- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:57:04 +0200
- To: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
- CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Gary Hallmark wrote: > > I think we may first need a meta-agreement that we need to make PRD have > the same "look and feel" as, and of course maximally reuse, BLD/FLD and > DTB. Extended examples, tutorials, etc. should go in a separate document. Yep. All these discussions seem, indeed, to boil down to: what is PRD about? You all know my view on this, by now, I guess... To wit: What PRD is: + PRD is a standard common xml serialisation for many PR languages; + PRD follows the usage of PR languages and PR developers, it does not dictate it (we want it to be widely adopted and deployed; future versions or extension may offer "better" ways to do things, and promote "better" usages; but that will be of little help if PRD is not adopted); + PRD covers the commonly used features of PR languages (we want it to be useful and widely usable). What PRD is not: - PRD is not BLD (we already BLD for that); - PRD is not Core (why have BLD and Core, if not to allow PRD to be everything PR need and that is not in Core; and BLD to be everything logic rule languages agree on and that is not in Core); - PRD is not a new production rule language (it is not a rule language, but an rule interchange format). Of course, and as usual, I am totally open to change my mind if somebody has compelling arguments to the contrary. Cheers, Christian
Received on Monday, 30 June 2008 19:57:49 UTC