- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 16:25:15 +0200
- To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- CC: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Michael Kifer wrote: >>E.g. metadata everywhere does probably not make sense in the >>PS; but why not allow it in the XML? If the only reason is that the XML >>is derived from the PS (in the sense of the EBNF), my point is that it >>does not have to. > > > Several rule systems use metadata at the presentation level. > [...] Absolutely. And, as you pointed out already, some metadata may impact the semantics in some rule languages (or something that is usually considered metadata; e.g. certainty factors etc). But not all the metadata need be at the presentation level (e.g. metadata used by a specific implementation for round-tripping purposes comes to mind - consider that this sentence complete my action 446). My point is that, while everything that is in the PS has to be in the XML, the reverse is not true; and, thus, that it might be better to derive the PS from the XML than the reverse (any "positioning" consideration apart). And Jos did not convince me yet that I did not demonstrate that it was rather easily feasible :-) Cheers, Christian
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2008 14:27:21 UTC