W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > April 2008

PRD thoughts <--: where to hang the metadata?

From: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:49:07 -0700
Message-ID: <8F4A4531BB49A74387A7C99C7D0B0E0503EF3944@NA-PA-VBE02.na.tibco.com>
To: "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>, "Jos de Bruijn" <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>, "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Thanks Harold. Presumably this is to add some structure for rule
interchange across authoring systems, in particular aiding those
languages that support nested rulesets/groups at present (not that I
know any - presumably there are some).

For interchange between an authoring and a deployment system, presumably
ruleset/group organization is mostly irrelevant (ie might be metadata
for runtime reporting).

For PRD rulesets that require a signature, then maybe signature info
will also be (use as a representation mechanism) metadata.

Note that PRR does not go into this level of detail / organization (rule
management being viewed as a different topic to rule modeling, and to
avoid issues of nested rulesets with different signatures).

Cheers
Paul Vincent
TIBCO | Business Optimization | Business Rules & CEP
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Boley, Harold
> Sent: 24 April 2008 04:44
> To: Jos de Bruijn; Sandro Hawke
> Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: where to hang the metadata?
> 
> 
> Just for clarification:
> 
> Ruleset was renamed into Group and made nestable.
> 
> The root above Group is called Document.
> 
> In BLD, a Group contains RULEs and/or other Groups.
> 
> So, roughly, we have:
> 
> 
> Document
>     |
>   Group
>     |
> RULE|Group
> 
> 
> -- Harold
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Jos de Bruijn
> Sent: April 23, 2008 12:07 PM
> To: Sandro Hawke
> Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: where to hang the metadata?
> 
>  > Thinking over today's difficult discussion about metadata, it seems
> to
> > me that the right solution is this:
> >
> >    1.  Allow metadata, syntactically, on every object, by way of a
> >        <meta> child element which is legal on every capitalized
> (class)
> >        element.  No need for wrapper elements.  In a normal rule,
the
> >        "Forall" is where you'd hang the metadata.  I have some ideas
> for
> >        the PS, but no favorites.
> >
> >    2.  Add a "group" element, for making these conceptual groupings
> that
> >        Michael speaks of (and I'm familiar with from my own rule
> >        programming), where the metadata applies to a set of a few
> >        rules).
> >
> > What about this approach would be so bad?
> 
> For me the question was not how to attach metadata, but rather whether
> and how to identify rules.
> 
> For a long time our top-level element in RIF was the ruleset and the
> second-level element was the rule.
> 
> Recently the notion of "group" was introduced, which lies between the
> ruleset and the rule: a ruleset contains groups and groups contain
> rules.
> So, we have:
> 
> Ruleset
>     |
>   Group
>     |
>   Rule
> 
> I myself do not really see the need for this group element in BLD, but
I
> 
> do not strongly object to it.
> 
> The current draft of BLD allows identifying rule sets and groups, but
> not rules.  I was arguing that it should be possible to identify
rules.
> 
> 
> Best, Jos
> 
> >
> >        -- Sandro
> >
> 
> --
> Jos de Bruijn            debruijn@inf.unibz.it
> +390471016224         http://www.debruijn.net/
> ----------------------------------------------
> Only two things are infinite, the universe and
> human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the
> former.
>    -- Albert Einstein
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2008 11:49:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:48 GMT