- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:42:34 +0100
- To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
All, As suggested by Gary yesterday, I annotated the RIF-PRD draft [1] with comments about the differences wrt RIF-BLD [2]. All the notes about differences in PRD wrt BLD are in comment blocks with a redish background. All the differences in the XML syntax are commented, including whether the difference is specific to PRD or is a proposed alternative to the BLD syntax: in the latter case, the idea is that, whatever alternative is chosen, BLD and PRD should use the same. Re the presentation syntax, I propose, in the PRD draft, a style that, to me, seems closer to what the production rule crowd might be used to; but I really do not care... So, I did not burden myself with commenting any of the differences :-) Also, I spotted some differences in [2] wrt the previous BLD draft (e.g. any COMPOUND - the former ATOMIC - being allowed as TERM). I did not comment on how PRD could differ from BLD in that respect, because they have not been discussed yet and I cannot estimate their consequences without reading FLD and the new BLD in detail first. Cheers, Christian [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/PRdialect [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/BLD
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2008 12:41:56 UTC