- From: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
- Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 10:19:31 -0400 (EDT)
- To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Paul Vincent wrote: >The *requirement* is interchange, and a *solution* to achieve that would be a >declarative semantics interchange format. "Interchange" unqualified is insufficient to imply the "functional requirements" we were talking about. I would more completely state it as: Meaning preserving interchange of rules for at least three families of rule languages: Logic Programming, Condition Action, and First Order Logic. Meaning preserving => formal semantics Coverage (which could have been stated wrt rule types instead of languages) => multiple semantics >In my systems engineering days, we used the term "functional requirements" in >order to specify the design constraints deduced from the requirements to guide >the implementation. Generally these are the consensus / obvious deductions from >the (business or high level) requirements - such as if a data store is required >then the functional requirement is to use a database. Perhaps we need candidate >functional requirements listed like this, separate from the critical success >factors + requirements? Agreed. This thread is about determining some of the "functional requirements" or constraints on the language/format design. -Evan
Received on Thursday, 18 May 2006 14:19:42 UTC