Re: [UCR] The Use Case previously known as publication

Chris Welty wrote:
>>> Whether used correctly or not, I agree that it's probably not necessary
>>> to the use case. 
>>
>>  Now as you say it, the only argument that could count against IDB/EDB 
>> distinction might be that it is slightly misinterpretable, since in 
>> the deductive database use, EDB/IDB are often viewed disjoint IIRC, 
>> which is too restrictive in general...
> 
> 
> No, the argument is that this is not what intensional means in the 
> dictionary, which is what the vast majority of our audience will use to 
> look it up.  I am religious about this and I want the term removed.

;-) Fine for me, actually this was supporting your argument that 
"intensional" might be confusing, but from another perspective.

>>>> To be constructive, how about something like, "Publishing rules for 
>>>> interlinked metadata"
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd be fine with this, but let's see what Axel has to say.
>>
>>
>> I am not religous about these terms, although I thought they properly 
>> describe what I wanted to say.
> 
> To a database audience, perhaps, but not the rest of the world.

Ok, I can live with that, see above.

> Anyway, since this sounds like complaisance, I have done a pretty simple 
> edit pass on the wiki page 
> [http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Publication_of_Intensional%2C_Interlinked_Metadata].  
> I removed intensional completely, and reworded a couple places around 
> "implicit" to make the intenTion more explicit.

Could it be that you did not committ this change? I cannot see it on the 
wiki at least, where I still see the version with "intensional". 
Otherwise, I can also do another pass over it. Just let me know.

> I think the key points from this use case are:
> 
> enhancing published metadata standards by capturing implicit knowledge 
> with rules, and scope
 > and these still come through.

with addition of "interlinked", perfectly fine for me.
I think the aspect that rulesets can link to other published rulesets in
their bodies is and define additional implicit information in terms of 
other rulesets is an important one.

best,
axel


-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
email: axel@polleres.net  url: http://www.polleres.net/

Received on Wednesday, 28 June 2006 13:45:54 UTC