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

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

From: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:01:24 -0700
Message-ID: <637B7E7B51291C48838F5AE1F2ACA1D70D6389@NA-PA-VBE02.na.tibco.com>
To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: "Christian de Sainte Marie" <csma@ilog.fr>, "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Well, that's certainly *a* coverage requirement :)

But I think (i.e. my interpretation of) the meaning we are trying to
convey is:

     Every standard RIF dialect should* support the rule processing
semantics** and commonly used language attributes*** of the widely
deployed rule engines that the dialect is meant to support. 

[[Explanation: 
* = weaker requirement than "must", as this is difficult to measure
** = allows for RIF dialects that are not the focus of deployment at
this time, or which are still considered R&D
*** = this may be too onerous. 
]]

	A rule engine's "processing semantics" is the functional
algorithm used to interpret rules.

	A rule engine's "commonly used language attributes" are the set
of operators and functions**** that are used in some majority***** of
rulesets that could be considered for interchange. 

	A rule engine is considered "widely deployed" if it has over 100
end-user deployments OR over 1,000 end-user developers. ****** 

[[**** = there may be some BLD-compliant term to use here.
***** = again, not measurable, but RIF will need to decide what is to be
supported for this to be measurable
****** = open to debate on this definition]]

Paul Vincent
TIBCO | Business Optimization | Business Rules & CEP
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org]
> Sent: 05 June 2008 19:44
> To: Paul Vincent
> Cc: Christian de Sainte Marie; RIF WG
> Subject: Re: 5.1.6 Rule language coverage <--: UCR Requirements Text
> 
> 
> 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 20:02:16 GMT

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