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

Re: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 14:43:15 -0400
To: "Patrick Albert" <palbert@ilog.fr>
Cc: "Chris Welty" <cawelty@gmail.com>, "Jos de Bruijn" <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>, "Adrian Paschke" <adrian.paschke@biotec.tu-dresden.de>, <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20080904144315.672e6c4c@kiferdesk>

Albert,

RIF is not about PRD or BLD, but about rule exchange in general.
It is supposed to provide a framework for exchanging rules through different
dialects. The dialects are supposed to share as much as possible in order for
the framework to be coherent.

If we wanted to create a bunch of separate languages, we could do this, but
this is not what the charter is about.

We, of course, are trying to come up with the best framework that can
reasonably accommodate all the major needs. However, your suggestions are too
narrow to be considered useful for that. If you think that you cannot
live within the RIF framework then, perhaps, you should think of creating a
different working group with a different charter. This might be considered
radical, but there is no theorem that proves that what we are trying to achieve
is possible.


michael



On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 20:26:01 +0200
"Patrick Albert" <palbert@ilog.fr> wrote:

> Right Michael, I do not talking about logic, I focus on PRD and I am
> more inspired by existing PR systems than by Prolog.
> 
> BLD is about logic, but PRD is not; my modest and limited goal is to
> promote having PRD in line with common Production Rules practice,
> preventing us to "invent" a new production rules language that might
> look both bizarre and oldish to any OO developer considering using
> Production Rules.
> 
> I do think that we have hard time maintaining equal treatment of both
> BLD and PRD and that a number of PRD choices are heavily weighted by BLD
> choices. My point about referencing objects in the rules is one
> important example. It brings common practice in PRs which is not common
> in Logic.
> 
> Sorry to insist, but I do believe that the strong interference between
> PRD and BLD is a (meta) problem for PRD. 
> 
> Is it a decision of the RIF group that:
>  
> 1/ BLD and PRD have to share syntax and semantic (especially in the case
> of the mapping rules and objects) 
> 2/ BLD is first class and PRD is the follower.
> 
> 
>  Patrick. 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Kifer [mailto:kifer@cs.sunysb.edu] 
> Sent: jeudi 4 septembre 2008 18:25
> To: Patrick Albert
> Cc: Chris Welty; Jos de Bruijn; Adrian Paschke; public-rif-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign
> 
> Patrick, you are thinking procedurally, while we are talking about
> *logic*.
> 
> michael
> 
> 
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 13:54:06 +0200
> "Patrick Albert" <palbert@ilog.fr> wrote:
> 
> > CSMA's proposal might not fit the current use of frames in PRD, but it
> > relies on the fact that almost ALL modern production systems make the
> > distinction between attributes of objects that refer to ONE ATOMIC
> value
> > -- such as one Person's age -- and attributes of objects that refer A
> > SET of values -- such as one Person's parents. In this case the rules
> > might propose some syntax to refer the set as a value and some syntax
> to
> > iterate across the elements of the set.
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2008 18:44:29 GMT

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