Re: [PRD] PRD ch1 review

Paul,

Thanx for your comments. Some replies inlined below.

Paul Vincent wrote:
> 
> 1.1 Introduction
> 
> This document specifies the production rule dialect of the W3C rule 
> interchange format (RIF-PRD). It is mostly intended for the designers of 
> RIF-PRD implementations.
> 
> Intended for the designers of RIF-PRD translators? Or is the wording 
> “implementations” intended to convey that RIF-PRD is also targeting a 
> new class of rule engines?

Now, it is not.

I modified the wording to:
"This document is mostly intended for the designers and developers of 
RIF-PRD implementations, that is, applications that serialize production 
rules as RIF-PRD XML (producer applications) and/or that deserialize 
RIF-PRD XML documents into production rules (consumer applications)."

And I moved the sentence to the end of the Introduction sub-section, so 
that the reader already has an idea of what is RIF-PRD.

> 1.3 Running example

See the new presentation: does it work any better?


> (* jim:ChickenAndMashedPotatoes *)
> 
> // rule identifier is “jim”

The rule identifier is the whole (abbreviated) IRI: 
jim:ChickenAndMashedPotatoes

>          // associate theCurrentChicken’s properties age and allowance 
> to the approprate theCurrentAge and theCurrentAllowance
> 
>          // fails if no such attributes
> 
>  [...]
>  
> The example also makes a big assumption that fact retraction can be 
> easily mapped to/from the underlying data representation.

Actually, the assumption is that the consumer knows how to map Jim's 
published data model and specification of fact predicates and functions 
to/from its own underlying data representation.

What a consumer is supposed to do when this is not the case is not 
specified at this stage (that would belong to the conformance clause, I 
guess): should we say something about it, e.g. in an editor's note?

Cheers,

Christian