- From: Vincent, Paul D <PaulVincent@fairisaac.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 09:39:00 -0800
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
I have always assumed that I18N or indeed localization issues are a user interface aspect, not a rule representation issue. Certainly this is the case in the commercial vendor space (that I am in). However, it could be that this is another facet of the human-readable rule use case (ie interchange of rule documentation, like policy statements for custom regulations). However, I have not seen "translation of rules" in any requirement. Paul Vincent Fair Isaac Blaze Advisor --- Business Rule Management OMG Standards for Business Rules, PRR & BPMI mobile: +44 (0)781 493 7229 ... office: +44 (0)20 7871 7229 -----Original Message----- From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Carroll Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 1:26 PM To: public-rif-wg@w3.org Subject: I18N requirements Hi, I have been musing a little on the sort of requirements I think emerge on RIF from the international nature of the Web. I think the primary one is to use identifiers in the rule language that are easy to use globally. This would, IMO, most easily be addressed by the use of IRIs (RFC 3987); possibly restricted to those in NFKC, or NFC, (as recommended but not required in RFC 3987). Given the process of use cases and requirements, am I meant to synthesis a use case that has this requirement? If so, it feels somewhat artificial and make work, but I suppose I can. Jeremy
Received on Monday, 6 February 2006 17:40:59 UTC