W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > June 2010

Re: RIF FAQ

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 06:43:24 -0700
To: kifer@cs.stonybrook.edu
Cc: public-rif-wg <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1277387004.3149.273.camel@waldron>
On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 15:40 -0400, Michael Kifer wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 07:07:10 -0700
> Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Also, please read over the RIF FAQ and make sure you still like the
> > answers.  I expect it will get some readers today.
> > 
> >     http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RIF_FAQ
> 
> 
> Thanks, Sandro. A very good FAQ. Couple of comments:

Note that various people have contributed to it, and I think WG members
should continue to feel comfortable editing it, when they are fairly
confident they are expressing consensus views.

> In 1.2, I suggest to add the following after the last sentence:
> 
> An overview of the RIF architecture can be found
> [http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Overview here].
> Links to unofficial, community-contributed RIF dialects can be found
> [http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RIF_FLD_Dialects here].

I went ahead and did this edit.

> In 1.6:
> 
> "Various presentation syntaxes..."
> I suggest:
> 
> RIF specification itself employes a presentation syntax, which is normative and
> is used in definitions and examples. However, it is ''not'' recommended for
> exchange among different rule systems.

But that's not true, is it?   BLD and PRD use different presentation
syntaxes, don't they?  (At least, PRD uses "if" and "then" while BLD
uses ":-".)

    -- Sandro 
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2010 13:43:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 24 June 2010 13:43:30 GMT