- From: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:56:23 -0700
- To: "Gary Hallmark" <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>, "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> On Behalf Of Gary Hallmark > > is that people will reasonably expect that they serve some more useful > purpose than merely a device to put a comment on a collection of rules. [PV>] +1 / I agree > For example, at least one real product (Haley) supports nested rulesets > (groups) and allows one to attach a condition to the group, with the > semantics that the condition is ANDed with the condition of each of the > group members. This is useful because often a group of rules will all > be about the same frames or relations and you don't have to repeat that > in each group member. In PRD, one might also reasonably expect to attach > a priority or mutual exclusion constraint to the group. [PV>] Normally, that would be called a template. I'm not sure there are enough Haley BRE users to justify a RIF feature (and if I recall, Ruleburst/Haley are not even members of RIF...). > > If the sole purpose of groups in RIF is to avoid repeating a comment, > surely we can do that by putting the comment at the document (non-nested > ruleset) level, giving it an IRI or id, and then referring to it from > several rules. [PV>] +1 / I agree
Received on Friday, 25 April 2008 19:57:08 UTC