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

RE: [UCR] Coverage --> interchange vs exchange

From: Stan Devitt <stan.devitt@gwi-ag.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:38:35 +0100
Message-ID: <1512B5F2ED998C4BB3E2688B8EBEDB79997D1E@mxex-tr-01.gwi-ag.com>
To: "'Vincent, Paul D'" <PaulVincent@fairisaac.com>, Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Indeed, "exchange" is a useful boundary case.

The ability to handle this boundary case should be an RIF requirement
because it arises naturally in the indecomposable primitives of the human
use case - a set of instructions to a human taken as a whole.

The body of such an indecomposable primitive would be identified, exchanged,
and an outcome might possibly be communicated as well.

Without such a capability the RIF would not be extendable.

Stan Devitt
Agfa Healthcare


-----Original Message-----
From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Vincent, Paul D
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 5:24 AM
To: Dave Reynolds
Cc: RIF
Subject: RE: [UCR] Coverage --> interchange vs exchange


Dave - apologies I missed your question. I think you were asking for a
quantification or specification of "exchange" vs "interchange". I would
propose an answer like:

Rules are "simply exchanged" if their format (and underlying fact
representation) does not change when they are transferred between
processes...

Rules are "interchanged" if they undergo any transformation when
communicated between 2 processes (eg via an intermediary).
Received on Monday, 27 February 2006 14:41:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:27 GMT