W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > May 2006

Re: RIF: A thought about requirements --> PRR

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 12:13:17 -0500
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@inf.unibz.it>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1149095597.30577.171.camel@dirk.w3.org>

moved to www-archive; feel free to cite/forward...

Sandro, Peter, are you interested to fill me in?

On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 12:02 -0400, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> From: "Vincent, Paul D" <PaulVincent@fairisaac.com>
> Subject: RE: RIF: A thought about requirements --> PRR
> Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 04:03:30 -0500
> 
> [...]
> 
> > Qu: What are your arguments *AGAINST* PRR support for the widespread
> > adoption [goal]?
> 
> >From viewpoint that I espouse: 
> 
> 1/ PRR support opposes alignment with the Semantic Web, because it requires
>    concepts that are alien to the Semantic Web, and alignment with the
>    Semantic Web supports widescale adoption.

concepts such as... ?

> 2/ PRR support opposes low cost of implementation, because it requires a
>    complex, non-coherent formalism.

which complex formalism? pointer to details?

I see...
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Extended_RIF_must_support_production_rules

but with no links to what production rules are.

> 3/ PRR support opposes no surprises, because PRRs are inherently
>    surprising.

An example would help.

> 4/ PRR support opposes the support of logical rules, because PRRs are
>    non-logical.

I don't see much about logic in
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Goals%
2C_Critical_Success_Factors_and_Requirements
nor
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Design_Constraints


Sandro, while looking for the above pointers,
I added some links to http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/F2F3

> Most of the above arguments depend on the PRR support being interpreted as
> support of the inherently operational aspects of PRRs.  If instead, PRR
> support can be done from a simple, standard logical language, then these
> arguments have much less weight.
> 
> > Qu: What alternative to PRs will fulfil the widespread adoption CSF?
> 
> The diagram has already several alternatives.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 31 May 2006 17:13:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:32:52 UTC