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

RE: BLD vs PRD (was: Re: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign)

From: Patrick Albert <palbert@ilog.fr>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 19:46:42 +0200
Message-ID: <4412C4FCD640F84794C7CF0A2FE890D2F1923A@parmbx02.ilog.biz>
To: <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, "Christian de Sainte Marie" <csma@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>


In fact my overall suggestion is that the group should look at a process
that allows a definition of PRD in line with the practice and product
offering of the Production Rules community.

This obviously includes the so-called RIF "frames", knowing that the PR
community has a twenty+ years old established successful practice of
mixing rules and objects.

I am not "venturing", but rather asking -- in case it's not too late --
that the group decides (or not) to treat PRD as a first class RIF
citizen. I am insisting because I am afraid that if we don't do that,
the quality the resulting PRD proposal might be at risk.

Christian can certainly comment on the reaction of any ILOG people to
whom he has shown the PRD spec. The reaction was just bad.


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kifer [mailto:kifer@cs.sunysb.edu] 
Sent: mardi 9 septembre 2008 18:18
To: Christian de Sainte Marie
Cc: Patrick Albert; Chris Welty; Jos de Bruijn; Adrian Paschke;
Subject: Re: BLD vs PRD (was: Re: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign)

On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:17:02 +0200
Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr> wrote:

> So leaving my chair's hat aside for a moment, I do not quite
understand why
> PRD would be bound to a logical approach for what is specific to the
world of
> production rules: PRD is bound to the syntax of BLD where their
> agree; but PRD can do whatever is practical and useful to the PR crowd
> whatever BLD cannot express.

Patrick's suggestions went well beyond that. He ventured to comment
frames and proposed syntax that cripples their usefulness for logical

Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2008 17:47:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:52 UTC