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

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

From: Christian De Sainte Marie <csma@fr.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 19:19:55 +0200
To: "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
Cc: "RIF" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF23E24441.A1575094-ONC12575BA.0037539C-C12575BA.005F35FD@fr.ibm.com>
********* NOTICE **********
My new email address at IBM is: csma@fr.ibm.com
My ILOG email address will not be forwarded after June 8
*****************************

Hi Harold,


"Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote on 15/05/2009 
23:43:30:
> 
> Done:
> 
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/index.php?title=BLD&diff=9317&oldid=9310
> How do you normally synchronize your copies with updates in the orginal?

Checking once in a while for consistency, and modifying PRD accordingly 
:-)

I implemented the change in PRD.
 
> > I removed the redundant (and, thus, confusing) brackets. It is 
> meant as a parameterless construct, > at this stage (an empty 
> element, in the normative XML syntax). 

If you think it is better with the brackets and nobody objects...

I added the brackets back.

> In a parallel discussion with Gary and Adrian, I suggested adding 
> "some kind of 'implementation note', stressing that the priority 
> mechanism can be used to simulate all the syntactic static ordering 
> of rules (which includes most specificity ordering, as well as the 
> ordering by order of the > rules in the ruleset, etc), by assigning 
> priorities according to said ordering at translation time > on the 
> producer side." 
> >
> > Is this what you have in mind?
> 
> Is there a paper about simulating  "most(?) specificity orderings" 
> that you could just cite?

Maybe. I do not know. "Most" is probably a bit too strong, because they 
are not all static. But, is not it obvious that, if an ordering is 
strictly static, you can compute it once and for all, and that you can do 
that on the producer's side? Then, once you have the static ordering 
computed, you can just assign priorities to rules according to their 
position in the ordering, thus simulating the ordering (to the ones that 
do not already have a priority, that is; and, of course, you have to be 
careful that the "simulated" ordering does not interfere with the other 
priorities that may have been assigned a priori). 

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 Monday, 18 May 2009 17:21:15 GMT

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