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: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 07:11:37 -0700
Message-ID: <637B7E7B51291C48838F5AE1F2ACA1D70D64FD@NA-PA-VBE02.na.tibco.com>
To: "Chris Welty" <cawelty@gmail.com>
Cc: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>, "Christian de Sainte Marie" <csma@ilog.fr>, "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Sounds OK to me. 

[The thought occurs to me that "coverage" could be considered a
critical-success-factor - which also translates directly into coverage
as a requirement ie for RIF to concentrate on rule systems that are
adopted and in use. Ignoring any Heisenberg uncertainty principle
equivalent etc...]

Paul Vincent
TIBCO | Business Optimization | Business Rules & CEP
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Welty [mailto:cawelty@gmail.com]
> Sent: 06 June 2008 15:03
> To: Paul Vincent
> Cc: Sandro Hawke; Christian de Sainte Marie; RIF WG
> Subject: Re: 5.1.6 Rule language coverage <--: UCR Requirements Text
> 
> 
> What about:
> 
> "To achieve widespread adoption, RIF dialects should cover shared
features
> from
> many well-known rule languages"
> 
> -Chris
> 
> 
> Paul Vincent wrote:
> > 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
> >>>>> ...
> >
> >
> 
> --
> Dr. Christopher A. Welty                    IBM Watson Research Center
> +1.914.784.7055                             19 Skyline Dr.
> cawelty@gmail.com                           Hawthorne, NY 10532
> http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty
Received on Friday, 6 June 2008 14:12:26 GMT

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