- From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
- Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 12:04:43 +0200
- To: Frank McCabe <frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com>
- CC: W3C RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Frank McCabe wrote: > If you buy the primary goals of the RIF (to exchange rules, in a > widely deployable way), then you will *not* accept the multiple > languages approach. > > It is way too complicated. And it strikes me as a cop-out (to use an > Englishism). > > There is a balance to be struck between enabling exchange and > respecting the original. It does not mean that that balance has to be > on the respecting end of the spectrum. > > An alternative approach is to focus on the kinds of rule information > that needs to be exchanged (leaving on one side for the moment the > question of semantics) and then doing so in the simplest possible way. I think, there are different kinds of rules (eg deduction rules and productuion rules). Therefore, the RIF should make it possible to express b oth. I am convinced that this cannot be done with a single language. > For example, I suspect that there would be very little argument on > the need for exchanging ground facts. I belewive that such assumpotions are dangerous. FGround facts just are a special kind of (very simple) rules. Not supportinmg their interchsange would surely be a limitation in some cases. Francois
Received on Monday, 8 May 2006 10:04:49 UTC