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

Re: RIF UCR --> RIF UC

From: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 11:38:07 -0700
Message-ID: <482DD48F.8020402@oracle.com>
To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: Adrian Paschke <adrian.paschke@biotec.tu-dresden.de>, public-rif-wg@w3.org

I like the work Adrian has done on the document.  The examples look much 
more uniform, and provide a much better introduction to the spec.  I 
also appreciate the fact the Adrian's changes have been available on the 
wiki for some time for all to see.  Can you honestly say upon reading 
that you wouldn't like to delete every "Motivates" section?  Aren't they 
very uneven, and don't most seem to require a huge stretch of the use 
case? 

And the Goals, Critical Success Factors, etc?  Too many words, too many 
pictures.  Makes it look like we wasted a year with little output so we 
dressed it up a lot :-)  If not deleted, it should be condensed and 
followed with a frank discussion of what requirements the current spec 
does and does not address.

Dave Reynolds wrote:
>
> So is the proposal that there will be no requirements in the final set 
> of RIF documents?
>
> I can understand the desire to make the UCR document more relevant to 
> our current state. However, it does seem a bit cheating to loose the 
> requirements - especially since one could debate how well the current 
> design meets them all. Is the proposal to put the requirements on a 
> web page or something instead?
>
> Also could you explain more what you mean about "tailoring the use 
> cases to BLD"? Surely the UC(R) document is about RIF not BLD. Several 
> of the original use cases are not motivated by specifically logic 
> dialects and don't use function symbols, equality etc.
>
> Dave
Received on Friday, 16 May 2008 18:41:06 GMT

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