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

I agree.  Let's not fall victim to a false dilemma here.  This all 
started with consideration of a mundane feature, NAU.  It got into BLD 
for perhaps not the best of reasons, but including it in PRD in no way 
limits PRD interoperability (perhaps it even helps, depending on whether 
you think CLIPS "unordered facts" map to NAU or to Frames.)

Let's also not get too hung up with syntax.  The important thing is to 
define the semantics so that PR engines can interoperate.  The syntax is 
a simple matter of translation.  I suspect, given the variation in PR 
syntax, that no matter what we chose, someone will be confused.  We can 
avoid a lot of bickering amongst ourselves, and achieve a more "buttoned 
up" appearance for the suite of RIF documents, if we can just abide by 
the BLD syntax wherever its semantics is compatible with PRD.

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)...
>
> 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). 
>
> 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
>>
>>     
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2008 15:49:15 UTC