RE: Responses to YJH1 and NB1

<< You have the right idea. BLD is intended to be able to express the
kinds of rules that are expressible in most (logic-based) rule
languages. Thus BLD does not have the power to resolve semantic
discrepencies between different LP systems, quite the opposite - it
avoids that by providing syntax&semantics only for the kinds of rules
for which there are no discrepencies in different systems.>>

I guess this could be clarified further to avoid bias, as PRD-targeted
(and indeed most AFAIK) rule languages are "based on" (some aspects of)
logic. May I suggest for YJH1: 

<< You have the right idea. BLD is intended to be able to express rules
defined in most logic programming languages. Thus BLD does not have the
power to resolve semantic discrepencies between different LP systems,
quite the opposite - it avoids that by providing syntax&semantics only
for the kinds of rules for which there are no discrepencies in different
systems.>>

Paul Vincent
TIBCO | Business Optimization | Business Rules & CEP
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Chris Welty
> Sent: 25 September 2008 04:36
> To: Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)
> Subject: Responses to YJH1 and NB1
> 
> 
> 
> RIFWG,
> 
> I have drafted responses to public comments YH1 and NB1 at
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_YJH1
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Response_to_NB1
> 
> I will send out in a day or two unless I hear otherwise.
> 
> -Chris
> 
> --
> Dr. Christopher A. Welty                    IBM Watson Research Center
> +1.914.784.7055                             19 Skyline Dr.
> cawelty@gmail.com                           Hawthorne, NY 10532
> http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty

Received on Thursday, 25 September 2008 15:03:47 UTC