W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > June 2008

RIF Core, and how much is PRD allowed to diverge from BLD [Was: Re: [PRD] Issues to resolve before publication]

From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:22:14 +0200
Message-ID: <4868EC16.4090307@ilog.fr>
To: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Gary Hallmark wrote:
>> #4. Sections (External) and (Atom): Named Arguments
>> Uniterm (NAU). [...]
> We should be consistent with BLD on this point.  Simply support them, 
> and no editor's note!
> I think having a case-by-case ad hoc voting strategy for a spec is not a 
> good idea.  I think we need to
> establish an architectural principle that PRD should not deviate from 
> BLD without very strong technical arguments.
> What would those arguments be in this case?

I do not think that can work: even if we agreed on what are the 
acceptable arguments (or on the definition of a technical argument: are 
arguments of the type "this is what mainstream production rule languages 
do" technical?), that principle should have been set and agreed upon 
before we made decisions on BLD.

My point is that we cannot decide post facto that decisions that were 
made for BLD are basically binding for other dialects as well: some 
decisions might (and would probably) have been different if the 
understanding had been that they would apply to other dialects as well.

The decision wrt NAU was very clearly one of those, at least as I 
understood it at the time.

Ad the question of how much PRD and BLD are allowed to diverge, in 
general: my understanding is that the very reason why we have a common 
core and two different dialects, BLD and PRD, is exactly to allow BLD 
and PRD to diverge as much as needed to make them useful dialects.

We separated BLD from Core last year for exactly that reason: to allow 
us to make, for BLD, decisions that were not binding to other dialects 
(and foremost to PRD), as any decisions re Core would have been; and, 
thus, to allow us to progress on the basic logical dialect without 
having to care about production rules.

This is why that new notion that PRD must not stray away from BLD seems 
kind of counter-productive, to me.

When a feature from BLD is discussed for PRD, the question to answer 
should be: is this feature in Core? If it is, then it goes in PRD; if it 
is not, PRD is free to decide to have it or not, independently of BLD.


Received on Monday, 30 June 2008 14:23:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:07:45 UTC