Re: [PRD] Issues to resolve before publication (NAU)

Paul Vincent wrote:
> Interoperability between PR systems is far more important than
> interoperability between PR and BLD systems (to me). 
>
> Indeed, *if* the priority for RIF / PRD is to allow the interchange of
> rules between BLD and PRD, then RIF is simply an (interesting) academic
> project of little interest (or value commercially) short-term (to me)...
>   
+1 as I said before. finding common XML does make sense, we shouldn't 
have two ways to define an expression or call a function or method. 
Negation in prolog and pr works in total different ways and we shouldn't 
attempt to get interoprability on this, pr also supports many more high 
level terms like 'collect' that would be very useful to users. Also I'm 
still bugged by the bld "forall" in the BLD, I don't see how that will 
work for PR "forall" which is a total different meaning, I know it's an  
"implementation" detail, but it gets me every time.
> I'm sure PRR-PRD alignment is not of interest to some PR system
> suppliers / vendors (though probably more vendors have had some
> involvement in PRR than RIF, at time or other). But it is effectively
> prior art and unless there is a good reason to avoid compatibility,
> compatibility should be viewed as a requirement (IMHO). 
>   
As long as you are targetting Clips as the base level, there should be 
some level of interoprability, this is a given for PR systems. My emails 
have stated the deviations from this, in PR the "select" statement for 
dealing with collections and nested values would not map to Jess/Clips, 
but is supported by most modern PR systems (Drools, JRules, OPSJ/FIC). I 
believe that 'set/from' provides a more generic and robust way of 
achievinig the same.
> 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 Christian de Sainte Marie
>> Sent: 01 July 2008 12:41
>> To: Gary Hallmark
>> Cc: RIF WG
>> Subject: Re: [PRD] Issues to resolve before publication (NAU)
>>
>>
>> Gary Hallmark wrote:
>>     
>>>> One a more argumentative note: "it is in BLD so it must be in PRD"
>>>> strikes me as a particularly non-technical argument (ideological, I
>>>> would say, if I had to qualify it).
>>>>         
>>> I can prove that case B has measurably greater interoperability than
>>> case A:
>>>       
>> Yep. But your proof is besides my point:  although you insist on
>> ignoring it, my argument is that we have to balance PRD-BLD
>> interoperability with usability by (legacy) PR systems.
>>
>>     
>>>> Whereas: "most mainstream production rule languages do not have
>>>>         
> them"
>   
>>>> sounds like a rather technical argument to me, when it comes to
>>>> standardising the XML srialisation of production rule languages.
>>>>         
>>> As Harold and Adrian have pointed out, Clips (and Jess) have named
>>> argument uniterms.  Your argument sounds like "PRR doesn't have it".
>>> Alignment with PRR is not something I care about.  It looks like a
>>> committee-produced syntax with no semantics.  Hopefully we can do
>>>       
>> better.
>>
>> Apologies. I should have written: "as far as I know (and I know
>>     
> little),
>   
>> most mainstream...". But I do not see clearly why you mention PRR
>>     
> here.
>   
>> As I said in earlier email, the question about NAU in PRD might be
>> different from the answers it got in BLD, because the balance between
>>     
> PR
>   
>> systems that have them and PR system that do not have them may be
>> different.
>>
>> The real question is therefore (as I stated it in [1]): "what is the
>> respective weight of "all the
>> languages" on each side [that would have to implement NAU but do not
>>     
> use
>   
>> them VS that would have to positionalize their NAU] (and the answer
>>     
> may
>   
>> be different for logic
>> languages and PR languages). My understanding is that, wrt PR
>>     
> languages,
>   
>> the balance is heavily tilted towards positional only. But I may be
>> wrong."
>>
>> I was aware only of CLIPS. You mention Jess as well. Ok. That is
>>     
> already
>   
>> more than I thought. Let us continue the discussion along that line.
>>
>> [1]
>>     
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Jun/0082.html
>   
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Christian
>>
>>     
>
>
>   


-- 
JBoss, a Division of Red Hat
Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, 
SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. 
Registered in UK and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 
Directors: Michael Cunningham (USA), Charlie Peters (USA), Matt Parsons (USA) and Brendan Lane (Ireland)