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

It seems most of the disagreements on this topic could be solved simply by renaming "RIF CORE" to "RIF Horn", and reconsidering the role of CORE vs other dialects once Phase 1 is complete. 

Note that the charter (http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/charter#horn) does not state that RIF CORE (http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/CORE) shall be Horn, just that this is the 1st target language. I forget where the WG decided that CORE = the Horn dialect, rather than CORE "is based on" Horn, but it may have been the last F2F. 

At the very least, it seems we need to separate RIF CORE and RIF Horn for the time being. 

Paul Vincent
TIBCO - ETG/Business Rules 
 


-----Original Message-----
From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael Kifer
Sent: 18 December 2006 14:03
To: Sandro Hawke
Cc: Francis McCabe; W3C RIF WG
Subject: 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.
> 
> How do you suggest that I -- a user -- know what rules I can write and
> remain confident they will work on several other vendors' systems?
> 
>      -- Sandro


My suggestion would be to give up this unrealistic goal.
Any rule set that meets this criterion (remember that you said that you
don't want to change any of the rule systems) is not worth writing.


	--michael

Received on Monday, 18 December 2006 14:58:11 UTC