- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 06:43:24 -0700
- To: kifer@cs.stonybrook.edu
- Cc: public-rif-wg <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 15:40 -0400, Michael Kifer wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 07:07:10 -0700
> Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > Also, please read over the RIF FAQ and make sure you still like the
> > answers. I expect it will get some readers today.
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RIF_FAQ
>
>
> Thanks, Sandro. A very good FAQ. Couple of comments:
Note that various people have contributed to it, and I think WG members
should continue to feel comfortable editing it, when they are fairly
confident they are expressing consensus views.
> In 1.2, I suggest to add the following after the last sentence:
>
> An overview of the RIF architecture can be found
> [http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Overview here].
> Links to unofficial, community-contributed RIF dialects can be found
> [http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RIF_FLD_Dialects here].
I went ahead and did this edit.
> In 1.6:
>
> "Various presentation syntaxes..."
> I suggest:
>
> RIF specification itself employes a presentation syntax, which is normative and
> is used in definitions and examples. However, it is ''not'' recommended for
> exchange among different rule systems.
But that's not true, is it? BLD and PRD use different presentation
syntaxes, don't they? (At least, PRD uses "if" and "then" while BLD
uses ":-".)
-- Sandro
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2010 13:43:28 UTC