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

RE: [UCR] Managing Inter-Organizational Business Policies & Practices: Edited Version.

From: Ginsberg, Allen <AGINSBERG@imc.mitre.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 10:07:26 -0500
Message-ID: <90A462F2D6E869478007CD2F65DE877C83F55E@IMCSRV5.MITRE.ORG>
To: "Christian de Sainte Marie" <csma@ilog.fr>
Cc: "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>, <john.hall@modelsys.com>, "Said Tabet" <stabet@comcast.net>, "Donald Chapin" <donald.chapin@btinternet.com>

Hi Christian,

I beg to differ on this.  [2] does make the case for interchange: it
specifically says that meta-data indicating that a rule is of the
human-machine interactive type is required to capture the meaning in
the RIF so rules can be interchanged accurately.

Also, I have difficulty seeing a narrative "flow" or logical sequence
of premises and inferences in the original scenario.  [2] attempts to
lay out the logic of the scenario in a step-by-step fashion.  It is
true that not all the specific requirements are explicitly covered, but
that is true of all the use-cases in the UCR.  

The key design goal of this use-case is to allow for interchange of
rules that are of a human-machine interaction type.  What that amounts
to in terms of requirements (e.g., does it require deontic tags?) needs
to be figured out when we do the requirements.


-----Original Message-----
From: Christian de Sainte Marie [mailto:csma@ilog.fr] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 8:39 AM
To: Ginsberg, Allen
Cc: RIF WG; john.hall@modelsys.com; Said Tabet; Donald Chapin
Subject: Re: [UCR] Managing Inter-Organizational Business Policies &
Practices: Edited Version.

John, Don, Said (and all),

Reading John's revised version of the use case [1] and Allen's version 
[2], I wonder if the scenario part in John's version, introduced by the

first paragraph of Allen's, would not be the best mix.

My point is that everything in John's version before the scenario is, 
actually, requirements and design goals, whereas the real UC is the 
scenario, that illustrates all the requirements that the first part 
details and discusses (well, the UC is fictitious, actually; but you 
know what I mean :-)

Summarising part 1 of John's version as did Allen has two drawbacks, 
IMHO: it focuses on one single requirement where the scenarios 
illustrates most if not all of them; most importantly, it does not make

the case for interchange at all (wheras the scenario does).

So, my proposal would be to use [3] in the editor's draft, instead (and

have that version reviewed by the WG).

Notice that we are talking about the Use Cases section only: 
requirements and design goals will be detailed and discussed in later 

What do you think?


Received on Wednesday, 8 March 2006 15:07:35 UTC

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