RE: [UCR] Coverage --> interchange vs exchange

Dave - apologies I missed your question. I think you were asking for a quantification or specification of "exchange" vs "interchange". I would propose an answer like:

Rules are "simply exchanged" if their format (and underlying fact representation) does not change when they are transferred between processes...

Rules are "interchanged" if they undergo any transformation when communicated between 2 processes (eg via an intermediary).

I guess the latter could include a semantic transformation too, but I would not want to propose a use case for that...! 

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: Dave Reynolds [mailto:der@hplb.hpl.hp.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 1:31 PM
To: Vincent, Paul D
Cc: RIF
Subject: Re: [UCR] Coverage

<snip>

> What am I missing here? Thanks.

It seems like the combination of <rules being exchanged between different 
parties> and <vendor-neutral format for rules> is not sufficient to place 
such a case within RIF from your POV. If so that sounds like a useful 
boundary case. Perhaps could could explain what it is that makes a rule 
exchange sufficient of a rule "interchange" for RIF to become relevant?

Dave

Received on Monday, 27 February 2006 11:24:16 UTC