RE: [UCR] Coverage

Hi Paul,

I did actually say "seems to be required" because their may be room for
debate as to what is actually needed in the RIF vis-a-vis RDF.  My
saying that these items "seem" to be required is based on the
discussion on this email list, Jos's discussion in
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/bNode_Semantics, the RIF WG
charter and Dave's use case.  

I may very well be mistaken in my understanding and/or conclusions.
Let's see what Dave and others have to say about it.


Allen


________________________________

	From: Vincent, Paul D [mailto:PaulVincent@fairisaac.com] 
	Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 3:26 PM
	To: Ginsberg, Allen; Dave Reynolds; RIF
	Subject: 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 J.

	 

	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

Received on Monday, 20 February 2006 20:41:35 UTC