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

Re: RIF UCR --> RIF UC

From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 15:37:02 +0100
Message-ID: <482EED8E.5060408@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
Cc: Adrian Paschke <adrian.paschke@biotec.tu-dresden.de>, public-rif-wg@w3.org

Gary Hallmark wrote:
> 
> 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? 

No, I agree.

> Aren't they 
> very uneven, and don't most seem to require a huge stretch of the use case?

Uneven - yes, stretch - not so huge, at least for the use cases I cared 
about :-)

> 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 :-) 

:-) I actually think the requirements work was not a waste of time but 
we made less use of it in guiding the work that I had hoped.

> If not deleted, it should be condensed and 
> followed with a frank discussion of what requirements the current spec 
> does and does not address.

My concern is the requirements don't get lost. If the consensus is to 
put them in another document or a web site or a condensed appendix of 
this one then, then I'd be OK with that.


BTW the example BLD rules for case 2.8 ought to use the frame syntax 
since the data being transformed is in RDF.

Dave

> 
> 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 Saturday, 17 May 2008 14:37:43 GMT

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