RE: [RIF] Current list of requirements and design principles for RIF

Is there any particular reason we are not explicitly mentioning an abstract
syntax as either a requirement or a principle in addition to a human
readable and exchange syntax?  I don't quite see it being implied by the
other two, and it usually makes the design and implementation process a
whole lot easier.

Stan Devitt

-----Original Message-----
From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Paula-Lavinia Patranjan
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 4:38 PM
To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Cc: Frank McCabe
Subject: [RIF] Current list of requirements and design principles for RIF

...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
DRAFT -- RIF REQUIREMENTS AND DESIGN PRINCIPLES

List of design principles for RIF
---------------------------------

1. Syntax

 * An human legible syntax
 * A syntax for exchange (e.g. XML or RDF)

2. Abstractions for reusability and maintainability
 
 * Support for modules and other structuring/abstraction mechanisms
   (e.g. capability to bundle actions that are complex or used
   frequently into procedures -- in case of reactive or ECA rules)

3. Language coherency

 * Coherency refers to a couple of sub-principles to be followed so as
   to obtain a uniform and easy to use RIF. Rules are made of
   components such as the body and head of deductive rules and the
   event part, condition part and action part of ECA rules; to gain
   coherency, these rule components should follow same
   paradigms. Moreover, some components (such as the body of deductive
   rules and the condition part of ECA rules) have same design goals
   and thus they shouldn't be specified by using different RIF
   component languages.


...

Received on Wednesday, 24 May 2006 06:39:18 UTC