- From: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:54:24 -0700
- To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
What PRD is: - a dialect designed for a large intersection (Core) with other kinds of rule languages, e.g. Prolog - part of a suite of documents that describe shared common elements as well as differences - semantically rigorous, so that different PR languages (some of which look similar on the surface but have subtle semantic differences) can be exchanged What PRD is not: - a tutorial on rules, production rules, or rule interchange - a way to get a W3C stamp of approval for OMG PRR Christian de Sainte Marie wrote: > 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 20:57:06 UTC