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

AW: [PRD] PRD document importing PRD documents

From: Adrian Paschke <adrian.paschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 00:40:39 +0200
To: "'Paul Vincent'" <pvincent@tibco.com>, "'Christian De Sainte Marie'" <csma@fr.ibm.com>, "'RIF'" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E1M6BWC-0007po-VB@bart.w3.org>
Yes, +1 for option 3; otherwise we would need to define the semantics of combinations of the conflict resolution strategies, e.g. a kind of priority between the different strategies or a module concept where the conflict resolutions is local to the imported rule set. However, there are not many rule systems which implement such distributed scoped modules.





Von: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] Im Auftrag von Paul Vincent
Gesendet: Montag, 18. Mai 2009 23:25
An: Christian De Sainte Marie; RIF
Betreff: RE: [PRD] PRD document importing PRD documents
Wichtigkeit: Niedrig


+1 from me for Option 3!



Paul Vincent 

+1 650 206 2493 / mobile +44 781 493 7229 


From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Christian De Sainte Marie
Sent: 18 May 2009 18:19
Subject: [PRD] PRD document importing PRD documents


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


It occured to me that we did not implement, in PRD, the resolution from F2F12 [1] about importing RIF documents... 

I see four ways to implement that resolution in PRD: 
1. restrict the import to Core documents (only PRD documents that are also Core documents can have imports, and they can import only other Core documents); 
2. retrict the import to PRD documents with implicit conflict resolution strategies (or explicit rif:forwardChaining conflict resolution strategy, which is the same) and they can import only other PRD documents with the same restriction; 
3. restrict the import to the case where the importing and imported documents are all associated with the same conflict resolution strategy; 
4. allowing import of other PRD documents without restriction. 

I propose to exclude option 4 as to ocomplex: we have no idea of the semantics; I also propose that we exclude options 1 and 2 as overly restrictive, and that we implement option 3. We have only one conflict resolution strategy that is specified normatively, anyway; so, it might seem that option 3 is the same as option 2; except that it makes extension to other conflict resolution strategies easy (or so it seems)... 

What do you think? 

I drafted a section on documents and imports in RIF-PRD [2] according to option 3. I have, still, to update the section 8.5 accordingly. 

Please, read and react. 

[1}  <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/meeting/2009-01-14#resolution_6> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/meeting/2009-01-14#resolution_6 
[2]  <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/PRD#Document_and_imports> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/PRD#Document_and_imports 



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 22:41:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:56 UTC