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

Re: 5.1.6 Rule language coverage <--: UCR Requirements Text

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 14:44:02 -0400
To: "Paul Vincent" <pvincent@tibco.com>
Cc: "Christian de Sainte Marie" <csma@ilog.fr>, "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <14786.1212691442@ubuhebe>


Let me try to paraphrase and slightly sharpen your proposed requirement:

    There must be at least one standard RIF dialect suited to conveying
    the rules used by each widely deployed rule engine.  (An engine is
    considered widely deployed if it currently has an installation and
    group of users at five or more separate organizations.)

Does that get at what you're trying to say?   (Whether five is the right
number is kind of beside the point.)

I don't think anything like this is practical.  For instance, I don't
expect any RIF dialect to be suited to conveying the rules used by
SWI-Prolog, which is certainly a widely deployed rule engine.  (I pick
it mostly because I know it the best.)

So we could accept this requirement and then say we'll never meet it,
but I don't see the point in that.

I would, however, advocate including text which explains why this is
*not* a requirement.

    -- Sandro


> > > How about:
> > >
> > > RIF* must allow** rule interchange*** between common deployed****
> rule
> > > engines. =3D20
> > >
> > > * =3D3D RIF, the format, any extensions, and appropriate translators
> >=20
> > Standard extensions or third-party non-standard extensions?
> 
> [PV>] Can a 3rd-party non-standard extension be part of / be regulated
> by a standard such as RIF? I'd assume extensions must be constrained to
> "standard extensions" (for what its worth).
> 
> * =3D RIF, the format, any standard extensions, and appropriate
> translators
> 
> >=20
> > > ** =3D3D subject to the development of appropriate compliant
> translators
> > > *** =3D3D interchange of rulesets against either a prespecified fact
> or =3D
> > > data
> > > model, or including said fact or data model
> > > **** =3D3D rule engines limited to individual research topics or
> > > institutions are assumed not to be both common and deployed; however
> RIF
> > > does not exclude these being covered.
> >=20
> > If standard extensions, then when do you think we can achieve this?
> > Certainly not in the next couple years, right?  We'd have to subsume
> the
> > prolog standardization work, etc.  And every time some rule vendor
> added
> > a feature, we would have failed in this goal until we caught up.
> 
> [PV>] I'd say that these issues are inherent in RIF as a concept. The
> lack of metrics / difficulty in assessing whether this requirement is
> handled does not though detract from the general requirement for
> coverage. IMHO.
> 
> >=20
> >      -- Sandro
> >=20
> > > Paul Vincent
> > > TIBCO | Business Optimization | Business Rules & CEP
> > > =3D20
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
> > > [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
> > > > On Behalf Of Sandro Hawke
> > > > Sent: 03 June 2008 15:53
> > > > To: Christian de Sainte Marie
> > > > Cc: RIF WG
> > > > Subject: UCR Requirements Text
> > > >=3D20
> > > ...
> > > >=3D20
> > > >=3D20
> > > > > 5.1.6 Rule language coverage
> > > > >
> > > > > RIF must cover the set of languages identified in the
> _Rulesystem
> > > > > Arrangement Framework_. See the _Coverage_ section.
> > > >=3D20
> > > > Both those links are broken.  How about this:
> > > >=3D20
> > > >       RIF (with extensions) must cover all widely-deployed rule
> > > >       languages.
> > > >=3D20
> > > >=3D20
> > > ...
Received on Thursday, 5 June 2008 18:44:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:49 GMT