RE: [UCR] Coverage

Allen: I must say I am confused: can you humor me with some further
explanation?

 

My "limited" analysis of the requirements:

Representation of RDF transformation rules 

- ??? no interchange implied => not relevant to RIF

Support for object introduction ("gensym" of URI's, bNodes in
conclusions) 

- Required for RDF support?

Quantification over RDF predicates 

- Required for RDF support?

Negation over extensional data 

- Required for RDF support?

 

It would seem to me there was still a requirement for an interchange use
case involving RDF. There seems to be some concensus that this is not
the use case for that as it does not involve interchange :-).

 

At the same time, I would have thought that ANY of the interchange use
cases could be extended to involve representation of conditions etc in
RDF, reasoning over OWL, ...

 

Thanks,

 

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: Ginsberg, Allen [mailto:AGINSBERG@imc.mitre.org] 
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 8:07 PM
To: Vincent, Paul D; Dave Reynolds; RIF
Subject: RE: [UCR] Coverage

 

 

Hi Paul,  

 

I also saw that comment in Dave's original use-case.  And I agree that

this is not an interchange of rules case.

 

However, the RIF charter is clear about the importance of accomodating

RDF in the RIF.  If you look at the requirements of Dave's case they 1)

seem to be very clearly motivated by his use-case and 2) seem to be

requirements that the RIF must meet if it is to support RDF. 

 

Allen

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Vincent, Paul D [mailto:PaulVincent@fairisaac.com] 

Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 2:52 PM

To: Ginsberg, Allen; Dave Reynolds; RIF

Subject: RE: [UCR] Coverage

Importance: Low

 

I have to concur with the commentary on the Message Transformation use

case

<<It is not clear to what extent this is a RIF use case as opposed to a

rule use case, but it is no different in that respect from several of

the currently proposed use cases.>>

 

Indeed: this is a rules use case, not an interchange one. Apart from

the idea "if I need to transform an ontology, someone else might want

to do the same transformation". Which pretty much can apply to most

rules!

 

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 Ginsberg, Allen

Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 5:40 PM

To: Dave Reynolds; RIF

Subject: 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