RE: [TED] An alternative proposal for the technical design

Hi Vincent,

> however I would be interested in a comparison table (Harold?).

It seems more comparable with our earlier RIF Design Roadmap,
namely parts of Phase 1 (#9. Metadata/semantic attributes for rule 
documents, scopes, rules, facts) and Phase 2 (#III. Production rules):
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Feb/0256.html

Meanwhile, we have focussed on Phase 1, adding #0 as alternative to
#4. Pure production rules with only asserts in the action part:

0. Give syntax and semantics of Positive Conditions as common basis:
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/A.1_Basis%3A_Positive_Conditions

1. Specify syntax and semantics of Horn Logic and sublanguages:
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/B.1_Horn_Rules

2. Syntactic and semantic extensions of Horn Logic
2.1. Define purely syntactic extensions
2.1.1. Monotonic Lloyd-Topor extensions (disjuncts in body):
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/B.1_Horn_Rules
2.1.3. Higher-order syntax (cf. HiLog) -> Multisorted logic
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/A.1.0_Nucleus%3A_Positive_Conditions
2.2. Support literals and datatypes (common functions and operators):
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/A.1.1_Basis%3A_Positive_Conditions_over_Bipartitioned_Constants

3. Webizing features that should be (globally) addressable:
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/A.1.1_Basis%3A_Positive_Conditions_over_Bipartitioned_Constants

Cheers,
Harold


-----Original Message-----
From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Paul Vincent
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 7:18 PM
To: Christian de Sainte Marie; RIF WG
Subject: RE: [TED] An alternative proposal for the technical design
Importance: Low


Christian: 

1. Your TED is presumably an alternative to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Extensible_Design 
[I am noting that there are new members of this group, so emails should really include their context to assist them].

2. Would a summary of your proposal be?
- RIF does not need to have the rigor of a rule language itself
- RIF is an interchange format 

If so: +1 in that this approach is likely to be simpler + quicker; however I would be interested in a comparison table (Harold?).

Cheers

Paul Vincent
TIBCO - ETG/Business Rules 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Christian de Sainte Marie
Sent: 27 October 2006 15:00
To: RIF WG
Subject: [TED] An alternative proposal for the technical design


All,

([TED] stands for TEchnical Design)

I have hinted and ranted and hoped that somebody would come forward with 
a counter-proposal to Harold's et al, and, indeed, some came. But none 
of the kind that I hoped for. So, I took "mon courage a deux mains" and 
my limited competence in the other, and I tried it myself...

You will find the result on the Wiki: 
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Alternative_Extensible_Design

Do not hesitate to ask if something is not clear (or, should I say: do 
not hesitate to ask? :-)

Christian

Received on Monday, 30 October 2006 01:26:20 UTC