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: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:13:07 +0100
Message-ID: <48694C63.8010308@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
Cc: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Gary Hallmark wrote:
> 
> 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 haven't followed all the ins and outs of all this discussion but even 
without PRD I'm not immediately convinced NAU should be in core.

They seem relatively uncommon in rule languages. They got in, in the 
end, on the grounds that they can be handled at the translation stage 
for languages that don't support them. However, the notion of a "Core" 
suggests some criteria of simplicity and minimality and there needs to 
be a higher burden of proof that these extra syntactic features have 
value in the Core.

Dave
-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Monday, 30 June 2008 21:13:50 GMT

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