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

Re: [RIF] Critical Success Factors for Goal 1

From: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 13:12:38 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200605181712.NAA19652@clue.mel.nist.gov>
To: public-rif-wg@w3.org

Allen Ginsberg wrote:

>	The RIF standard presupposes that given sets of
>	rule-language families are provided.
>	Initially, these sets may be specified purely
>       extensionally (i.e., by enumerating the
>	specific rule-langugage members).  Also, it is possible
>       that intially (in phase 1 of
>	the RIF activity) that only one such set is provided.

What is the requirement here and on what/whom?  Is it that the
RIF specification must define the rule-language families that 
it supports?

>	For each rule-language family (that the RIF supports)
>	the RIF must provide a vendor/platform-independent 
>	canonical format for representing rules in that family. 

Why must the format be canonical?  An alternative would allow 
various representation forms for the same rule content as 
long as the meaning was unambiguous (as in OWL and RDF)?
I don't object to this added constraint, but it should be 
explicitly justified.


Evan K. Wallace
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
Received on Thursday, 18 May 2006 17:12:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:39 UTC