RE: comments on Editor's Draft of UCR

Hi Peter,

Thanks for your detailed feedback.

Paula and I shared the task of adding the motivates links and it's clear
there are inconsistencies. I think I leaned toward being conservative
(possibly missing some links) while Paula was more liberal (possibly
adding extra). Hopefully the WG can discuss this a bit tomorrow.

Another problem is that some requirements seem to be implicitly
motivated by all the use cases (e.g. Semantic precision), while some
requirements are not explicitly motivated at all (e.g. Embedded
comments).

> The pointers for "Different Intended Semantics" and "Limited 
> number of dialiects" do not work.

Actually, some worked, some didn't. The issue is fixed on the wiki and
should be fixed in the next draft Sandro generates.

> Use Case 2.5 mentions that it depends on labelling rules with 
> tags providing meta-data.  However, there does not appear to 
> be any use of or need for this ability withing the use case.
> 
> The wording about the Widescale Adoption goal is missing the 
> influence of the Alignment CSF.
> 
> The Alignment CSF is very strange in that it only mentions 
> XML.  Is not alignment of RIF with RDF and OWL also 
> appropriate here?  Similarly, why does not Aligment with the 
> Semantic Web support Widescale adoption?

There are actually two alignment CSFS:
Alignment with Semantic Web -- RDF and OWL
Alignment with Key W3C Specifications -- XML

You're probably right that "Alignment with the Semantic Web" should
support "Widescale Adoption"...

Actually, I think the two alignment CSFs should be merged. The XML, RDF
and OWL reqs could all fit as "Alignment with the Semantic Web", for
example.

> There appears to be some confusion between the CSF "Coverage" 
> and the requirement sometimes called "RAF coverage" and 
> sometimes just called "Coverage". 

This is a "known issue". To my knowledge, the only occurrence of "RAF
coverage" is in the Coverage CSF diagram.

David


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Peter F. 
> Patel-Schneider
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 2:37 PM
> To: sandro@w3.org
> Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
> Subject: comments on Editor's Draft of UCR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I worry that the informality of the use cases encourages 
> reading much too much into the power of the rules.  Words and 
> Phrases like "will be rejected", "must", "never", "for 
> anonymity reasons", "can", "desired", "assume", "believes", 
> "process", "will", "required", "considered",
> "recommended",   I suggest that a disclaimer along the lines of
> 
> 	However, this informality can lead readers to the 
> conclusion that
> 	rules can perform arbitrary actions in the real world.  
> This is not
> 	the case - the RIF WG has not yet decided on the ultimate power
> 	that rules will have.
> 
> just before Section 2.1.
> 
> 
> I believe that many of the motivates links are not correct.
> 
> Motivations that I believe are not supported:
> 
> Compliance Model
> 
> 	RIF must define a compliance model that will identify
> 	required/optional features. 
> 
> 	not motivated by Use Case 2.1, Use Case 2.3, 
> 
> 
> Coverage
> 
> 	RIF must cover the set of languages identified in the Rulesystem
> 	Arrangement Framework.
> 
> 	not motivated by Use Case 2.1, Use Case 2.2, Use Case 
> 2.4, Use Case
> 	2.5, Use Case 2.6, Use Case 2.7, Use Case 2.9
> 
> 	This is more of a problem with the wording of the 
> Coverage CSF than
> 	anything else.  The Coverage CSF should probably be rewritten to
> 	something like
> 
> 	RIF must cover a reasonably wide selection of rule sets.
> 
> 
> Semantic tagging
> 
> 	RIF must have a standard way to specify the *intended* [emphasis
> 	added] semantics (or semantics style) of the 
> interchanged rule set
> 	in a RIF document.
> 
> 	not motivated by Use Case 2.2, Use Case 2.3, Use Case 
> 2.4, Use Case
> 	2.10 
> 
>  	unless, of course, all that it means is that RIF rules 
> have to have
> 	a formal semantics.
> 
> 
> Default behaviour
> 
> 	RIF must specify at the appropriate level of detail the default
> 	behavior that is expected from a RIF compliant application that
> 	does not have the capability to process all or part of the rules
> 	described in a RIF document, or it must provide a way to specify
> 	such default behavior.
> 
> 	not motivated by Use Case 2.2, Use Case 2.4, Use Case 
> 2.5, Use Case
> 	2.6 
> 
> Embedded metadata
> 	
> 	RIF must support metadata such as author and rule name.
> 
> 	not motivated by Use Case 2.2
> 
> OWL data
> 
> 	RIF must cover OWL knowledge bases as data where compatible with
> 	Phase 1 semantics.
> 
> 	not motivated by Use Case 2.4, Use Case 2.6
> 
> 
> 
> The pointers for "Different Intended Semantics" and "Limited 
> number of dialiects" do not work.
> 
> Use Case 2.5 mentions that it depends on labelling rules with 
> tags providing meta-data.  However, there does not appear to 
> be any use of or need for this ability withing the use case.
> 
> The wording about the Widescale Adoption goal is missing the 
> influence of the Alignment CSF.
> 
> The Alignment CSF is very strange in that it only mentions 
> XML.  Is not alignment of RIF with RDF and OWL also 
> appropriate here?  Similarly, why does not Aligment with the 
> Semantic Web support Widescale adoption?
> 
> There appears to be some confusion between the CSF "Coverage" 
> and the requirement sometimes called "RAF coverage" and 
> sometimes just called "Coverage". 
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line:
> 
> The connections between the Use Cases and the requirements is 
> too vague.  I suggest pulling the suspect ones.  If that 
> leaves some requirements unmotivated, then either this should 
> be noted (with a comment something like "This requirement is 
> expected to be motivated by a revised version of Use Case 
> 2.x.") or removed for now.
> 
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>  
> 
>

Received on Monday, 26 June 2006 18:07:08 UTC