- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:13:07 +0100
- To: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
- Cc: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Gary Hallmark wrote: > > To maximize rule interchange between production rule engines and logic > rule engines, clearly Core should be "as big as possible". We can, > should, and must decide that now. I don't even know why I have to keep > arguing this point. The bias to keep BLD and PRD aligned with a large > common core should be so high that the burden of proof is on you to show > why NAU should not be in Core. You have provided no such proof. I haven't followed all the ins and outs of all this discussion but even without PRD I'm not immediately convinced NAU should be in core. They seem relatively uncommon in rule languages. They got in, in the end, on the grounds that they can be handled at the translation stage for languages that don't support them. However, the notion of a "Core" suggests some criteria of simplicity and minimality and there needs to be a higher burden of proof that these extra syntactic features have value in the Core. Dave -- Hewlett-Packard Limited Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Monday, 30 June 2008 21:13:50 UTC