Re: [PRD] ACTION-531 Update PRD examples complete

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