- From: Boley, Harold <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
- Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:05:12 -0400
- To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>, <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Changes done. Harold -----Original Message----- From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sandro Hawke Sent: September 24, 2009 11:41 PM To: public-rif-wg@w3.org Subject: review of Guide I finally read Guide. (It wasn't assigned to me. This is for extra credit.) It's a nice overview of RIF. I'm a little uncomfortable with the tone for an official WG publication; it's rather conversational. On the plus side, that makes it easier to read. I wouldn't object to publication just because of the tone, but maybe we can make it a little more formal in places. (I haven't tried to figure out how, sorry.) There are two points I think need to be changed before it can be published, though: 1. It's not appropriate to name specific vendors (IBM and Oracle) in the bit about PRD. They'll have a chance to join the press release when we get to Rec, and people can speak about it as individuals, but the Working Group shouldn't be seen to pick favorites like that. Also, it could be read as IBM and/or Oracle endorsing RIF, and while I hope/expect they'll do that officially during Proposed Recommendation, it's not our place to speak about that yet. 2. I think Core is downplayed far too much. The document says there are only "two main dialects", says (in section 2) that Core is a subset of BLD (not mentioning PRD), and most tellingly, Core's "*main purpose* is to enable limitted rule exchange between logic rule dialects and production rules." It's quite possible Core will be far more popular than BLD or PRD, and it's important to me that we not speak negatively or weakly of it like that. Minor points: - Let's take "main" out of the Abstract and go ahead and enumerate all the documents. (That is, we need to add OWLRL and XML). Okay, this isn't quite minor, but I could live with it like this, I guess, for now. - I'd add a little to the definition of 'extensibility'. Perhaps: Extensibility here means that it should be possible for motivated people to define a new RIF dialect as a syntactic extension toan existing RIF dialect, with new elements corresponding to desired additional functionality. These new RIF dialects would be non-standard when defined, but might eventually become standards. - I'd take out the "by another group" reference, re future dialects based on FLD. I think there's still some possibility we'll recharter RIF in such a way that the "new" group would still formally be this group. - "Development of the RIF framework turned out to be feasible" ^ FLD? Thats it. :-) -- Sandro
Received on Friday, 25 September 2009 15:06:36 UTC