RE: proposed UCR outline

Hi Sandro,

> UCR is getting rather disorganized.   It's kind of unreadable.

Agreed.

> Here's a proposal for how to organize it, motivated in part 
> by a discussion with David yesterday, after the meeting 
> ended.  If people like this organization, we can start to 
> figure out how to get the text to look like this. 

We should probably discuss during our "editors call" (whenever that is).

> 
>    -- Sandro
> 
> ================================================================
>   
> 
> 1.  Introduction
> 
>       ?    what are rules?   why standardize?   some history?

I went ahead and copied (with minor edits) Frank's 
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/What_is_a_Rule_Interchange_Format_And_Why_Create_One

to the introduction:
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Introduction

It's not perfect, but it's better than our earlier placeholder. There is some overlap with the preamble in section 2, but we can fix that later.

> 
> 2.  Use Cases
> 
>       for each use case:
> 
>         title
>         text
>         links to requirements, maybe CSFs
>         (later: links to test cases)
>         (maybe: links to more detailed versions on the wiki for people
>         really trying to solve a problem like this)

For the links to requirements, I quickly did one use case as a sample (see the bottom):
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Negotiating_eBusiness_Contracts_Across_Rule_Platforms

This is how they're done in the RDF Data Access Use Cases and Requirements WD (e.g. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-dawg-uc/#u2.1).

I plan to add the necessary anchors on the wiki today so that the forward pointers have something to point to.

> 3.  Requirements
>    
>      define our terms ("covers", ...)
> 
>      for each requirement:  (in alphabetic order by title)
> 
>         short title (no more than 40 characters - used for links)
>         statement (1 paragraph)
>         links to use cases and CSFs which motivate this requirement

I don't think we need both forward (uc --> req) and backward (req --> uc) links, do we? I think just forward would do (in section 2).

>         additional comments
>         either: approved for phase 1 // under consideration 
> for phase 2
>             (maybe "under consideration" items don't appear in WD?)
>             (maybe group by this flag, and then alphabetize 
> within groups)

How about a "Status:" field again à la RDF DAWG's WD (e.g. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-dawg-uc/#r3.1)?

> 4.  Goal Analysis
> 

I agree with Dave: "Goals" is probably better, and this section should precede the actual requirements.

>        description of Critical Success Factors process / terminology
> 
>        diagram -- maybe a imagemap with links to appropriate
>                   descriptions (maybe even as pop-up on mouse-over if
>                   someone feels motivated)

The diagram could start out simple, e.g. with goals and CSFs only. An image map sounds like a good idea, and isn't much extra work.

By the way (before I forget), it seems the legend disappeared somewhere along the way; I think it's important to leave it in.

>        for each goal
>              short title
>              statement 
>              link to CSFs (implicit in outline form)
>
>        for each CSF
>              short title
>              statement
>              link to goals (implicit in outline-form)
>              link to requirements, and maybe CSF's

For each CSF, we could have a "detailed view" diagram that includes only the goals and requirements to which it relates.

> 	
> 5.  Coverage (RIFRAF)
> 
>        for each discriminator:
>               short title
>               explanation, including alternative vocabulary
> 	      flag: in phase 1, unresolved whether in phase 1, 
> not in phase 1
>               maybe some kind of grouping/clustering/hierarchy
>                  (as in current draft)
>               

In a sense, the Coverage CSF (and related requirements) are being given their own section, so should we omit Coverage from the other (Goals and Requirements) sections?

David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sandro Hawke
> Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 11:04 AM
> To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
> Subject: proposed UCR outline
> 
> 
> 
> [mostly for UCR editors]
> 
> UCR is getting rather disorganized.   It's kind of unreadable.
> 
> Here's a proposal for how to organize it, motivated in part 
> by a discussion with David yesterday, after the meeting 
> ended.  If people like this organization, we can start to 
> figure out how to get the text to look like this.  (I think 
> this is all editorial stuff that doesn't need Working Group 
> approval, except that the WG needs to actually be able to 
> read & understand the content it approved in the meeting.)
> 
>    -- Sandro
> 
> ================================================================
>   
> 
> 1.  Introduction
> 
>       ?    what are rules?   why standardize?   some history?
> 
> 2.  Use Cases
> 
>       for each use case:
> 
>         title
>         text
>         links to requirements, maybe CSFs
>         (later: links to test cases)
>         (maybe: links to more detailed versions on the wiki for people
>         really trying to solve a problem like this)
> 
> 3.  Requirements
>    
>      define our terms ("covers", ...)
> 
>      for each requirement:  (in alphabetic order by title)
> 
>         short title (no more than 40 characters - used for links)
>         statement (1 paragraph)
>         links to use cases and CSFs which motivate this requirement
>         additional comments
>         either: approved for phase 1 // under consideration 
> for phase 2
>             (maybe "under consideration" items don't appear in WD?)
>             (maybe group by this flag, and then alphabetize 
> within groups)
> 
> 4.  Goal Analysis
> 
>        description of Critical Success Factors process / terminology
> 
>        diagram -- maybe a imagemap with links to appropriate
>                   descriptions (maybe even as pop-up on mouse-over if
>                   someone feels motivated)
> 
>        for each goal
>              short title
>              statement 
>              link to CSFs (implicit in outline form)
> 
>        for each CSF
>              short title
>              statement
>              link to goals (implicit in outline-form)
>              link to requirements, and maybe CSF's
> 	
> 5.  Coverage (RIFRAF)
> 
>        for each discriminator:
>               short title
>               explanation, including alternative vocabulary
> 	      flag: in phase 1, unresolved whether in phase 1, 
> not in phase 1
>               maybe some kind of grouping/clustering/hierarchy
>                  (as in current draft)
>               
>        later (WD3?) - for each rule system/rule language, and for 
>        each dialect, how does it match up to the discriminators?
>        (this would be a large table, or perhaps a set of tables, with
>        one per dialect).
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 21 June 2006 13:02:35 UTC