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

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

From: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:39:30 -0700
Message-ID: <48694482.8090305@oracle.com>
To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>



Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:
> Gary Hallmark wrote:
>>>
>>> #8. Section 2.3.1.2 (Forall): Gary does not want the CMP example to 
>>> be presented with binding patterns. On the other hand, they are 
>>> included in this version of RIF-PRD because all the mainstream PR 
>>> languages use them, and there is an editr's note asking for feedback 
>>> about them and the nested forall: so, providing an example makes sense.
>>
>> I want binding patterns to go away.  They are trivially converted to 
>> the BLD format and though they may have their place in legacy PR 
>> languages, they have no place in RIF.  I don't want any new material 
>> added to the spec that mentions these.  I want them all gone 
>> eventually, even if I can't have that for FPWD.
>
> Weird... As I understand it, it is exactly because they have their 
> place in existing PR languages (actually, they are widely used),  that 
> they have their place in RIF.
as I said, they are trivially converted to BLD format and that is the 
job of the RIF translator
>
> I do not quite understand what is RIF, if it is not an interchange 
> format that is usable and useful for what you call "legacy" production 
> rule languages;
show me how the standard BLD format is not usable for PRD
> that is, if it does not cover the syntactic features that are widely used.
we aren't designing the PL/1 of rule languages with a bit of syntax 
drawn from every major rule language as some sort of tribute.  We are 
trying to get translators to map to a small common syntax/semantics to 
facilitate interchange
> RIF would have to cover such features even if we all agreed that they 
> are ugly and that they should not be used; which is not the case, of 
> course :-)
RIF BLD covers this "pattern" feature just fine without any of your 
proposed PRD extensions.
>
> Why "legacy", btw? I can imagine plenty of interesting feature in 
> future PR languages that would require binding patterns...
So now we are justifying this divergence of PRD and BLD with imaginary 
future PR languages?
>
> Or are you suggesting that RIF should be designed as a "better" PR 
> language (rather than as a common xml serialisation for many, existing 
> and futrue, production rule languages)?
I'm damn near shouting that PRD should be as similar to BLD as possible to
a. have a common Core
b. reuse and leverage the considerable amount of work that has gone into 
BLD/FLD, DTB, and UCR
c. have a common "look and feel" to the document suite
>
> Designing a better production rule language is certainly a worthy 
> endeavour. But it is not the objective for PRD, not the first attempt 
> to a standard common xml serialisation for production rule languages.
It seems like you are just randomly trying to change the argument here.  
Nowhere have I suggested this...
>
>>> I propose that we include a small example with patterns, and that 
>>> the XML rendering of the complete CMP rule be moved to an appendix, 
>>> where it can be serialized without patterns nor nested Forall, as 
>>> Gary prefers, with a comment to the  effect that the serialization 
>>> of a rule is not unique, and that that specific serialization 
>>> correspond to the PS rendering as stated in 1.3 and 2.5.
>>
>> No.
>
> I will not take that 'no' as meaning "no" until we have come to an 
> agreement on the previous topic, if you agree :-)
>
> Christian
>
Received on Monday, 30 June 2008 20:40:52 GMT

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