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

AW: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign

From: Adrian Paschke <adrian.paschke@biotec.tu-dresden.de>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:04:15 +0200
To: <edbark@nist.gov>, <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Cc: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20080905080424.EB4C97000185@mailserver.biotec.tu-dresden.de>

Ed, you are right.

Just to clarify, we don't guarantee "must". The abridged presentation syntax
is non-normative. 

We need it as a compact readable and uniform language to present examples in
RIF documents such as Use Cases and Requirements or descriptions of Test
Cases. 

Of course, it can be used by people to present RIF rules, but it's up to
them. They will probably use their own platform-specific rule languages and
show how they map to the concrete XML syntaxes of the RIF dialects which are
normative.

-Adrian

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] Im
Auftrag von Ed Barkmeyer
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. September 2008 23:10
An: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Betreff: Re: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign


Michael,

I can agree with everything you say.  (OK, one caveat below.)

I'm only pointing out that although our job was only to see that the 
missiles go up, some are (rightly) concerned about where they may come down.

you wrote:

> We were NOT chartered to invent a universal syntax for a large number of
widely
> used dialects AND make this syntax acceptable to everybody. This is an
> *impossible* task.

I completely agree.

> We were chartered to create an exchange framework and a language to
facilitate
> this exchange. If people teach this, they must understand WHAT they are
> teaching.

It was never clear to me that the PS was part of that charter.

You are absolutely right that people who use the PS for instructive 
purposes SHOULD understand WHAT they are teaching.  But we can't 
guarantee "must", and some, perhaps many, won't.  That has been the 
experience in other such activities, e.g. CL, and that is why it was 
carefully avoided in OWL.

> If RIF PS becomes a de facto standard for authoring rules then be it.
> People will just have to accept that it is different in some details from
their
> favorite language.

Yes.  Some important details, in fact.

-Ed

-- 
Edward J. Barkmeyer                        Email: edbark@nist.gov
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263                Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263                FAX: +1 301-975-4694

"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
  and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."
Received on Friday, 5 September 2008 08:05:05 GMT

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