- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:03:05 -0400
- To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Cc: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> Michael Kifer wrote: > > >>Am I the only one in the group to think that normal forms can make the > >>life of implementors easier? > > > > Easier? They'll make the life harder! Instead of a straightforward > > translation they will force the implementors to recognize non-normal forms > > and do translation. > > Hmmm... There might be a misunderstanding, here: what I say is that, if > RIF specifies a normal form, we can have a level of compliance where > only the recognition of normal forms is required. That might make > implementation easier. I think the net effect will be actually close 0. Normal forms will complicate translations into RIF and may simplify translations out (for some languages). For other languages they will complicate both types of translations. --michael > But I agree that, as I already pointed in my previous emails, the > downside is that it would probably require such implementations to > publish only normal forms, which might make implementation more complex. > Although most actual rule languages have probably more expressive power > than RIF basics, and will have to do some recognition and transformation > anyway; but, well... > > And so, I have no decisive opinion either way: I was just wondering if > this is something we should discuss. > > But I do not seem to get much echo, which probably means that the answer > is: no, this is not something we should bother about. And that we should > probably just end the subject here. > > If somebody disagrees and thinks that we should raise an issue; please > speak up now or shut up forever! :-) > > Christian > >
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2007 16:03:25 UTC