Re: Editor's Draft of UCR (more or less) ready

Hi David,

> A related (minor) issue is that rules are structured differently. For
> example,
> 
>   If an item is perishable and it is delivered more than 10 days after
>   the scheduled delivery date then the item will be rejected.
> 
> vs.
> 
>   If x is a ComputeNode in Rack r
>      and Rack r is in Cage c
>      and mc is a MaintenanceContract for Cage c
>         then x is a Server with MaintenanceContract mc
> 
> Should we format them all like the latter for clarity, or is this too
> artificial?

I'd be inclined to structure those that have a natural structure just 
for readability but leave the others; but I'm not very bothered either way.

[Saw Paula's comment just before hitting send ... fine change those in 
2.8 to look less structured if that's the convention.]

>> o Requirement "XML types" needs rephrasing, I think this is 
>> supposed to 
>> specifically refer to XML Schema datatypes, "information 
>> types" is too 
>> ambiguous for me. I suggested a phrasing in:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jun/0128.html
>> However, I guess that's a bit long compared to the other entries in 
>> section 4. How about:
>>    "RIF must support an appropriate set of scalar datatypes and 
>> associated operations as defined in XML Schema part 2 and associated 
>> specifications"  ?
>>    or just " ... operations as defined in appropriate W3C 
>> specifications"
> 
> Yes, this req refers to XSD datatypes but also list structures. You're
> right that it's a bit confusing; I added the link to the charter to help
> clarify, but maybe it's not enough.

Yes I saw that and the link helps. If the mention of "scalar" in my 
suggestion is too strong then we could drop it and just have "... set of 
datatypes ...". Whatever.

>> o Missing requirement on external call out and SPARQL (see 
>> same message 
>> thread quoted above). How about:
>>     "RIF should support an extensible mechanism by which rules can 
>> consult external "blackbox" information sources or query 
>> processors such 
>> as SPARQL data sources."  ?
> 
> It's listed under "needs more discussion" in the F2F3 list:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/WD-DC

Ah, sorry, you are right.

> Maybe there's been enough discussion?

See what everyone else thinks.

Thanks for the other fixes and comments.

Cheers,
Dave

Received on Tuesday, 27 June 2006 14:57:19 UTC