Re: [UCR] Resolving overlaps between use cases 1.1,1.4,1.5

Axel Polleres wrote:
> Suggested resolution:
>
> I think this could be nicely combined into one use case with a
> coherent single story which outlines the different stages of business
> rules usage:
> a) contracting (static and dynamic) business rules  and checking
> static consistency.
> b) processing and dynamic integration/update of new rules while
> maintaining consistency with the plicy requirements,
> For all these aspects the requirements in the end of 1.4 hold: "For
> this to be viable from a business perspective it is critical that the
> semantics of the rules and query exchange be completely predictable
> and preferably loss-less."
>
+1

Francois