Re: comments JosDeBruijn on RIFUCR - List of Classified Requirements (with Duplicate Elimination)]

Jos de Bruijn wrote:

> V. Syntax(es)
> 
> 1) A human legible syntax and a machine processable syntax. (from
> Publication of semantics (e.g. SKOS, RDFS), Automatically generated
> rules)
> 
> JB> comment: not sure what the difference is between "human legible" and
> "machine processable"; I expect that with "machine processable" was
> actually meant "exchange"

"Human readable" means abstract syntax in the case that WG decides
for RDF/XML normative syntax (which would be "machine processable").


> VII. Basic numeric computations & aggregations
> 
> 1) Support for basic numeric computations and aggregate functions.(from
> Automatically generated rules)
> 
> JB> move: to "datatype support"; probably also split the issues of
> numeric built-ins and aggregates.

I agree.

> XII. Representation of probabilistic, uncertain information and degrees
> of truth
> 
> 1) RIF should include representation for uncertain information. (from
> Situation Assessment and Adaptation, Automatically generated rules,
> Fuzzy Reasoning with Brain Anatomical Structures)
> 
> 2) RIF should include representation for probabilistic information.
> (from Situation Assessment and Adaptation, Automatically generated
> rules)
> 
> 3) The RIF Core language should provide well-defined extensions for
> representing degrees of truth (partial truth) of propositions. (from
> Fuzzy Reasoning with Brain Anatomical Structures)
> 
> JB> merge: I don't really see the difference between these three
> requirements; it seems to me that they can be merged.

I agree with the merge, except if 3) explicitely refers to Phase 1.
It seems to me that all these are for Phase 2+.


> XIII. Meta-reasoning / Evolution of rule sets
> 
> 1) RIF should support the ability to manage rule sets dynamically under
> changing conditions. (from Situation Assessment and Adaptation,
> Rule-based Service Level Agreements (SLA) and Web Services)
> 
> 
> 2) Meta rules for meta reasoning. (from Rule Based Service Level
> Management and SLAs for Service Oriented Computing, Supporting the Reuse
> of Rules, Automatically generated rules)


> XXI. Distribution & Scalability
> 
> 3) RIF rules should be represented in a way that other RIF rules can
> transform them, e.g., for ontology mapping, transforming rules (e.g.,
> for distributed inferencing), etc. (from Distributed e-Learning)
> 
> JB> comment: seems more like a general requirement, but I'm not sure
> whether we want to allow the manipulation of RIF rules by RIF rules;
> sounds very messy,

To me it seems to fall under XIII. Meta-reasoning or Syntax.
And it seems a good idea for rules to be able to have rules
as arguments (as full Horn-clauses in eg, Prolog syntax).

Regards,
Igor

Received on Thursday, 23 February 2006 11:06:05 UTC