W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > February 2009

RE: [PRD] PRD TF telecon Tuesday 17 February

From: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 05:49:58 -0800
Message-ID: <A92210407BA7004199621BE5F0AC5D8B870B30@NA-PA-VBE04.na.tibco.com>
To: "Christian de Sainte Marie" <csma@ilog.fr>, "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>, "Serrano-Morales, Carlos A" <CSerrano@fairisaac.com>, "Berlioz-Matignon, Carole Ann" <CaroleAnnMatignon@fairisaac.com>
Apologies I won't be able to make the call.

Comments on discussion:
- Gary's example [2 below]: neither of these rules will fire as there is
no such thing as (or intent for) a (PRD) RIF rule engine! Therefore the
complaint is moot until we include expected translations to PRD targets
(which I think Gary has assumed). Ergo this is not so much a problem
with PRD syntax and semantics, but in the expected translators to such
PRD syntax. Having said that, it might be that this comment is trying to
say that PRD cannot well handle situation X... which would be a problem
for RIF.

- FIC debrief [1 below] and Carlos' concern [3 below]: obviously the
closer the RIF PRD model is to target language terminology (and OMG PRR)
the better, IMHO. However, I'd long thought this would need to be an
additional dialect layer (eg PRD-OO or somesuch) after PRD 1.0. 

Cheers
Paul Vincent 
+1 650 206 2493 / mobile +44 781 493 7229 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Christian de Sainte Marie
> Sent: 16 February 2009 19:14
> To: RIF WG; Serrano-Morales, Carlos A; Berlioz-Matignon, Carole Ann
> Subject: [PRD] PRD TF telecon Tuesday 17 February
> 
> Teleconference W3C RIF WG
> Production rules dialect (PRD) task force
> 17 February 2006
> 
> North America and Europe are in the Winter time:
> 1800 UTC, 1000 (West US) 1300 (East US) 1800 (London) 1900 (Paris)
> 
> Duration: *60 min*
> 
> *Proposed agenda*
> 
> 1. Debrief PRD meeting with ILOG, FIC and Tibco, Feb 11 [1]
> 
> 2. Discussion on the default conflict resolution strategy
> - Gary's problematic example [2]
> - Carlos remark that the current definition is not discriminating
> enough (but-last item in [3]): shall we add another rule before the
> tie-breaker; if yes, which?
> 
> 3. AOB
> - Next meeting: February 24
> 
> [1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Feb/0079.html
> [2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Feb/0054.html
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/PRD_F2F_Wednesday_11_February
> 
> *Telecon details*
> Zakim bridges: +1.617.761.6200 (US), +33 4 89 06 34 99 (F) or
> +44.117.370.6152
> (GB)
> Conference code: 743773 ("RIFPRD")
> IRC Chat: irc:irc.w3.org (port 6665), #rif-prd
> Web-based IRC (member-only): [http://www.w3.org/2001/01/cgi-irc]
> 
> Please note that RIF-PRD telecons are for attendance only by RIF
> Working
> Group Participants and guests invited by the chairs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2009 13:50:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:03 GMT