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

Hi Chris,

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

Looks good to me.

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

I've renamed it on the wiki 
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Publishing_Rules_for_Interlinke
d_Metadata

and updated the table of contents link.

David


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Welty [mailto:cawelty@frontiernet.net] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 3:30 PM
> To: axel@polleres.net
> Cc: Hirtle, David; Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)
> Subject: 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_Inten
> sional%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_Inten
> sional%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 18:51:33 UTC