W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > March 2010

[RIF UCR] Publication plan for the next UCR version

From: Adrian Paschke <adrian.paschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 16:27:46 +0100
To: "'Leora Morgenstern'" <leora@cs.nyu.edu>, "'Chris Welty'" <cawelty@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Public-Rif-Wg'" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00a601cabf9d$124a7280$36df5780$@paschke@gmx.de>
Hi Leora,

Since you started editing on UCR I have added you to the editors list of the


I have looked at your restructuring of UCR which now lists the use cases for
the three existing dialects BLD, PRD and FLD. I'm not sure if that is what
we initially intended UCR for.
The use cases which we selected from the 50 members submissions and which we
further detailed in the UCR document where intended to demonstrate the need
and usability of a W3C RIF standard in general.

For those use cases which can be already formalized with the existing RIF
dialects I had added code examples and respective buttons to show/hide them,
in order to "to provide a reference to the design of RIF and a guide for
users and implementers to the current technical specifications of RIF
dialects." (see http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/UCR#Introduction)

I remember that we discussed in the working group that we remove all code
examples from use cases which currently cannot be represented with the
existing RIF dialects, e.g. because they require some expressive logical
formalism such as event calculus. However we said we want to keep these use
cases for the following reason (see

"RIF-UCR also delivers a structured context for formulating future technical
specifications of further RIF dialects. Each dialect targets at a cluster of
similar rule languages and enables platform-independent interoperation
between them (via interchange of RIF rules). The presented use cases
illustrate some of the principal ways in which RIF can provide benefits."

I think this second point of reference is important for RIF as an
interchange format in general.

Another problem with the restructuring into BLD, PRD, and FLD use cases is
that some of them can be represented in both BLD and PRD. I remember we had
long discussion about the business rule use cases which can be represented
in both BLD and PRD, and the presentation syntax for rules using ":-" "->"
or "<--". The new structure might suggest that you cannot represent it in
the other dialect. For instance, use case 4.1. can be represented in BLD and


So I think we should change it back to the original structure and just
update the code examples to the latest syntax from the latest dialect
specification. For those use cases which cannot be represented yet with the
existing RIF dialects we can add a note. Since new dialects are on their
way, such as a logic dialect with negation, some of them can be represented,



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] Im
Auftrag von Leora Morgenstern
Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. März 2010 14:42
An: Chris Welty
Cc: Public-Rif-Wg
Betreff: Re: Next few weeks in RIF


Thanks for the reminder. I did some re-organizing of the document in the
summer and fall, dividing the use cases into BLD, PRD, and FLD. In some
cases, the division was mandatory (e.g., there is at least one case that
must be done in FLD because it makes explicit reference to the concept of
belief); but there were some cases that could go either way (e.g., some
cases seem more naturally expressed in PRD although they could probably be
represented in BLD.)

I also put in a bunch of editors' notes as a reminder to myself of work
that I still need to do, specifically translating cases into the required
dialect, making notation consistent, etc.

I am booked solid this week and traveling next week, but can get to this
the week of March 14th, and would aim to finish within a week from that

Best regards,

On Mon, March 1, 2010 2:51 pm, Chris Welty wrote:
> We'd like to make a push for the next few weeks to get ready for
> transition.  We have some decisions to make, some work to do on the
> documents, etc.
> So, we will resume weekly telecons for about a month, starting tomorrow.
> What is the status of the "other" documents, should we change or update
> them?  Are they in their final form?
> UCR: Leora?
> XML-data: Christian?
> OWL2/RL: Dave?
> Overview: Michael?
> Test: Stella?
> -CC&S
> --
> Dr. Christopher A. Welty                    IBM Watson Research Center
> +1.914.784.7055                             19 Skyline Dr.
> cawelty@gmail.com                           Hawthorne, NY 10532
> http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty

Leora Morgenstern, Ph.D.
Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2010 15:28:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:57 UTC