case?
>
> I do not think that can work: even if we agreed on what are the 
> acceptable arguments (or on the definition of a technical argument: 
> are arguments of the type "this is what mainstream production rule 
> languages do" technical?), that principle should have been set and 
> agreed upon before we made decisions on BLD.
>
> My point is that we cannot decide post facto that decisions that were 
> made for BLD are basically binding for other dialects as well: some 
> decisions might (and would probably) have been different if the 
> understanding had been that they would apply to other dialects as well.
>
> The decision wrt NAU was very clearly one of those, at least as I 
> understood it at the time.
>
> Ad the question of how much PRD and BLD are allowed to diverge, in 
> general: my understanding is that the very reason why we have a common 
> core and two different dialects, BLD and PRD, is exactly to allow BLD 
> and PRD to diverge as much as needed to make them useful dialects.
>
> We separated BLD from Core last year for exactly that reason: to allow 
> us to make, for BLD, decisions that were not binding to other dialects 
> (and foremost to PRD), as any decisions re Core would have been; and, 
> thus, to allow us to progress on the basic logical dialect without 
> having to care about production rules.
>
> This is why that new notion that PRD must not stray away from BLD 
> seems kind of counter-productive, to me.
>
> When a feature from BLD is discussed for PRD, the question to answer 
> should be: is this feature in Core? If it is, then it goes in PRD; if 
> it is not, PRD is free to decide to have it or not, independently of BLD.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christian
>
>
Received on Monday, 30 June 2008 19:17:23 GMT

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