- From: Vincent, Paul D <PaulVincent@fairisaac.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 01:31:38 -0700
- To: "Francois Bry" <bry@ifi.lmu.de>, "W3C RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Francois: may I present a non-logician's perspective? > -----Original Message----- > From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Francois Bry ... > > - the RIF needs a semantics [PV>] Yes, in the sense that even an interchange format (as opposed to language) needs to have semantics of some kind. > ... > - the RIF probably does not need to specify a procedural semantics. [PV>] Is there a reason for this? For example, rules used in a decision table or tree might be most efficiently represented in a procedurally-executed list of rules. Procedural rules ARE used in industry, so is there a good reason to exclude them? [I'm still confused why this is an issue] > > Is this fine with all? > > François This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, proprietary and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please delete it immediately.
Received on Monday, 8 May 2006 08:32:10 UTC