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

Yes, the discussion about PR syntax is much less important than e.g. a
discussion about the concrete syntax of PRD (in particular for new
expressive constructs which might overlap with constructs needed in
expressive logic dialects, e.g. not, execute to name some) and the correct
semantics for them.

As Michael mentioned for BLD there was a long discussion about syntax and
semantics. For PRD we just started this thorough discussion now.

-Adrian

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] Im
Auftrag von Sandro Hawke
Gesendet: Montag, 23. Juni 2008 20:32
An: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
Cc: Christian de Sainte Marie; Paul Vincent; RIF WG
Betreff: Re: [PRD] ACTION-531 Update PRD examples complete 



> > Bis repetita supposedly placet, so let me write it again: having a 
> > different PS for a different target audience is not a gratuitous 
> > difference. Especially since BLD PS has been designed without being 
> > reused for PRD in mind.
> 
> Everyone had an opportunity to suggest changes and improvements to the
> BLD syntax. In particular, the group has adopted several of your
> suggestions.  So, saying that the BLD PS "has been designed without
> being reused for PRD in mind" is inaccurate.

We're all clear that the PS is editorial in nature, right?  Changing the
PS wont change any implementations, right?  Someone can write a book in
which they re-specify and teach RIF using a wholy different PS, right?

I just to be sure we all agree about this....

So, yes, this is important in terms of (1) making the work manageable,
and (2) making the specs readable, but ... it's still not all that
important.

      -- Sandro

Received on Monday, 23 June 2008 21:10:08 UTC