- 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