Re: DTB and BLD Use Cases: User-Defined Functions -- factorial example, Equal in the head, oriented equations, left and right roles

We discussed naming the different sides of equal at the telecon - and will vote 
at the next telecon to change it or not.  If you care about this (my impression 
is that the people against didn't feel strongly) then speak up or show up.

-Chris

Boley, Harold wrote:
> It was three to three, and if we continue to "leave as is"
> (there apparently is no RESOLVED), we cannot define
> user functions with oriented equations -- evidence that
> I found after F2F10 and emailed to the Tuesday telecon
> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Jun/0046.html):
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/F2F10_Minutes#Naming
> 
>  
> 
> Sandro Hawke <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Sandro_Hawke> : Equal
> roles should be left and right 
> 
> Sandro Hawke <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Sandro_Hawke> : <Equal>
> should have <left> and <right> not side and side. [Scribe assist by
> Sandro Hawke <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Sandro_Hawke> ]
> 
> Christian de Sainte Marie
> <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/index.php?title=Christian_de_Sainte_M
> arie&action=edit> : is symmetric 
> 
> Harold Boley
> <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/index.php?title=Harold_Boley&action=e
> dit> : prefer not to go back to left and right 
> 
> Dave Reynolds <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Dave_Reynolds> : +1 on
> left/right being (slightly) better
> 
> Sandro Hawke <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Sandro_Hawke> : do not
> want to get your rules back from RIF with equalities flipped 
> 
> Chris Welty <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Chris_Welty> : discussion
> was that equality is symmetric, and we didn't want to force people to
> choose left and right 
> 
> PROPOSED: shall we switch from Equal/side/side to Equal/left/right ? 
> 
> Sandro Hawke <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Sandro_Hawke> : leave it
> as is: three
> Sandro Hawke <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Sandro_Hawke> : changing
> it: Jos, Sandro, (dave reynolds)
> Sandro Hawke <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Sandro_Hawke> : I'm
> willing to drop it on the graounds that it's a lot of work to change.
> [Scribe assist by Sandro Hawke
> <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Sandro_Hawke> ]
> 
> leave as is
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>  
> 
> Working on other BLD updates, I found that it would not
> be much work to change. I would be willing to do this small,
> reasonable change (also in the XSD) before more test cases
> (so far only factorial.rif) etc. would make it hard to implement.
> 
> Hence my proposal.
> 
> Best,
> Harold
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian de Sainte Marie [mailto:csma@ilog.fr
> <mailto:csma@ilog.fr> ]
> Sent: June 12, 2008 5:00 AM
> To: Boley, Harold
> Cc: Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: DTB and BLD Use Cases: User-Defined Functions -- factorial
> example, Equal in the head, oriented equations, left and right roles
> 
> Boley, Harold wrote:
>> Here's the current XML syntax (with proposed differentiation
>> of <side> into <left> and <right> indicated as XML comments):
> 
> Re <side> VS <left>+<right>: I thought that had been discussed and
> settled during F2F10 (to leave as it is, that is: <side>)?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Christian
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Dr. Christopher A. Welty                    IBM Watson Research Center
+1.914.784.7055                             19 Skyline Dr.
cawelty@gmail.com                           Hawthorne, NY 10532
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty

Received on Thursday, 19 June 2008 23:54:20 UTC