- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:50:01 +0200
- To: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
- CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Paul and all, Paul Vincent wrote: > > +1 on PRD representation compatibility with BLD For the avoidance of doubt: I absolutely support that the interoperability between PRD and BLD should be maximal. But I see this as an XML syntax and a semantics related question; not a PS related one. > +1 this is a interchange representation not a rule language (hence > presentation syntax differences between BLD and PRD is relatively > unimportant - presentation syntax is for convenience of users only, so > should be that which is more familiar to them (eg in Dutch if need be) For the avoidance of doubts, again: I completely agree with that too. I think that I made it clear enough and early enough in the life of this working group, that I think that RIF should be specified as an interchange format between existing (and future) languages, not a rule language per se. > Hmmmm I see from the above scores that net net I am +0 / neutral over > agreeing with Gary or Christian on this one. Well, if that combination of -1 and +1 means that you are neutral over agreeing with me or Gary, then I have to be neutral over that myself... Because I completely agree with you combination (and I thought that I had expressed these views quite strongly myself. Well, that may have been strongly, but not clearly enough :-) Cheers, Christian
Received on Monday, 23 June 2008 16:50:14 UTC