RE: extensibility -> pxfim

While I agree with Michael that from a pragmatic point of view, and
especially for an operational rule system, the only usual fallback will
be a rejection, the idea of a generic extensibility mechanism for XML
seems to make a lot of sense.

So +1 to Michael (its probably not really a RIF version 1 issue)
And +1 to Sandro (its probably solving a wider content mgmt related
problem in a standard way).

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 Michael Kifer
> Sent: 07 November 2007 18:28
> To: Sandro Hawke
> Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: extensibility -> pxfim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that such a general theory alone would be more useful for RIF
than
> a
> simple policy of rejecting documents that have new tags. It could be
> useful as an XML framework for fallback mechanisms, but then the hard
part
> would be to figure out how to specialize it for RIF and make it do
> something non-trivial.
> 
> Of course, this is just my general feeling. It is based only on the
> understanding that the problem is very hard.
> 
> But divesting RIF from the responsibility of doing something in this
> respect is a very tempting proposition :-)
> 
> 	--michael
> 
> 
> > I'm trying to understand whether it makes sense to factor the
> > extensibility mechanism out of RIF entirely.
> >
> > As sort of a trial balloon, I've given it a name and thrown together
a
> > skeletal editor's draft, so we can point non-RIF folks at it.
> >
> >    http://www.w3.org/2007/11/pxfim/
> >
> > I have no idea at this point where this document will go.  It might
well
> > be discarded as silly, if no one outside of RIF is
motivated/interested.
> > But if there is enough interest from outside of RIF, it might
continue
> > and RIF might be able to divest itself of this technical work.
> >
> >       - Sandro
> >
> >
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2007 20:09:50 UTC