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

Re: [PRD] PRD TF telecon Tuesday 14 October

From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:31:42 +0200
Message-ID: <48F4750E.8090904@ilog.fr>
To: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

All (PRD people, at least),

Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:
> 
> Rather than focus on the semantics I proposed initially for Assert and 
> Retract, which I hoped was correct and useful, but which was meant mostly 
> to start the ball rolling, I propose that we discuss and decide:
> [...]

So, it seems that I was not clear explaining what I proposed.

My proposal is *not* to throw away what has been done already and start again from scratch.

It is, instead, to take a step back and, instead of everybody arguing for their own understanding of, say, the semantics of Assert, or Retract, or Assign etc: first to collect these different understandings; then, to agree on which of these semantics must be representable in PRD; and finally, to agree on the syntax (how to specify the semantics being yet another, orthogonal issue, wrt which we have good proposals that we need to review and agree on).

I started the table with what we already have, that is, the actions (and corresponding semantics) that are called Assert, Retract and New in PRD; and the actiosn (and corresponding semantics) that are called AssertExp, RetarctExp, AssignExp, InvokeExp and UpdateExp in PRR OCL. (I did not spend too much time describing the intended semantics of these actions, since we are supposed to know it, and they are unambiguously specified in the PRD and PRR documents, anyway.)

And I propose that everybody extends the table with the descriptions of the actions their system implements, if it is not already there; or with their different understanding of what the proposed actions do (or should do). So that we can have an overview of what needs be taken into account.

I thought this could help speed our progress toward consensus; if everybody else thinks this is a diversion, instead, just let forget about it.

Cheers,

Christian

> - first what are the actions we *need* to be able to represent in PRD;
> - then, what set of action primitives (atoms) is the most *useful* to 
> represent all of them;
> - last, what is the most appropriate concrete RIF-PRD syntax for these 
> primitives.
> 
> To start the first step, I started a wiki page [1], where I listed the 
> elementary actions that correspond to the action primitives in OMG PRR 
> OCL and in the current draft of PRD.
> 
> I invite you to complete the table by adding a column for you system, 
> and checking those actions that it is able to represent (e.g., with some 
> indication of the syntax), and by adding rows for any additional actions 
> that your system is able to represent.
> 
> The completed table would provide useful input to the discussion.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/PRD_Actions
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Christian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2008 10:32:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:55 GMT