- From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 01:24:31 +0200
- To: pfps@inf.unibz.it
- Cc: David.Hirtle@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca, public-rif-wg@w3.org, public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> 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. > > I still don't see this as part of the use case. I don't see how the use > case speaks to partial understanding of rule sets. On the contrary, I > would say that this use case speaks to the necessity of *complete* > processing of rule sets, because otherwise some important rule might no be > processed accurately and someone might die. Having reread the use case I agree that it is crucial to be explicit about the scope, especially for negation as failure and findall. -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Tuesday, 27 June 2006 23:24:57 UTC