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: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 15:23:33 -0500
Message-ID: <90A462F2D6E869478007CD2F65DE877C8903A6@IMCSRV5.MITRE.ORG>
To: "Chris Welty" <cawelty@frontiernet.net>, "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>


Chris,

You say

> This is precisely what I would live to avoid.  RIF is not a format
for 
> exchanging legal language between people so that they can negotiate.

I am not sure what you mean by "legal language", however, this is
pretty much the type of negotiation that takes place in the
"Negotiating business Contracts" use-case.  I don't see a great deal of
difference between the negotiation envisioned in that case and in this
one.

To the extent that the RIF enables people to negotiate precise-terms
using the RIF, they are thereby more likely to come up with something
that is machine-processable.  That could be viewed as a benefit of the
RIF.

As you say, perhaps, these considerations should not influence the
design of the RIF, but in that case we need to rethink the implications
of the aforementioned use-case as well.

Allen
 



 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Chris Welty
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 2:28 PM
To: RIF WG
Subject: Re: [UCR] Managing Inter-Organizational Business Policies &
Practices: Edited Version.



The new draft of this use case is much better, but there are still
parts 
in it that border on what I initially objected to.  Again, I think RIF 
is clearly about machine-processable rules.  Of course if people want
to 
use it for other things, great, I won't stop them, but these other 
things (like writing regulations or laws) shoudl not influence the 
design of RIF.

Most of the current version is OK, I think, except:

"EU-Rent UK finds some problems in applying the rules. One is that 
sometimes it has to give free upgrades to customers. It wants to have 
one of the rules for insurance tax changed.

For an individual rental, the tax on aggregated insurance is 1.5% of
the simple cost of the rental actually paid by the customer (not the
price of rental of the upgrade provided)

It provides this to AutoLaw, which will negotiate it with the
regulators 
and disseminate the outcome to EU-Rent and its other customers. "

This is precisely what I would live to avoid.  RIF is not a format for 
exchanging legal language between people so that they can negotiate.

Also:

"It also has some existing insurance policies in place. They provide 
third-party insurance as an explicit item, and EU-Rent UK cannot get 
refunds on early termination. It asks corporate HQ for rules:

Cost of third-party insurance will be built into the basic cost of each
rental, unless there is an alternative insurance already in place"


I do not see how this rule could be implemented in RIF, in particular 
"will be built in".  What is that supposed to mean?  This is not a 
machine processable rule.

What do others think here?

-Chris
Received on Friday, 10 March 2006 20:26:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:27 GMT