[PRD] Implemented Harold's comments, completing ACTION-809 (Was: Re: [RIF][PRD] ACTION-767: Review PRD)

********* NOTICE **********
My new email address at IBM is: csma@fr.ibm.com
My ILOG email address will not be forwarded after June 8
*****************************

Harold,

Harold Boley wrote on 12/05/2009 00:26:16:
> 
> Could you revisit those 2009Jan/0005.html comments?

Done. I implemented all of of your comments that were not obsoleted by 
othe rchanges in the document, except three of them, re which I need 
clarification.

- In the definition of a semantics structure [1], item 5, definition of 
IFrame, you stroke through the example frmae with repeated attribute/value 
pairs, o[a->b a->b]. Why is that?

- You marked the definition of action variable declaration [2] with 
question marks in the margin: is that because the definition is unclear, 
or is it something else?

- On the specification of the XML syntax for annotations [3], you noted: 
"refer to BLD". What did you mean?

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/PRD#Semantic_structures
[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/PRD#def-action-var-decl
[3] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/PRD#sec-metadata


> 4.2.4 Conflict resolution
> The intuitive conflict resolution principle ('rule' is not a good term
> here)
> of specificity should be mentioned, explaining why it's not part of the
> RIF conflict resolution strategy.

I added the following sentence, just after the itroduction refraction, 
recency and priority:
"Many existing production rule systems implement also some kind of fire 
the most specific rule first strategy, in combination with the above. 
However, whereas they agree on the definition of refraction and the 
priority or recency ordering, existing production rule systems varies 
widely on the precise definition of the specificity ordering. As a 
consequence, rule instance specificity was not included in the basic 
conflict resolution strategy that RIF-PRD specifies normatively."

Is that ok?

> 8 Presentation syntax
> This should probably come (much) earlier so sequential readers will see
> it
> before heavy use is made of it. Alternatively, it could go into an
> appendix,
> which can be more conveniently (forward-)referenced from several places.

I would support moving it to an appendix, esp. since it is used rather 
lightly in the document. and it is not normative.

PR guys and co-editors, any opinion about that?

Cheers,

Christian

ILOG, an IBM Company
9 rue de Verdun
94253 - Gentilly cedex - FRANCE
Tel. +33 1 49 08 35 00
Fax +33 1 49 08 35 10



Sauf indication contraire ci-dessus:/ Unless stated otherwise above:
Compagnie IBM France
Siège Social : Tour Descartes, 2, avenue Gambetta, La Défense 5, 92400 
Courbevoie
RCS Nanterre 552 118 465
Forme Sociale : S.A.S.
Capital Social : 609.751.783,30 ?
SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 02430