Re: A thought about requirements

This thread is no longer productive.

Frank, the RIF standard will be defined by the working group, not by the 
market, so let's spend our energy doing that.  Work on the requirements 
document, rather than trying to craft a witty response, we need a solid 
version by the f2f.

-Chris


Bijan Parsia wrote:
>
> On May 29, 2006, at 3:18 AM, Francis McCabe wrote:
>
>> If your attitude is really representative then I will have few 
>> alternatives.
>
> Well, I guess we differ in whose attitude needs adjustment. I think, 
> throughtout the groups existence, I've been very clear about my 
> organization's interests, but also tried to be open to other 
> organizations needs. Compromise and consensus. But I don't see why I 
> have to chuck my interests. They aren't going to go away. If you feel 
> that PR interests are being neglected, then, by all means, stick up 
> for them. I've no objection to *that*. But I do have an objection to 
> you defining what my orgs needs and interests are, and what counts as 
> success for us. You'd do better to *discern* them and try to work as 
> fruitfully as you can with and around them. *Mutual* respect is the 
> way forward, not steamrolling.
>
>> Groups are self-selecting in that way.
>
> Again, I am here to represent my organizations interests, not yours. 
> It would be nice if there were useful common ground and I mean to seek 
> it. But we pay dues too, y'know. And I don't feel that you are 
> offering any common ground by pronoucing that only PR matter. If they 
> matter, let group members who have an interest in them speak up, bring 
> proposals. Oh wait, they do! Good for them.
>
>> But, several members of the group are in fact motivated by other than 
>> academic politics.
>
> Oh piffle and tish. Almost the cheapest and lamest of shots.  Why not 
> go whole hog and say, "In the *real* world..."
>
> That I am an academic doesn't mean that I am *only* an academic, or 
> that my organizations are motivated primarily by some objectionable 
> sense of academic politics. If I represented a Prolog vendor I warrant 
> that production rules would not be my primary interest. I fail to see 
> why this is controversial or objectionable, nor why it is occasion for 
> being snotted at.
>
> I build systems that have substantial and interested user bases. I'd 
> like to meet their needs. They happen not to include business rules of 
> a production sort. How does it help to denigrate them and me? Or, more 
> important, to dismiss them? If we *can't* feasibly deal with everyone, 
> then yes, someone will be shafted. So? Maybe it's me, maybe it's PRs, 
> maybe it's something else.
>
>> I was hoping to spur them somewhat.
>
> Spur away. Great idea. I've no problem with such spurage. Bully pulpit 
> away. If the group moves too far in one direction, I imagine my orgs 
> will go elsewhere. If it moves too far in another, I imagine yours 
> will. This is all normal and, in fact, proper. If we manage to find a 
> good middle ground, neither will. If we find only a bad middle ground 
> and stay there, perhaps both will :)
>
> But let me go back to the main point: For my organizations, it matters 
> not a whit if PRs control 95% of the market. (Note again, this doesn't 
> have to be because of academia. A rules startup that wanted to break 
> into the business rules market using a different paradigm would be in 
> the same place.) (Oh, and how big is that market as it stands? What if 
> I care about growing a new market where the ground is a bit more 
> level.) Successful PR exchange is not the measure of success or 
> relevance for us. We don't *object* to PR exchange, but that's a 
> different matter. Now pretty clearly, not doing PRs will doom the RIF 
> to irrelevance to the PR rules vendors. But that's a rather different 
> and scoped claim.
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>
>
>
>


-- 
Dr. Christopher A. Welty                    IBM Watson Research Center
+1.914.784.7055                             19 Skyline Dr.
cawelty@frontiernet.net                     Hawthorne, NY 10532
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty

Received on Monday, 29 May 2006 03:00:54 UTC