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

Christian, Here are the clarifications. Harold
 
 
- 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? 
 
Just because this same example comes back two sentences later.
If you do want to have it twice, the example could also be 'introduced'
better than by just using a colon:
Bags (multi-sets) are used here because the order of the attribute/value pairs in a frame is immaterial and pairs may repeat as in o[a->b a->b]. 

- 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? 
 
Because (?o New) used to be (?o New(?o))
and (?value o[s->?value]) has a similarly looking variable duplication.
BTW: Could New() be considered as a parameterless primitive or built-in operator?

- On the specification of the XML syntax for annotations [3], you noted: "refer to BLD". What did you mean?
 
This was only to point you to where you could find an earlier use of "Annotations"
(use plural in headings) instead of just "Metadata".
 
 
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?
 
Yes, this is fine with me modulo some improvements to the English such as using the plural "vary widely".
Best (RIF-PRD) Practices: Should we advise users of existing production rule systems to shy away from becoming dependent on specificity whenever they want to interoperate? Is there a methodology to transform specificity to (a combination of) some of the basic conflict resolution strategies that RIF-PRD specifies normatively?
 
 
> 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. 
 
I now think it's better to move it right before section 7 XML Syntax, so these two syntaxes are adjacent, in the natural presentation-to-serialization order.
 


________________________________

From: Christian De Sainte Marie [mailto:csma@fr.ibm.com] 
Sent: May 14, 2009 3:30 PM
To: Boley, Harold
Cc: RIF; public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
Subject: [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 <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/PRD#Semantic_structures>  
[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/PRD#def-action-var-decl <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/PRD#def-action-var-decl>  
[3] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/PRD#sec-metadata <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