[RIFRAF] Response to ACTION-179

Hi Leora,

This message is a response to the action we both took during the F2F 
meeting in Athens to revise and ontologize section 5 of RIFRAF (see [1] 
for my action). I read the comments attached to the answers to section 
5's questions and tried to determine whether new questions should be 
added to this section or refinements of the existing questions are 
desired. Below are some proposals for improving section 5 of the 
questionnaire.

(New discriminator to be added to 5.1)
What kind of rules are used for realizing the reactive behaviour?
  * Event-Condition-Action (ECA) rules
  * Event-Condition-Action-Postcondition (ECAP) rules
  * Production rules
  * Other (Please specify!)

(Update of discriminator 5.1.2; add the possibility to answer with 
'Mixed' to the question)
Are the different parts of a rule (e.g. Event, Condition, Action parts 
for a ECA rule) clearly separated (separation of concerns)?
  * Yes
  * No
  * Mixed (some rules in the language follow such a separation of 
concerns, some not)

The comments to the question 5.2.3 'Does the language support only 
atomic events or also composite events (combinations of more than one 
event such as temporal or events)?' could be considered as basis for a 
new discriminator for the (concrete) types of composite events 
supported. The problem is that there are two many possibilities for such 
concrete composite events supported by a reactive language. Moreover, 
the questionnaire already contains similar discriminators but more 
abstract (see 5.2.6 and 5.2.7). Thus, I propose not to add a new 
discriminator for types of composite events.

What is your opinion on the proposals above?

Best regards from Munich,
Paula

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/179