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 14:26:46 -0500
Message-ID: <90A462F2D6E869478007CD2F65DE877C83F660@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>


I guess we just see things differently on this one.

John, Said, Donald:  do you have a preference over [2] versus [3]?  

Unless I hear otherwise by sometime today I will go with [3] for the
frozen draft.


-----Original Message-----
From: Christian de Sainte Marie [mailto:csma@ilog.fr] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 11:20 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.


Ginsberg, Allen wrote:
> 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.

Right. Actually, this is the point I tried to make: your example above 
illustrates a requirement on the RIF, rather than a usage of, or a need

for the RIF.

My point was simply that I prefered the scenario part of John's version

as a use case, because it tells a story of several players between whom

rules need be interchanged, like all other use cases do. And the story,

illustrated with examples of rules, tells us, albeit implicitely, what 
kind of requirements are set by this sort of usage of the RIF.

> 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.

Agreed. Actually, I prefer the original scenario (the one in the MSWord

version John sent yesterday). I modified [3] to copy that version 
instead, for your convenience.

> It is
> true that not all the specific requirements are explicitly covered,
> that is true of all the use-cases in the UCR.

Right again. I did not mean to say that the UC should cover all the 
underlying requirements: only that a story of interchange illustrated 
what was required from the RIF as well, and made a better case for the 
use of the RIF (than the direct description and illustration of some of

the requirements).

> 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
> to in terms of requirements (e.g., does it require deontic tags?)
> to be figured out when we do the requirements.

Agreed. This is clear from the scenario as well.


Received on Wednesday, 8 March 2006 19:26:51 UTC

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