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

Action-1053 (Review UCR)

From: Stella Mitchell <stellamit@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 14:01:43 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=9zT0z6dSfBv57GdpiFXbKOqks=U9avdB0+8TA@mail.gmail.com>
To: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Dear WG,

These comments are on UCR as of Sept. 19th; I know there are still some
updates planned to switch the order of sections 4&5 and add additional
analysis about implementability in RIF for some use cases.



-- I think section 3 should be deleted because it doesn't really fit well in
this document and the information in section 3 is covered in the RIF
Overview document. The Venn diagram from section 3 could be moved to the RIF
Overview document. To go along with that the purpose statement in Section 1,
3rd para, 1st sentence would need to be rewritten (it should be updated
anyway, I think, to say that the purpose is to describe the use cases that
guided the design of RIF and to document the design requirements that were
derived from both the use cases and from the basic goals of RIF). And also
to go along with it the 2nd sentence in the last paragraph of Section 1
would need to be deleted.

-- The last sentence of section 6 seems to conflict (or rather to imply that
this requirement wasn't met) with the 2nd part of requirement 5.1.6. The
explanation might be that 'should' is used instead of 'must'  ...but
anyway, in other documents Core is described as enabling limited rule
exchange between logic rules and production rules, so I would reword or
delete the last paragraph of section 6.

-- It could be confusing that the end of use case 4.2 says "This used case
is not adequately supported by the current RIF dialects as they do not
specify explicit constructs for integrity constraints " and then the 3rd
paragraph of the conclusion in section 6 says "For example, the invariant
meaning of a set of integrity-constraint-enforcing rules would be
represented within the appropriate RIF dialect... "

 -- Some statements saying "currently" or "the group expects" could be
updated to reflect the state that this phase of the WG is completed:
      -- Section 6, 3rd para: "The working group expects that RIF...will
consist of several dialects"
      -- Section 5, 1st para: "The Working Group has currently approved the
following requirements. "
      -- Section 5, 2nd para: "...which need to be fully covered by the
currently specified RIF dialects
      -- Section 4, 2nd para: "guide users to RIF's currently specified
      -- Section 6, 2nd to last para, 1st sentence:  "must be" --> "has

-- Section 1, last para, 1st sentence: remove the statement about
"...several accordant critical success factors for RIF"  because section 2
now just talks about goals, and only in one sentence mentions an implication
of a goal, but I don't think anyone would relate that to the previous
statement about critical success factors.

-- Section 5:  I would consider not having a sub-section "Basic
Requirements" and just have those at the top level of the section and then
continue to call out the "General Requirements" in a sub-section if needed.
It's hard to believe that requirement 5.2.1 isn't a General Requirement.

-- Section 6, 2nd to last para:
         I would delete the last sentence of this paragraph. ("Other

 typo: Section 4.3, last sentence: engergy --> energy
Received on Sunday, 19 September 2010 18:02:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:58 UTC