|
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
|