Re: [UCR] comment on reference to charter definition of "rule language"

From: "Ginsberg, Allen" <AGINSBERG@imc.mitre.org>
Subject: RE: [UCR] comment on reference to charter definition of "rule language"
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 22:09:45 -0500

> Hi Peter, Thanks for the feedback.  My remarks are below.  [...]
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> > I am puzzled by the following section of
> > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/RIF_Use_Cases_and_Requirements
> >
> >         1.1 What is a Rule Interchange Format And Why Create One?
> >
> >         [...]
> >
> >         A RIF is not a rule language. A rule language, as we understand
> >         that term here, consists of the following elements: 1) a precise
> >         syntax and/or effective procedure for determining whether or not
> >         any expression is a well-formed formula (wff) of the language, and
> >         2) a derivation procedure, which is defined as a partial function
> >         that takes a set of wffs in the language, together with a set of
> >         zero or more queries (also wffs), and for each query either returns
> >         an answer after some finite time, or terminates without returning
> >         an answer.
> >
> >         (This definition is in line with the terms stated in the RIF
> >         charter, section 2.2.3, except that we here explicitly account for
> >         the possibility that a bona-fide rule-engine can "go on forever" in
> >         certain cases.)

> Actually the term "this definition" in the preceding line refers only
> to the "derivation procedure" or rule-engine, not to the whole
> paragraph you quoted.  Sorry for the ambiguity.

How is the document going to change to eliminate the ambiguity?

> Anyway, I am of 2 minds myself with regard to the question of whether
> or not the RIF is a rule language.  In fact in my "Operationally
> Equivalent Translations" use case, I had listed the RIF's being
> "executable" by some "virtual machine" as a requirement.
> 
> The idea of the RIF as a framework of concepts or tags is more in line
> with the recent discussions on the public email list.
> The bottom line:  we editors need to have more guidance from the WG as
> to what we want to say the RIF is and is not.

I suggest, then, that in the meantime this section should have a strong
disclaimer.  Perhaps it would be even better to remove the section for now.

> Allen

Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2006 12:34:57 UTC