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

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

From: Adrian Paschke <adrian.paschke@biotec.tu-dresden.de>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 16:09:31 +0200
To: "'Changhai Ke'" <cke@ilog.fr>, "'Patrick Albert'" <palbert@ilog.fr>, <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, "'Christian de Sainte Marie'" <csma@ilog.fr>
Cc: "'Chris Welty'" <cawelty@gmail.com>, "'Jos de Bruijn'" <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>, <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20080913140934.1774F70000E3@mailserver.biotec.tu-dresden.de>

I don't think that writing examples in concrete XML syntax will make the
draft more readable. XML is not a syntax intended for humans and the XML
code will be very long and significantly blow up the spec.

I would propose to use a compact presentation syntax in the main spec and
add some concrete XML serialization in an appendix.

- Adrian

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Changhai Ke [mailto:cke@ilog.fr] 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. September 2008 00:53
An: Patrick Albert; kifer@cs.sunysb.edu; Christian de Sainte Marie
Cc: Chris Welty; Jos de Bruijn; Adrian Paschke; public-rif-wg@w3.org
Betreff: RE: BLD vs PRD (was: Re: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign)

Hi all,

I agree with Patrick.

The PRD spec (dated july 30) is full of examples using the so-called
"presentation syntax". Sorry but this syntax is difficult to understand.
Here we are presenting an XML format for production rules interchange, I
think we should just write the examples in XML itself. 

The presentation syntax is a significant hindrance to the lecture,
readers have to learn a second syntax or to guess, and this becomes a
burden.

Sorry to express in my first e-mail such a strong opinion. That was my
big first impression. I shall continue my lecture and will send you
other comments, more semantic than this syntactic issue.

Regards,

Changhai

-----Original Message-----
From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Patrick Albert
Sent: mardi 9 septembre 2008 19:47
To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu; Christian de Sainte Marie
Cc: Chris Welty; Jos de Bruijn; Adrian Paschke; public-rif-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: BLD vs PRD (was: Re: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign)


Hi, 


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.


 Patrick. 

-----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;
public-rif-wg@w3.org
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
semantics
> agree; but PRD can do whatever is practical and useful to the PR crowd
for
> whatever BLD cannot express.

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


	--michael  
Received on Saturday, 13 September 2008 14:10:13 GMT

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