Re: Strawman OPES Charter

[Geetha Manjunath <geetham@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

A completely different alternative for the rules language can be based
on an existing language/runtime (say Java based). However the approach
taken by Java for specifying rules (see Jess,JSR) is very "Constraint
Logic Programming' type -  which I beleive  may be an overkill for the
OPES framework. Other rules-based frameworks are similarly very complex.
What we need is just a means of scripting out the rules - P may work!

Also, after somewhat freezing the charter (atleast in concept) about the
'P' applicability  - limiting the usage to the OPES administrator (as
opposed to rules authored by client or content provider ) ; 'P' seems to
have the core stuff. May require some enhancements and more
complementary specifications for interfacing things and so on..

I would go with (b) or (c)  while preferring (c) since it is less work
;-)

regards
Geetha

Abbie Barbir wrote:

>
>
> MArkus,
>
> new insights are comming as we speak.
> but as I said I can live with the other options
>
> abbie
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Markus Hofmann [mailto:markus@xxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 4:56 PM
> > To: OPES Group
> > Subject: Re: Strawman OPES Charter
> >
> >
> >
> > Abbie Barbir wrote:
> >
> > >>Just to make sure: which of the following you consider essential:
> > >>
> > >>      a) forget about P choice, start from scratch, write a
> > >>         formal "language requirements" document, then select
> among
> > >>         IRML, P, and possibly other candidates.
> > >>
> > >>      b) confirm past P choice, but write a "language
> requirements"
> > >>         document or section, before proceeding with polishing P
> > >>
> > >>      c) confirm P choice, and do not write a "language
> > >>         requirements" document/section
> > >
> > >
> > > well, I go for option a) to be frank. However, I can live
> > with b) or
> > > c) if the WG wants that.
> >
> > Are there any new insights or developments that came up after our
> > earlier discussions we had on "P" and other approaches? If not, I
> > don't want to re-iterate the discussions we already had.
> >
> > -Markus
> >
> >