Re: [TED] Action-188, ISSUE: production rule systems have "difficulty" with recursive rules in RIF Core

Yes, but the purpose of the RIF is to support the interchange of any  
rule language. Conformance must be expressed in terms of being  
faithful to the semantics of RIF, not whether you implement  
everything in it. If you are faithful to the semantics, then someone  
else can come along and reliably interpret your translated rule set.



On Dec 17, 2006, at 1:45 PM, Gary Hallmark wrote:

> Thanks, but I already have a couple of XML formats for expressing  
> my rules that don't interoperate with any other rule system.  I'm  
> not interested in that definition of conformance.
>
> Cheers,
>    Gary
>
>
> From: Francis McCabe <frankmccabe@mac.com>
> Date: December 17, 2006 9:44:22 AM PST
> To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
> Cc: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu (Michael Kifer), Paul Vincent  
> <pvincent@tibco.com>, Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>, W3C  
> RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: [TED] Action-188, ISSUE: production rule systems have  
> "difficulty" with recursive rules in RIF Core
>
>
> Well, if the purpose of the RIF is to have a language that  
> represents the intersection of all rule languages, as opposed to  
> being a means of interchange between rule systems, then you would  
> be right. But I am strongly of the view that the intersection of  
> all rule languages is empty.
>
> On the other hand, a different form of conformance would be that  
> any given rule language should be able to express their rules in  
> the RIF. That does not require all rule language engines to be able  
> to understand all elements of the core.
>
> Frank
>
>
> On Dec 17, 2006, at 9:36 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>> Some guidance about writing conformance clauses (which I'll re- 
>>>> read now)
>>>> is at http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/ .
>>>
>>> I am not concerned with conformance clauses right now, but rather  
>>> with
>>> defining what might be a reasonable set of features (for lack of  
>>> a better
>>> word) that should allow us to call something a core or a dialect  
>>> extending
>>> the core.
>>
>> I think the difference in what we are talking about is in the
>> conformance clause -- that's why I want to focus there.
>>
>> I think RIF's conformance clause will say that for a rule system to
>> implement RIF it has to handle all RIF Core.
>>
>> Do you want to force all rule systems to handle full recursive  
>> Horn?  If
>> RIF tries to do that, I think a lot of rule system vendors will  
>> tell us
>> "no" and not adopt RIF.  It seems to set the bar too high.
>>
>> The fact that non-recursive Horn is too high a bar for non-rule  
>> database
>> vendors is okay, since this is RIF not DBIF.
>>
>>     -- Sandro
>>
>
>
>

Received on Sunday, 17 December 2006 22:44:12 UTC