- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 07:04:54 -0400 (EDT)
- To: bry@ifi.lmu.de
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de> Subject: RIF: Production and Event-Condition-Action Rules Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 09:43:42 +0200 > A few thoughts on Production and Event-Condition-Action Rules and the RIF: > > 1. Production and Event-Condition-Action Rules are a must for RIF > because they are needed for many applications. I believe that this is only necessarily the case under two extra assumptions: 1/ That the widescale adoption goal must be met. 2/ That the widescale adoption goal cannot be met without having these applications. I do not believe that either of the assumptions are true. I do not believe that either of the assumptions are held by all the other members of the working group. > 2. Production and Event-Condition-Action Rules are imperative > programming that use "queries" or "conditions" as used in declarative > or deductive rules. The semantics of Production and > Event-Condition-Action Rules poses no problems as soon as the "queries" > or "conditions" of declarative or deductive rule are given a semantics. How so? What happened to the "imperative programming" parts of these rule formalisms. Can't they cause problems? > Admittedly, so-called "conflict resolution" (which instance of > Production or Event-Condition-Action Rules to choose for firing when > several might be selected) need to be specified. Yes, indeed. > 3. Production rules are well suited for non-distributed systems, > Event-Condition-Action Rules are a must with distributed systems. > "Events" give rise to exchange informations between eg Web sites. > Event-Condition-Action Rules make it possible to specify at several Web > sites a reactive behaviour depending on actions and event taking place > at remote sites. Since the RIF is to be used on the Web, considering > Production rules only, ie not considering Event-Condition-Action Rules, > for the RIF,would be in my humble opinion a serious mistake. > > Francois Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Friday, 2 June 2006 11:05:54 UTC