RE: [UCR] Coverage

Hi Dave,

Thanks for your feedback.

Maybe it was a mistake to include Message Transformation under Third
Party Rule-Interchange Services because the former actually does not
involve interchange of rules so much as interchange of RDF-based data
that has been massaged by rules. I think it was the fact that Message
Transformation includes a third-party, namely the "Mediary Service,"
that led me to see that connection.  

The rules in the Message Transformation use-case are RDF-transformation
rules.  The RIF charter is very clear about the importance of
compatiblity with RDF semantics.  So I am wondering if there shouldn't
be a new general use case category with a title something like
"Cross-Ontology RDF-Data Interchange."  This could be based on a
fleshed-out version of your original use-case.  What we want is a
detailed scenario. In your orignal use-case Wiki page you say: "A
concrete narrative and example data set and rules could be provided if
it becomes clear this is a useful enough case to expand in such
detail,"  so I gather you could provide one.

Obviously this is something that the WG as a whole has to agree upon.


Allen 


-----Original Message-----
From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Dave Reynolds
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 11:23 AM
To: RIF
Subject: [UCR] Coverage


[Second email required to submit a "no" answer on the strawpoll, this
time 
for section "coverage".]

A primary use case for us is the use of rules to transform a set of RDF

statements from one ontology to another: 
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Message_Transformation

This use case has been grouped under general use case section 7 (Third 
Party Rule-Interchange Services) but that section of the UCR draft
document 
seems specific to policy rules. One would not guess an ability of RIF
to 
express RDF transformations from the write up of that section.

The ontology transformation use case may be implicit as a special case
of 
Information Integration, if so it needs to more explicit in that
section.

Dave

Received on Monday, 20 February 2006 17:40:25 UTC