RE: moving along on rules language

["Martin Stecher" <martin.stecher@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

back from holiday I just read draft-rousskov-opes-rules-00 quickly.

In a first reaction, it makes a lot of sense to me and I find it easier to understand and more powerful than IRML.

Though I have a little problem with the example in Figure 10:
  "toDialect" is a term that is very specific for the selected service.
  Does this example assume that "toDialect" is a supported term of standard P or how could a service dynamically add new identifiers and functions calls?

While I can follow Alex comments about IRML and like P better than IRML in the moment, I admit that I did not deal a lot with the rule language requirements all the time, so I may oversea important aspects.

I would very much appreciate if an IRML advocate (Andre?!?) could comment on Alex draft and list problems and aspects that IRML solves better. Such as Alex did before with IRML.

Regards
Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Rousskov [mailto:rousskov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 6:58 PM
> To: OPES WG
> Subject: Re: moving along on rules language
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Markus Hofmann wrote:
> 
> > Alex - I'd suggest you publish this as individual ID right away
> > rather than just having a URL as reference. Would give us all a
> > formal reference for the document.
> 
> Submitted with minor polishing touches.
> 
> Alex.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> This mail has been scanned by debian3-smtp
> (WebWasher 4.4.1 fcs Build 580)
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>