RE: comments on Editor's Draft of UCR -- motivates links

Hi Peter and all,

Though we decided during the call not to include the motivates links in
this draft, here are some justifications for the use cases I worked on
(2.6 - 2.10).

> Motivations that I believe are not supported:
> 
> 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.

Probably every use case motivates at least one requirement falling under
RIFRAF and therefore motivates the current catch-all "Coverage"
requirement. (Likewise "Semantic Precision".)

> 
> 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.

Use case 2.10 emphasizes publishing (not so much interchanging) rules,
but I'm assuming that it would be desirable to publish the intended
semantics of the rules along with the rules themselves.

> 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 

>From use case 2.6:

"This use case illustrates how the RIF makes it possible to merge
rulesets from diverse sources in diverse formats into one rule-based
system, thereby enabling inferences that might otherwise have remained
implicit."

This rule-based system may get rules that it can't (completely) process
and involves important medical decisions so I'd say that default
behavior is motivated.

> 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

While 2.6 doesn't specifically mention OWL, it does mention ontologies
as a possible data source. I think parts of SNOMED have been translated
to OWL, but I'm no expert.

David

Received on Tuesday, 27 June 2006 18:36:53 UTC