- From: Stan Devitt <stan.devitt@gwi-ag.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:38:35 +0100
- To: "'Vincent, Paul D'" <PaulVincent@fairisaac.com>, Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Indeed, "exchange" is a useful boundary case. The ability to handle this boundary case should be an RIF requirement because it arises naturally in the indecomposable primitives of the human use case - a set of instructions to a human taken as a whole. The body of such an indecomposable primitive would be identified, exchanged, and an outcome might possibly be communicated as well. Without such a capability the RIF would not be extendable. Stan Devitt Agfa Healthcare -----Original Message----- From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Vincent, Paul D Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 5:24 AM To: Dave Reynolds Cc: RIF Subject: 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).
Received on Monday, 27 February 2006 14:41:05 UTC