- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:27:50 +0000
- To: Stella Mitchell <cleo@us.ibm.com>
- CC: "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Stella Mitchell wrote: > > Ok, so it looks like for test cases that are core, we should indicate > also whether they are safe or not. Yes. > One thing that wasn't clear to me (from the Core document) is whether > PRD extends core or safe-core. The last paragraph of the overview says > core is a syntactic subset of PRD but that some core rules would be > unsafe in PRD, so safe-core is defined. But if complete-core is a > syntactic subset of PRD then those unsafe rules must be allowed > according to the PRD spec anyway, so why define the safe subset of core? Because then we could write test cases which were correct RIF-Core but which no RIF-PRD engine could pass (e.g. because the ruleset would never terminate) even though the rules would be syntactically legal RIF-PRD. One goal for RIF-Core is for it be as widely implementable as possible. Having test cases which no production rule engine would pass would mean there would be no conformant PR implementation of RIF-Core. The advice to people wishing to exchange rules via RIF-Core is to remain within the safe subset to get maximal interchange however we don't prevent people exchanging unsafe rules. Dave -- Hewlett-Packard Limited Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Friday, 14 November 2008 09:29:13 UTC