Re: [UCR] alternative Use case publication

Ah, ok. I somehow skipped the second example box and then
was confused by that section on Implications/Requirements. 
Let me work on this case a bit more to make it clearer.


	--michael  

> Michael Kifer wrote:
> >>As per the action item given to me at today's telecom this use case is
> >>now accessible at
> >>
> >>http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Candidate_Use_Cases_for_2nd_Draft/PublicationAlternative
> >> 
> >>
> >>Allen
> > 
> > 
> > The last section, on negation is empty and is kind of out of place in that
> > use case.

> I am not sure which "section on negation" you are referring to?!?
> 
> This shall be a simple use case on the use of implicit metadata via 
> interlinked rule bases published on the Web and also the use of scoped 
> negation in such a scenario. These are the two aspects I was missing
> in the UCR document so far.
> 
> The need for RIF to define the exact interchange/interaction of such 
> rulesbases manifests in the derived requirements:
> 
> 1. Distributed rulesets on the Web shall provide means to decribe 
> implicit interlinked metadata by rules.
> 
> 2. Cyclic/Recursive dependencies of rulesets deserve special care which 
> makes general interlinked rules more involved than simple one-way RDF 
> data access via SPARQL.
> 
> 3. Negation in queries needs to be explicitly scoped in order not to 
> result in possibly unsound inferences due to incomplete information.
> 
> > There is quite a reasonable use case
> > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Scoped_negation%2C_Encapsulation
> > which covers this issue.
> 
>   Whatever use case covers both abovementioned aspects is fine with me. 
> I don't see how your proposed use case is any simpler/clearer with 
> respect to what I aim at.
> 
> Do you propose two separate new use cases on these aspects?
> 
> best,
> axel
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Axel Polleres
> email: axel@polleres.net  url: http://www.polleres.net/
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 7 March 2006 23:44:47 UTC