W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > February 2006

RE: [UCR] Coverage

From: Ginsberg, Allen <AGINSBERG@imc.mitre.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:36:30 -0500
Message-ID: <90A462F2D6E869478007CD2F65DE877C7AEFE1@IMCSRV5.MITRE.ORG>
To: "Dave Reynolds" <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Vincent, Paul D" <PaulVincent@fairisaac.com>
Cc: "RIF" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Some comments on Dave's response to Paul:

> No! I'm not proposing transport at all. In fact the mention of "RIF
RPC" in 
> the design goals page worries me and I wanted to pick up on that

I used the term "RIF RPC" in the design goals discussion to quickly
illustrate or sketch some idea of a mechanism whereby a client process
could make a RIF-based request to a server process.  Nothing more was
intended by the use of  "RPC" in that context.

> It seems like the combination of <rules being exchanged between
> parties> and <vendor-neutral format for rules> is not sufficient to
> such a case within RIF from your POV. If so that sounds like a useful

> boundary case. Perhaps could could explain what it is that makes a
> exchange sufficient of a rule "interchange" for RIF to become

Under the definition of "rule interchange" as given in UCR document,
there is a trivial sense in which an exchange of identical rules would
qualify as interchange.  However, in general "rule interchange" conveys
the idea of some non-trivial mapping between distinct
rule-representation languages or rule-systems. 

Nonetheless, it could be that simply exchanging identical rule-sets
might fall under the RIF in a non-trivial way. For example, metadata
tags associated with the rule sets might provide information concerning

Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2006 15:36:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:37 UTC