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

RE: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign

From: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 10:12:09 -0700
Message-ID: <637B7E7B51291C48838F5AE1F2ACA1D7492B4E@NA-PA-VBE02.na.tibco.com>
To: <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, "Hassan Ait-Kaci" <hak@ilog.com>
Cc: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Apologies - I've obviously missed something earlier that makes "comments" and "preferences" (sometimes referred to as "input") the same as (presumably unwelcome) "quibbles".

Ho hum!

Paul Vincent
TIBCO | Business Optimization | Business Rules & CEP
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Kifer [mailto:kifer@cs.sunysb.edu]
> Sent: 04 September 2008 17:48
> To: Hassan Ait-Kaci
> Cc: Paul Vincent; public-rif-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign
> 
> I completely agree.
> 
> michael
> 
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 08:24:15 -0700
> "Hassan Ait-Kaci" <hak@ilog.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> >
> > I don't know whether to feel alarmed or amused at the sort of
> > symbol quibblings that have been exchanged regarding RIF PS syntax
> > (dis)tastes.
> >
> > I thought it was understood by all here that with a Presentation
> > Syntax for rules, this WG was *not* designing a new universal
> > rule language. We are simply defining shorthands that are
> > somewhat easier to read and write by humans than their normative
> > XML counterparts. The RIF PS is meant to help a human agent read
> > and write RIF examples and allow the automated generation of the
> > XML form from the PS form. Thus, such a PS should:
> >
> >   (1) be simple and unambiguous to parse by software; and,
> >   (2) easy, by not excessively so, to manipulate by humans.
> >
> > Why "not excessively so"? Because - again - we are *not*
> > designing a new universal rule language! We are just defining
> > (relatively) less ugly shorthands for (absolutely)ugly XML! :-)
> > Thus, PS is only rough syntax encompassing many potential rule
> > languages. What makes sense for one intended sementics does not
> > necessarily for another. AT this level, punctuation is important
> > only to ease reading and parser generation. Let us not make it
> > ridiculously peculiar. It should be clear and familiar to most.
> > It is silly trying to push matters of personal (dis)tastes. The
> > two criteria above are all we need.
> >
> > At present, there are three levels of PS:
> >
> > (1) "pure" PS (without Axel's extensions)
> > (2) PS ("pure" PS with Axel's extensions)
> > (3) APS (PS with Adrian's shorthands)
> >
> > Adrian's abbreviations are more like macros that "desugar" APS
> > into PS.
> >
> > In order to build a parser for (A)PS and generate its XML form,
> > [http://www.w3.org/2008/08/19-rif-minutes.html#action08], the
> > quick final settlement of all these syntactic issues is highly
> > desirable.
> >
> > -hak
> >
> >
> > -hak
> > --
> > Hassan At-Kaci  *  ILOG, Inc. - Product Division R&D
> > http://koala.ilog.fr/wiki/bin/view/Main/HassanAitKaci
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org on behalf of Paul Vincent
> > Sent: Thu 9/4/2008 2:51 PM
> > To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign
> >
> > +1
> >
> >
> >
> > '<= ' should be used in backward-chaining dialects, and '=>' in
> > forward-chaining ones.
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul Vincent
> >
> > TIBCO | Business Optimization | Business Rules & CEP
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
> > On Behalf Of Patrick Albert
> > Sent: 04 September 2008 12:54
> > To: Adrian Paschke; public-rif-wg@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign
> >
> >
> >
> > Most Production Rules system have rules in the form  IF/WHEN
> > <conditions> THEN <actions>.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'd recommend we adhere to the existing practice which is to have the
> > conditions first followed by the actions.
> >
> > Replacing the IF .. THEN by a '=>' as in '<Conditions> => <Actions>'
> > would be ok.
> >
> >
> >
> >  Patrick.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
> > On Behalf Of Adrian Paschke
> > Sent: lundi 1 septembre 2008 22:09
> > To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
> > Subject: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> >
> >
> > With respect to the abridged presentation syntax there is still an open
> > issue about the sign to distinguish the head and the body of a rule.
> >
> >
> >
> > Currently, we use ":-" in the examples e.g. in UCR and PRD, which is
> > well-known in the logic community but not so much in others including
> > production rules.
> >
> >
> >
> > I shortly discussed this issue with the BLD/FLD editors Michael and
> > Harold and we came up with this unambiguous proposal to distinguish
> > classical implication and rules head and body.
> >
> >
> >
> > <== for PRD and BLD
> >
> > <-- for classical
> >
> >
> >
> > <== and <-- might be also reverted ==> -->
> >
> >
> >
> > -Adrian
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2008 17:13:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:54 GMT