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

[RIF][UCR] Straw poll comments

From: George Stoilos <gstoil@image.ntua.gr>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 17:38:59 +0200
To: "Public-Rif-Wg \(E-mail\)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Cc: "Giorgos Stamou \(E-mail\)" <gstam@softlab.ntua.gr>
Message-ID: <002601c63958$6f31d580$760b6693@image.ece.ntua.gr>
Section 2.1(No)
This UC needs some effort to make explicit the role of rule interchange (if

Section 2.2 (No)
This section need revision in order to make the need for interchange or
merging rulesets more explicit. The first scenario looks very similar to the
one in the Charter, but the points where merging is mentioned (in the
Charter) have been removed. Maybe these could strengthen the scenario. Rule
interchage should also be mentioned in the second scenarion. For example the
Hospital's Brain Reasoning System could integrate rules that come from
heterogeneous rule bases of different research labs, to enhance its results
or even to aquire knowledge for a domain that it does not have.

Section 2.3 (Yes)
But need to be extended.

Section 2.4 (Yes)
I don't see what rules are being exchanged in this use case. I get the
feeling that rules are executed localy (e.g. decide if you are going to send
your credit card) and then some ground facts are transmitted (address, city,
credit card) or a no answer. 

Section 2.5 (Yes)
I agree with Jim that this UC is a bit hard to understand. I think that it
should also be reduced in size.

Section 2.6 (Yes)

Section 2.7 (Yes)

Section 2.8 (Yes, but..)
I also (like Christian) believe that this use case is no different from UC 6
(Publication). They both speak of an ontology enhanced with rules, which add
more semantics on properties. Doesn't the rule for the hasUncle property
communicate the semantics of this property, as it is written in UC 6? 

G. Stoilos

Received on Friday, 24 February 2006 15:39:14 UTC

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