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

[UCR] use case document comments

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@uibk.ac.at>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 13:38:15 +0100
Message-ID: <441567B7.8000300@uibk.ac.at>
To: public-rif-wg@w3.org

Dear all,

Please find below my comments (on behalf of DERI Innsbruck) on the 
current use case and requirements document.

  As for our vote whether to publish this version as a first draft:
I understand that the working group wants something out, and it is in 
principle fine as a first draft. However, we would like to emphazise 
that we would like to see the next version soon (possibly we could agree 
on a concrete tentatvie date already in tomorrow's phone conf).
  This next  version should include the newly proposed use cases
as needed and address the following two points:

1) We think that some of the uses cases on business rules and 
constraints alignment could be merged (i.e. the overall use case 
"exchange and alignement of business rules and constraints" is a bit 
overrepresented), this affects use cases 1.1, 1.4, 1.5.

2) The use cases still vary a lot in detail and motivation. Whereas some
completely miss a single example "rule" and consist only of a very
superficial scenario description (1.8), other ones are still into
technical detail with out giving sufficient background to be considered
self-contained (1.7)



Detailed comments:

1.1
I would rewrite
"widget" to "ordered good" or "purchase order item"
"food stuff" also sounds sloppy to me.

I see the overall message of this use case already covered by
1.4 and 1.5 which are more detailed and think this can be dropped.

1.2 fine, nice use case on policy negotiation.


1.3
The only problem I have with this use case is the last paragraph which
talks about web service QoS/SLA rules. While this is a nice application
area, agreed, it does not add so much to this section.
  Actually, I think a good SLA use case could superseed the current use
case in 1.3, but at the moment/for this version maybe better just drop
this paragraph?

1.4 As mentioned before, I think that either this or 1.1 shall be
dropped, I don't see the added value in having these both. It should
have maybe one or two more example "rules" to make clearer the kind of
rules which are meant here.

1.5 Another use case on business rule exhchange and alignment.
The diffferences of aspects covered here and in 1.4 should be made
clearer, the use case itself is fine.

1.6 a bit long compared to the others but nice.

1.7 This use case shoul be extended in terms of the narrative and
motivation, too technical. It is an important use case though!

1.8 This use case is "narrative only", it should have some example
flavor added, to make clear what kind of rules it talks about.
It seems to talk about merging/sharing mapping rules, intergation rules.

I think that our recently proposed use case is more concrete/clearer in
this respect, and particularly I feel the sapects we mention there not
covered in the current use case document.



best regards,
axel



-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
email: axel@polleres.net  url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Monday, 13 March 2006 12:38:22 GMT

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