Re: [PRD] Issues to resolve before publication (et proposed resolutions)

Gary Hallmark wrote:
>> #8. Section (Forall): Gary does not want the CMP example to be 
>> presented with binding patterns. On the other hand, they are included 
>> in this version of RIF-PRD because all the mainstream PR languages use 
>> them, and there is an editr's note asking for feedback about them and 
>> the nested forall: so, providing an example makes sense.
> I want binding patterns to go away.  They are trivially converted to the 
> BLD format and though they may have their place in legacy PR languages, 
> they have no place in RIF.  I don't want any new material added to the 
> spec that mentions these.  I want them all gone eventually, even if I 
> can't have that for FPWD.

Weird... As I understand it, it is exactly because they have their place 
in existing PR languages (actually, they are widely used),  that they 
have their place in RIF.

I do not quite understand what is RIF, if it is not an interchange 
format that is usable and useful for what you call "legacy" production 
rule languages; that is, if it does not cover the syntactic features 
that are widely used. RIF would have to cover such features even if we 
all agreed that they are ugly and that they should not be used; which is 
not the case, of course :-)

Why "legacy", btw? I can imagine plenty of interesting feature in future 
PR languages that would require binding patterns...

Or are you suggesting that RIF should be designed as a "better" PR 
language (rather than as a common xml serialisation for many, existing 
and futrue, production rule languages)?

Designing a better production rule language is certainly a worthy 
endeavour. But it is not the objective for PRD, not the first attempt to 
a standard common xml serialisation for production rule languages.

>> I propose that we include a small example with patterns, and that the 
>> XML rendering of the complete CMP rule be moved to an appendix, where 
>> it can be serialized without patterns nor nested Forall, as Gary 
>> prefers, with a comment to the  effect that the serialization of a 
>> rule is not unique, and that that specific serialization correspond to 
>> the PS rendering as stated in 1.3 and 2.5.
> No.

I will not take that 'no' as meaning "no" until we have come to an 
agreement on the previous topic, if you agree :-)


Received on Monday, 30 June 2008 19:32:39 UTC