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

RE: RIF UCR --> RIF UC

From: Adrian Paschke <adrian.paschke@biotec.tu-dresden.de>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 21:25:06 +0200
To: "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20080515192456.9FAD770000E7@mailserver.biotec.tu-dresden.de>

Hi Sandro,

The feedback from the three reviews (below) indicates that requirements and
critical success factors should be removed (i.e. UCR would become UC), and
that the use cases should be represented in the syntax and semantics of RIF
FLD/BLD -- guiding others to RIF. I already started representing the current
use cases, but several further updates and new examples are needed. 

Since RIF BLD and FLD are now more stable and UCR has been considered as an
important phase 1 publication, it is now the prefect time to discuss the
final phase 1 shape of UC(R), so that I can finish my work on it.


>From Igor’s review:

Requirements seem irrelevant at this stage and should
be dropped from the title, and Critical Factor Analysis
is also mostly irrelevant.
The main purpose of the UC document should be motivation
for RIF and illustrations how FLD/BLD address various
aspects of use cases.


>From Chris’s review:

Up until now, the UCR document has provided us a set of requirements, as
well as some "design constraints" that have guided our design of BLD.  Going
forward, the UCR document will serve as a publicity vehicle for RIF.  It's
purpose is not to guide us anymore, but to guide others to RIF, to explain
as simply as possible what RIF dialects are for and why anyone should
consider using them.  It should not be a tutorial, focusing on the "Why use
RIF"? questions and not "How to use RIF", but it should do this with clear
motivating examples (i.e. Use Cases) expressed in the syntax&semantics we
have developed.


>From Gary’s review:

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. 

-Adrian

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] Im
Auftrag von Sandro Hawke
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. Mai 2008 20:20
An: Adrian Paschke
Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Betreff: Re: RIF UCR --> RIF UC 



> As you recommended, I will split off the requirements so that UCR becomes
> RIF UC and will further tailor the use cases to RIF BLD.

I'd want to hear and think about this more before endorsing such a move,
as (I imagine) would most of the rest of the WG.

Can you summarize the idea and the arguments?

    -- Sandro
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2008 19:25:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:48 GMT