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

AW: [PRD] Implemented Harold's comments, completing ACTION-809 (Was: Re: [RIF][PRD] ACTION-767: Review PRD)

From: Adrian Paschke <adrian.paschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 13:50:41 +0200
To: "'Christian De Sainte Marie'" <csma@fr.ibm.com>, "'Boley, Harold'" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
Cc: "'RIF'" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>, <public-rif-wg-request@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00f001c9d553$5fb662c0$1f232840$@paschke@gmx.de>
Harold:

>> 8 Presentation syntax
>> This should probably come (much) earlier so sequential readers will see
>> it
>> before heavy use is made of it. Alternatively, it could go into an
>> appendix,
>> which can be more conveniently (forward-)referenced from several places.



csma:
>I would support moving it to an appendix, esp. since it is used rather lightly in the document. and it is not normative. 
>
>PR guys and co-editors, any opinion about that? 



To understand the syntactical expressiveness of PRD and the examples the presentation syntax, in particular the compact EBNF, is quite important for the reader. Hence it should be presented earlier in the document. I think it is not helpful if the readers needs to scroll or search for the appendix in order to understand what it written in the main text.

 

-Adrian

 

Von: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] Im Auftrag von Christian De Sainte Marie
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Mai 2009 20:30
An: Boley, Harold
Cc: RIF; public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
Betreff: [PRD] Implemented Harold's comments, completing ACTION-809 (Was: Re: [RIF][PRD] ACTION-767: Review PRD)

 


********* NOTICE **********
My new email address at IBM is: csma@fr.ibm.com
My ILOG email address will not be forwarded after June 8
*****************************

Harold, 

Harold Boley wrote on 12/05/2009 00:26:16:
> 
> Could you revisit those 2009Jan/0005.html comments?

Done. I implemented all of of your comments that were not obsoleted by othe rchanges in the document, except three of them, re which I need clarification. 

- In the definition of a semantics structure [1], item 5, definition of IFrame, you stroke through the example frmae with repeated attribute/value pairs, o[a->b a->b]. Why is that? 

- You marked the definition of action variable declaration [2] with question marks in the margin: is that because the definition is unclear, or is it something else? 

- On the specification of the XML syntax for annotations [3], you noted: "refer to BLD". What did you mean? 

[1]  <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/PRD#Semantic_structures> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/PRD#Semantic_structures 
[2]  <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/PRD#def-action-var-decl> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/PRD#def-action-var-decl 
[3]  <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/PRD#sec-metadata> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/PRD#sec-metadata 


> 4.2.4 Conflict resolution
> The intuitive conflict resolution principle ('rule' is not a good term
> here)
> of specificity should be mentioned, explaining why it's not part of the
> RIF conflict resolution strategy.

I added the following sentence, just after the itroduction refraction, recency and priority: 
"Many existing production rule systems implement also some kind of fire the most specific rule first strategy, in combination with the above. However, whereas they agree on the definition of refraction and the priority or recency ordering, existing production rule systems varies widely on the precise definition of the specificity ordering. As a consequence, rule instance specificity was not included in the basic conflict resolution strategy that RIF-PRD specifies normatively." 

Is that ok? 

> 8 Presentation syntax
> This should probably come (much) earlier so sequential readers will see
> it
> before heavy use is made of it. Alternatively, it could go into an
> appendix,
> which can be more conveniently (forward-)referenced from several places.

I would support moving it to an appendix, esp. since it is used rather lightly in the document. and it is not normative. 

PR guys and co-editors, any opinion about that? 

Cheers, 

Christian 

ILOG, an IBM Company
9 rue de Verdun
94253 - Gentilly cedex - FRANCE
Tel. +33 1 49 08 35 00
Fax +33 1 49 08 35 10



Sauf indication contraire ci-dessus:/ Unless stated otherwise above:
Compagnie IBM France
Siège Social : Tour Descartes, 2, avenue Gambetta, La Défense 5, 92400 Courbevoie
RCS Nanterre 552 118 465
Forme Sociale : S.A.S.
Capital Social : 609.751.783,30 €
SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 02430
Received on Friday, 15 May 2009 11:51:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:08 GMT