- From: Philippe Bonnard <pbonnard@ilog.fr>
- Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:23:03 +0100
- To: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <653ADA172312B444B5D27E5F504FC51071ACD2@parmbx01.ilog.biz>
Hi, I send you my remarks about the last version of the CORE document I have just read. 1) Positive conditions syntax section The core grammar is not easy to read. Here are some remarks that may clarify it: - use longer abbreviations ( for example CONST or CONSTANT instead of CON for example), - add a table listing the symbols and the meaning as it is provided later for the mapping on RuleML, - begin by the top node (CONDIT and not Var) - add an UML schema showing the model. It gives a synthetic view on the grammar. The section about the free variables speaks about bodies and head of a rule. Unfortunately, "rule bodies" means in the production rule world the statement|action part of the rule. Even if the bodies|head terms are natural in a logic rule context, the exercise of reversing the meaning is possible although confusing. It does not simplify the understanding for production rule system programmers. 2) Horn rule syntax section Same remarks as for the positive condition grammar presentation: - add a table listing the symbols and the meaning as it is provided later for the mapping on RuleML, - begin by the top node CLAUSE, - use of body|head, The status of the slotted forms is not clear. Will it be limited to the external calls section? 3) Future extension to production rule As a potential designer of a RIF-production rule translator, I wonder how Core will be extended to easily represent production rules expressions. I know that this task is dedicated to the second part of RIF. However, it seems to me important to, even informally, check the possibility of such extension from Core. Frankly, reading the document does not indicate me some elements of design of future RIF-production rule module. In fact, I list hereafter the common features I expect to be translated into RIF expressions: - object model instruction ( set/get fields, method invocation, classification...), - condition generator definition (in/from), - set conditions such as collector, - rule meta-information (priorities, name...), - build-in operator, - instructions of the right part (if, for, while, variable declaration...). This right part is often composed of several instructions. - Constant representation (numeric, String, boolean, date, XML types...) I would like to find a section in the Core given as an informal example and proposing how to represent those features. An important constraint of common production rules is the scalability. One dimension of that problem is the number of rules. Is there any scalability recommendation that may impact the XML format of the rules? Another constraint is that production rules language be easily understandable. Observing the distance between Horn rule syntax and common production rules syntax, I wonder if the translation from RIF expressions to production rules language will be easily performed! Best regards. Philippe.
Received on Monday, 12 February 2007 07:21:30 UTC