- From: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 10:12:09 -0700
- To: <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, "Hassan Ait-Kaci" <hak@ilog.com>
- Cc: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Apologies - I've obviously missed something earlier that makes "comments" and "preferences" (sometimes referred to as "input") the same as (presumably unwelcome) "quibbles". Ho hum! Paul Vincent TIBCO | Business Optimization | Business Rules & CEP > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Kifer [mailto:kifer@cs.sunysb.edu] > Sent: 04 September 2008 17:48 > To: Hassan Ait-Kaci > Cc: Paul Vincent; public-rif-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign > > I completely agree. > > michael > > On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 08:24:15 -0700 > "Hassan Ait-Kaci" <hak@ilog.com> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I don't know whether to feel alarmed or amused at the sort of > > symbol quibblings that have been exchanged regarding RIF PS syntax > > (dis)tastes. > > > > I thought it was understood by all here that with a Presentation > > Syntax for rules, this WG was *not* designing a new universal > > rule language. We are simply defining shorthands that are > > somewhat easier to read and write by humans than their normative > > XML counterparts. The RIF PS is meant to help a human agent read > > and write RIF examples and allow the automated generation of the > > XML form from the PS form. Thus, such a PS should: > > > > (1) be simple and unambiguous to parse by software; and, > > (2) easy, by not excessively so, to manipulate by humans. > > > > Why "not excessively so"? Because - again - we are *not* > > designing a new universal rule language! We are just defining > > (relatively) less ugly shorthands for (absolutely)ugly XML! :-) > > Thus, PS is only rough syntax encompassing many potential rule > > languages. What makes sense for one intended sementics does not > > necessarily for another. AT this level, punctuation is important > > only to ease reading and parser generation. Let us not make it > > ridiculously peculiar. It should be clear and familiar to most. > > It is silly trying to push matters of personal (dis)tastes. The > > two criteria above are all we need. > > > > At present, there are three levels of PS: > > > > (1) "pure" PS (without Axel's extensions) > > (2) PS ("pure" PS with Axel's extensions) > > (3) APS (PS with Adrian's shorthands) > > > > Adrian's abbreviations are more like macros that "desugar" APS > > into PS. > > > > In order to build a parser for (A)PS and generate its XML form, > > [http://www.w3.org/2008/08/19-rif-minutes.html#action08], the > > quick final settlement of all these syntactic issues is highly > > desirable. > > > > -hak > > > > > > -hak > > -- > > Hassan Aït-Kaci * ILOG, Inc. - Product Division R&D > > http://koala.ilog.fr/wiki/bin/view/Main/HassanAitKaci > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org on behalf of Paul Vincent > > Sent: Thu 9/4/2008 2:51 PM > > To: public-rif-wg@w3.org > > Subject: RE: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > '<= ' should be used in backward-chaining dialects, and '=>' in > > forward-chaining ones. > > > > > > > > Paul Vincent > > > > TIBCO | Business Optimization | Business Rules & CEP > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] > > On Behalf Of Patrick Albert > > Sent: 04 September 2008 12:54 > > To: Adrian Paschke; public-rif-wg@w3.org > > Subject: RE: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign > > > > > > > > Most Production Rules system have rules in the form IF/WHEN > > <conditions> THEN <actions>. > > > > > > > > I'd recommend we adhere to the existing practice which is to have the > > conditions first followed by the actions. > > > > Replacing the IF .. THEN by a '=>' as in '<Conditions> => <Actions>' > > would be ok. > > > > > > > > Patrick. > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] > > On Behalf Of Adrian Paschke > > Sent: lundi 1 septembre 2008 22:09 > > To: public-rif-wg@w3.org > > Subject: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > With respect to the abridged presentation syntax there is still an open > > issue about the sign to distinguish the head and the body of a rule. > > > > > > > > Currently, we use ":-" in the examples e.g. in UCR and PRD, which is > > well-known in the logic community but not so much in others including > > production rules. > > > > > > > > I shortly discussed this issue with the BLD/FLD editors Michael and > > Harold and we came up with this unambiguous proposal to distinguish > > classical implication and rules head and body. > > > > > > > > <== for PRD and BLD > > > > <-- for classical > > > > > > > > <== and <-- might be also reverted ==> --> > > > > > > > > -Adrian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2008 17:13:15 UTC