- From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 16:04:21 +0100
- To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
- Cc: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>, Paula Patranjan <paula.patranjan@pms.ifi.lmu.de>
Dear Friends, During the last telecon of the W3C RIF WG, the question has been discussed, but as far as we could hear/understand not resolved, how to classify the use cases submitted so far. In our opinion, a good classification is important because otherwise there is a risk that only a few use cases remain considered by the WG. This, in our opinion, is undesirable: A rich set of different and complementary use cases is essential for demonstrating the importance/relevance of a Rule Interchange Format. May we suggest a classification scheme along the following complementary criteria (or axes)? Note that the values proposed below for a criteria are not necessarily exclusive, ie several values of a same criteria might apply to a same use case. 1. application field: standard web, semantic web, web services, trust negociation, business process modeling, contextualization/personalization, other. 2. type of rules: normative rules (or structural rules, or integrity constraints), deductive rules (or deduction rules or database views or constructive rules), active (or reactive rules). (These three kinds of rules are explained eg at: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Classification_of_Rules?highlight=%28integrity%29 3. data accessed (ie data "queried" in rule bodies): XML/HTML, RDF, Topic Maps, OWL. 4. data generated (ie data "constructed" in rule heads): XML/HTML, RDF, Topic Maps, OWL. 5. relationship to query language(s): query language(s) that can be used for accessing data (ie query languages that can be called in rule bodies). Possibly, the classification scheme given above can be refined or extended. We volonteer to classify the use cases if this is considered usefull (and if we are given enough time, say up till thre end of January). We wish you all a merry Xmas and happy new year! Regards, -- Francois (Bry) and Paula (Patranjan)
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2005 15:04:39 UTC