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

RE: ACTION-451: Review UCR

From: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 04:40:31 -0700
Message-ID: <8F4A4531BB49A74387A7C99C7D0B0E0503CCD344@NA-PA-VBE02.na.tibco.com>
To: "Adrian Paschke" <Adrian.Paschke@gmx.de>, <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
Cc: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Indeed. "UCR needs to be tied to the solution we propose" is somewhat unfortunate phrasing, as it implies adjusting the use cases (aka problem statements) to match the solution we have built. In other words: find the problem that matches the solution.

Perhaps a better phrase would be "UCR needs to be developed such that the solutions we propose are aligned with the problems of rule interchange." Or somesuch :)

But I think the intent is clear - we need to develop further UCR. 

(Disclaimer: I have an overdue action to develop further one of the use cases...).

Paul Vincent
TIBCO | Business Rules & CEP
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Adrian Paschke
> Sent: 25 March 2008 10:37
> To: gary.hallmark@oracle.com
> Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
> Subject: AW: ACTION-451: Review UCR
> 
> 
> Hi Gary,
> 
> Thanks for your comments.
> 
> I think RIF UCR and the RIF test cases are even more important for the
> adoption of W3C RIF, than RIF FLD and RIF BLD. For instance, many ontology
> developers and implementers only study the OWL use cases and syntax
> example and don't know anything about Description Logics. So, in my
> opinion publishing UCR is on the critical path of RIF.
> 
> But, I agree with you that we need to make the use cases more consistent
> and need to add concrete examples. For that, we need a more or less stable
> version of the presentation syntax in order to avoid syntactical
> inconsistency due to several updates.
> 
> I will take a look at your UCR issues and see what we can do. I'm
> currently travelling and will be back from Easter holidays on Thursday.
> 
> Best, Adrian
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] Im
> Auftrag von Gary Hallmark
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. März 2008 08:14
> An: Sandro Hawke
> Cc: W3C RIF WG
> Betreff: Re: ACTION-451: Review UCR
> 
> 
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> 
> --
> Ist Ihr Browser Vista-kompatibel? Jetzt die neuesten
> Browser-Versionen downloaden: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/browser
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2008 11:41:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:47 GMT