- From: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:32:39 -0700
- To: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Christian de Sainte Marie wrote: > One a more argumentative note: "it is in BLD so it must be in PRD" > strikes me as a particularly non-technical argument (ideological, I > would say, if I had to qualify it). I can prove that case B has measurably greater interoperability than case A: Case A: X is a language feature and BLD supports X and PRD does not support X Case B: X is a language feature and BLD supports X and PRD supports X > > Whereas: "most mainstream production rule languages do not have them" > sounds like a rather technical argument to me, when it comes to > standardising the XML srialisation of production rule languages. As Harold and Adrian have pointed out, Clips (and Jess) have named argument uniterms. Your argument sounds like "PRR doesn't have it". Alignment with PRR is not something I care about. It looks like a committee-produced syntax with no semantics. Hopefully we can do better. > > So, we do not even seem to agree on what constitutes a technical > argument :-) > > Christian >
Received on Monday, 30 June 2008 19:35:44 UTC