Re: [RIF][UCR] Human Oriented Business Rules Review

 >PENDING] ACTION: Leora, JeffP to review and report on human oriented 
>rules section of UCR, sending e-mail by friday. [recorded in 
>http://www.w3.org/2006/02/07-rif-minutes.html#action05] 

Here are my comments of the following use case document

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Interchange_of_Human-oriented_Business_Rules

**General comments**

This is a very useful use case, in the sense it seems to have addessed more about interchanging than other use cases. Furthermore, the use case is very general, which is about interchange of rules between  rule specification and editing systems that support people. 


**Specific comments**

1. Abstract 

- Clarification of scope is very helpful. There are two long lists of what are excluded and what are included. It would be even more helpful to present a rule of thumb to tell what are in and what are out.

- s/ In the fully declarative form of rules/in the fully declarative form of rules 

- "Use case description": Afer "rules ... are meant to be understood by people, regardless of whether such rules can be automatically enforced or applied by computers.", it would be useful to stress that the semantic endorsed by the  rules editing system should capture the intended meaning of the rules understood by people.

2. Status

- This section seems to have repeated what are to be presented in the "Examples of rule platforms supporting this use case".

3. Links to related use cases

- In "Agreements are usually between people in different organizational uts", what is "uts"?

- In ` The “Enterprise Information Integration” and “Information Integration with Rules and Taxonomies” use cases cannot integrate information from ...': I am not sure if it is proper to say "the ... (two) use cases cannot integrate information ..."; maybe we should say "tools supporting the two use cases cannot integrate information ...".

4. Relationship to OWL/RDF

- In "Although the linguistics aspect loosely follows a descriptive logic approach", do you mean "a description logic approach"?

- Line 3: an extra "." after "and".

- In " it has not be formalized as such", does it refer to the example implementations mentioned in Section 5, or any possible implementations?

5. Examples of rule platforms supporting this use case

- Seems fine, although all the tools have been mentioned in Section 2 already.

6. Benefits of Interchange

- There is a long list of benefits for the "O2O" rule exchange. It would be more helpful if some sort of summary can be provided.

7. Requirements on the RIF

- I think the use case also provides a requirement on ensuring the intended meanings of rules understood by people are properly captured by the RIF.

8. Breakdown

Section 8.1 seems to be fine, while the rest are still work in progress.

Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2006 15:56:18 UTC