Re: [RIF][UCR] Human Oriented Business Rules Review

stan.devitt@agfa.com wrote:

>        The places where we can move beyond just ATOMIC rules may be in 
>providing sets or collections of Human oriented rules - and/or some model 
>of flow control and testability without much more than tests with boolean 
>outcomes and atomic rules.
>  
>
How are "atomic rules" defined? I do not understand this concept.

>3.  Related Use Cases
>
>        Looks good.
>  
>
I think, the RIF WG should consider in addition to the use cases 
proposed so far  EU-Rent and demonstrate how RIF can be used to express it.

>7.  Requirements on RIF
>
>        I would regard developing the natural language aspects discussed 
>here as out of scope.  They are important, of course, but their work will 
>be best facilitated by having a well defined RIF structure to map onto. 
>The Natural Language Tools are produces and consumers of RIF, rather than 
>RIF itsself.    Our goal here is to provide the infrastructure that 
>provides target internal representation.
>  
>
I believe considering business rules as stressed in Stan's message 
implies that RIF should have a "rich syntax". I mean that RIF should not 
only allow for rules of the fom

<conjunctions of atoms> => atom
 or
<conjunctions of atoms> => <conjunctions of atoms>

but also for disjunctions and if-then-else in antecedants and for 
disjunctions in consequents, etc. Otherwise RIF will not be capable of 
properly convey business rule in a human-oriented manner but merely to 
encode business rules. How "rich syntax" is to be defined is not 
completely obvious, I believe.
-- 
Francois

Received on Monday, 6 February 2006 07:41:09 UTC