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

Re: ACTION-451: Review UCR

From: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 00:13:48 -0700
Message-ID: <47E8A62C.80005@oracle.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:49 UTC