I am interested in the IRML vs. P debate going on here. With the proposal of P
I believe Alex has tackled two problems at once. Perhaps if these are
separated, more clarity can lead to more progress. The two problems I see being
confounded and addressed are:
1) What style syntax should be used in the language?, and
2) What expressive power should be allowed.
These issues go to the root of the requirements for a rules language, and also
involve some parochial preferences.
Regarding syntax, people naturally have a prejudice toward either a verbose
(e.g. COBOL and XML) style of syntax, or a preference for a terse style (e.g. C
and its derivatives, like java and P). My preference is for the terse "C"
style, and I believe the success of "C" gives some broader support to that
preference. Perhaps this debate over syntax style can be put on a more
objective footing by examining:
1) Ease of writing,
2) Ease of (human) reading,
3) Availability of editors, visulaizers, and verifiers.
4) ease of machine interpretation, including speed, and size
Related to expressive power, I believe the debate needs to focus first on the
types of rules that need to be expressed. For example, can the WG establish a
"working set" of "pseudo code (or structured English) rules that need to be
accommodated. This might include access control , Anonymization, local
preferences, natural language translation and other examples chosen from the
OPES documents. Then this working set can be expressed (or not) in IRML and P
and the results compared.
I hope this is helpful
Lee Beaumont