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

Input to UCR from Charter

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:04:48 -0400
To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20060622200448.E91234F1D9@homer.w3.org>


I accepted ACTION-37 [1] to analyze the differences between requirements
in the Charter [2] and UCR/Requirements [3] and see if we missed
anything.  Leora and David ended up helping and doing much of the work.

(1) We found two requirements in the charter that the WG has not
discussed: 

  SPARQL

     The Working Group should ensure the rule language is compatible
     with the use of SPARQL as a language for query of the dataset, that
     the extension mechanism is compatible with use of the SPARQL
     protocol for fetching additional datasets, and should aim for
     compatibility with SPARQL's use of XML datatypes, functions and
     operators. 

     [[ It's not clear to me what we should do about this one at this
     point.  Is there someone who wants to propose a Requirement based
     on this, for phase 1? ]]

  XML Syntax

     The primary normative syntax of the language must be an XML syntax. 

     [[ Seems obvious.  I doubt there are objections. ]]

(2) There were some requirements that were explained and/or justified in
the charter, but not really in our approved text.  This text seems like
it may be useful in the future if we decide to add more explanations and
justifications, but would be out-of-place for now.

(3) We also found a few items that looked more like CSF's than
requirements, and which are are not sure were reflected properly in the
CSF document (which Paula is working on now, I belive) :

   Extensibility

     The Working Group must try to keep in mind the various features and
     usage scenarios for rule  languages, to be sure the right kind of
     extensibility is in place. 

   OWL

     It is important that the Working Group maintain compatibility with
     OWL, allowing knowledge  expressed in OWL and in rules to be easily
     used together. 

(4) Finally, we noticed there were several places where the charter
gives us guidance about what language features need to be covered in
phase 1 and might be covered in phase 2.  This bears on the requirements
which come out of RIFRAF.  One approach here is to have someone answer
the RIFRAF questions for the language(s) described by the charter, much
like they would for some other language(s).

David and Leora, if I've left anything out or misrepresented your
understanding of the situation, please correct me.

      -- Sandro

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/37
[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/charter
[3] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Requirements
Received on Thursday, 22 June 2006 20:04:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:29 GMT