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

Re: [PRD] Issues to resolve before publication (et proposed resolutions)

From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:57:04 +0200
Message-ID: <48693A90.5000001@ilog.fr>
To: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Gary Hallmark wrote:
> 
> I think we may first need a meta-agreement that we need to make PRD have 
> the same "look and feel" as, and of course maximally reuse, BLD/FLD and 
> DTB.  Extended examples, tutorials, etc. should go in a separate document.

Yep. All these discussions seem, indeed, to boil down to: what is PRD about?

You all know my view on this, by now, I guess... To wit:

What PRD is:
+ PRD is a standard common xml serialisation for many PR languages;
+ PRD follows the usage of PR languages and PR developers, it does not 
dictate it (we want it to be widely adopted and deployed; future 
versions or extension may offer "better" ways to do things, and promote 
"better" usages; but that will be of little help if PRD is not adopted);
+ PRD covers the commonly used features of PR languages (we want it to 
be useful and widely usable).

What PRD is not:
- PRD is not BLD (we already BLD for that);
- PRD is not Core (why have BLD and Core, if not to allow PRD to be 
everything PR need and that is not in Core; and BLD to be everything 
logic rule languages agree on and that is not in Core);
- PRD is not a new production rule language (it is not a rule language, 
but an rule interchange format).

Of course, and as usual, I am totally open to change my mind if somebody 
has compelling arguments to the contrary.

Cheers,

Christian
Received on Monday, 30 June 2008 19:57:49 GMT

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