- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 23:33:28 -0400
- To: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
- Cc: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Gary, There is no "problem" with groups of rules. And metadata is not just a "comment". > 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. > 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. > > 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. >
Received on Sunday, 27 April 2008 06:34:46 UTC