- From: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 00:13:48 -0700
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: W3C RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Yes. UCR needs to be tied to the solution we propose, similar in style to the OWL UCR. Sandro Hawke wrote: >> Summary >> ------- >> >> The document appears "frozen in time" -- a time when there were many >> competing voices in the group, many ideas that were not fully fleshed >> out, and little consensus. >> >> What I would expect from the UCR: >> Use cases that motivate and illustrate the proposed Phase I technical >> solution (FLD/BLD and XML/RDF/OWL integration). Some consistency >> amongst the use cases, including using the same syntax (some simplified >> FLD presentation syntax) and describing how to access XML or RDF data as >> frames. >> >> What I get upon reading the UCR: >> Use cases with little consistency amongst themselves (not guided by the >> same solution) and that claim to motivate a questionable hierarchy of >> "critical success factors". The document is useless as a tutorial or >> primer to the technical specification. >> >> We have enough capability in our technical solution (FLD/PRD and semweb >> integration), that with a bit of hand-waving about translating xml >> schema to frame axioms, we can represent almost all the use cases in FLD >> (there is 1 use case involving production rules). The pity is that from >> the UCR document one arrives at the opposite conclusion: that we are >> struggling to organize the problem space (and hence the foray into >> critical success factors). >> > > So you would recommend against publishing UCR until some serious > re-writing is done? > > -- Sandro > > >
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2008 07:15:55 UTC