Furthermore, in order to move to a conclusion faster, I think we
should start with what you propose last: a good set of specific
examples that rules language can handle. I will try to contribute
some real-world ACL examples soon.
Thank you,
Alex.
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Lee Beaumont wrote:
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