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

Stan Devitt wrote:
> 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.
>   
This is a good point, thanks! I'm going to add this as a design 
principle for RIF, not as a requirement.

Regards,
Paula


> 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 11:13:18 UTC