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

RE: [PRD] PRD TF telecon Tuesday 27 January

From: Hassan Ait-Kaci <hak@ilog.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:02:16 -0800
Message-ID: <9FC9C6B2EA71ED4B826F55AC7C8B9AAB0C3E7080@mvmbx01.ilog.biz>
To: "Christian de Sainte Marie" <csma@ilog.fr>, "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Christian de Sainte Marie wrote:

> 2. Objects VS Frames (30 mn)
> Hassan swears ...

Why should this group care what Hassan swears about? Beside Hassan never swears! ;-)

More seriously, I would rephrase CSMA's point number 2. by replacing the above star with:
"Hassan agrees with CSMA when he says that ...". Better yet, I would replace it with:
"The current BLD semantics of frames is at odds with assertion of multiple values for
a give field". There are other problems with BLD's frames when it comes to PRD's notion
of object. But this one is surely a major one.

-hak
--
Hassan At-Kaci  *  ILOG, Inc. - Product Division R&D
http://wikix.ilog.fr/wiki/bin/view/Main/HassanAitKaci



-----Original Message-----
From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org on behalf of Christian de Sainte Marie
Sent: Mon 1/26/2009 9:29 AM
To: RIF WG
Subject: [PRD] PRD TF telecon Tuesday 27 January
 

Teleconference W3C RIF WG
Production rules dialect (PRD) task force
27 January 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. Proposed PRD meeting in Paris Wednesday 11 February

2. Objects VS Frames (30 mn)
Hassan swears that the problematic of Objects VS Frames really reduces, indeed, the question of "methods" aside, to the semantics of assertion being addition of a new fact in the case of multi-valued attributes VS replacement in the case of mono-valued ones. This being ascertained, can we combine the benefits of the two proposed approaches (specific syntax for mono-valued attributes VS mono-valued attributes signaled only by use of specific action with replacement semantics) in a design that has the drawbacks of neither? 
- Discussion of proposed approaches (if you do not have an approach to propose, think of one! Hopefully, we will all think of the same :-)

3. PRD test cases (15 mn)

4. Scheduling work towards LC (15 mn)
- retro-planning from end of March

5. AOB
- Next meeting: February 3

*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 Monday, 26 January 2009 18:02:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:00 GMT