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 13:54:24 -0700
Message-ID: <48694800.2030303@oracle.com>
To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

What PRD is:

- a dialect designed for a large intersection (Core) with other kinds of 
rule languages, e.g. Prolog
- part of a suite of documents that describe shared common elements as 
well as differences
- semantically rigorous, so that different PR languages (some of which 
look similar on the surface but have subtle semantic differences) can be 

What PRD is not:

- a tutorial on rules, production rules, or rule interchange
- a way to get a W3C stamp of approval for OMG PRR

Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:
> 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 20:57:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:51 UTC