- From: Vincent, Paul D <PaulVincent@fairisaac.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 03:23:35 -0800
- To: "Dave Reynolds" <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "RIF" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
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