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, ChristianReceived on Monday, 23 June 2008 16:27:54 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:07:45 UTC