Re: updated RAK response

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 09:24:06 -0800
"Paul Vincent" <pvincent@tibco.com> wrote:

> Very diplomatic response! 
> 
> <<Indeed, the operational semantics of RIF-PRD is intended to cater to
> the basic requirements wrt rule interchange between the production rule
> systems used in business rules kinds of applications, and forward
> chaining is largely the norm, there, in terms of usage (even though
> most, or all, the PR engines they use offer some kind of backward
> chaining and/or truth maintenance).>>
> 
> Might be better rewritten as
> 
> <<Indeed, the operational semantics of RIF-PRD is intended to cater to
> the basic requirements wrt rule interchange between the production rule
> systems used in applications that automate business rules. In these,
> forward chaining is largely the norm. Some PR engines of course also
> offer some kind of backward chaining and/or truth maintenance.>>

This is fine. I made the change.

> I do wonder if the standard response to comments like this should also
> make it clear that W3C RIF membership remains open, especially for those
> with an interest in new dialect development?

According to the WG chairs, only to W3C members from now on.
This means that no new dialects are likely to be developed by this WG.

michael

 
> Paul Vincent
> TIBCO | Business Optimization | Business Rules & CEP
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
> > On Behalf Of Michael Kifer
> > Sent: 16 December 2008 16:41
> > To: Chris Welty
> > Cc: Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)
> > Subject: Re: updated RAK response
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:42:31 -0500
> > Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > >
> > > I updated the response to RAK, in particular removing any questions
> as
> > that
> > > invites further comment, and addressed the "why didn't you cite my
> work"
> > comment.
> > >
> > > Please read and I will send tomorrow.
> > 
> > I made further changes to it. In particular, I find the talk about the
> use
> > of
> > production rules for goal reduction counter-productive and factually
> > incorrect.
> > RAK is thinking about the Prolog language, and the current response
> does
> > not
> > make it clear that BLD is not Prolog.
> > 
> > I tried to clarify these points.
> > 
> > michael
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 18:18:31 UTC