W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org > August 2005

Re: Draft charter: Scoping of intent?

From: Anthony Finkelstein <anthony@systemwire.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 16:40:24 +0100
Message-Id: <p06210234bf35127495f5@[]>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org

This sudden flurry of messages has hit me while away on holiday and I 
regret I have not been able to participate as I would like. My views 
have of course been expressed clearly in previous threads. I am glad 
that there is strong scientific interest in this area from academics, 
their contributions should lead to a stronger understanding of the 
logical underpinning of rule languages. I am sure also that the best 
of these will, after peer review, be published in good journals. I do 
not feel however that the interest in breaking new ground on a 
'super-rule-language' should shape what is essentially a standards 

As a small vendor we (and our customers, primarily but not 
exclusively, large financial services institutions) would like to see 
some simple steps taken (roughly expressed as a phased plan similar 
to that of Sandro):

1. agreement on metadata for rule sets that permits such rule sets 
(from different systems and vendors) to be distinguished and 
collectively managed.

2. agreement on metadata to be associated with rule 'engines' that 
describes the capabilities of those engines, the types of rules they 
can interpret and the semantics associated with them.

[and perhaps agreement on a protocol by which these can be queried]

3. agreement on metadata how the resources to which the rules are 
applied can be described.


Anthony Finkelstein
Director of Strategy

TEL: +44 (0)20 7679 7293 (Direct Dial)
MOB: +44 (0)7771 813981
EMAIL: anthony@systemwire.com
WEB: http://www.systemwire.com

Received on Saturday, 27 August 2005 15:40:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:48:34 UTC