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

Oooops, sorry, I didn't save it.  The new text is there now:

[http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Publication_of_Intensional%2C_Interlinked_Metadata]. 
And yes, the interlinked part is there and also reflected in the new 
title, I agree it's important.

David/Allen/Paula: The use case has a new title so should be moved.  
This has some bigger implications for editing.

Axel, ASAP let us know if the new wording is OK.

-Chris

Axel Polleres wrote:
> 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. Christopher A. Welty                    IBM Watson Research Center
+1.914.784.7055                             19 Skyline Dr.
cawelty@frontiernet.net                     Hawthorne, NY 10532
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty

Received on Wednesday, 28 June 2006 18:29:53 UTC