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

[UCR] use case document comments

From: Paula-Lavinia Patranjan <paula.patranjan@ifi.lmu.de>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:17:17 +0100
Message-ID: <4416DE7D.9060504@ifi.lmu.de>
To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Dear all,

Find below my comments on the use cases document. Overall I think the 
use cases' descriptions are good and their narratives do motivate the 
need for a rule interchange format.

General: rule examples need same formatting.

1.1 This use case is a bit short compared to most of the use cases, but ok.

1.2 In the last para, second last sentence of the use case description: 
is it 'if uses the RIF' or 'it uses the RIF'?

1.3 +1 for Dave's and Axel's comments on the last para of the use case 
description: I think this para should be dropped. I'm also not convinced 
that the second last para brings some added value to the use case itself 
or to the interchange of rules through RIF.

1.4 and 1.5 are a bit too similar, but no need to drop one of them. I 
think both are important.

1.5 This use case is quite long but I do not see the need for RIF 
explicitly stated; there is something on it at the beginning of the use 
case but I think it would be good to see this also on a couple of examples.

1.6 First para, second sentence: 'Reasoning with these rules'...it is 
not clear which rules are meant here. I don't find in the text the fact 
that MRI stands for magnetic resonance imaging but I think it would be 
good to have it explicitly.

1.7 +1 to Axel's comment: the narrative of this use case should be 
extended. Wouldn't be good to write down what the acronyms stay for 
(e.g. MRI, MAE)? Last para, last sentence: I don't think we need to 
state the requirements on RIF here; perhaps it just needs rewording.

1.8 No comments on this use cases since it is to be replaced by a 
detailed version.

Regards from Munich,

Received on Tuesday, 14 March 2006 15:17:31 UTC

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