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
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

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 UTC

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