- From: Ginsberg, Allen <AGINSBERG@imc.mitre.org>
- Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 10:07:26 -0500
- To: "Christian de Sainte Marie" <csma@ilog.fr>
- Cc: "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>, <john.hall@modelsys.com>, "Said Tabet" <stabet@comcast.net>, "Donald Chapin" <donald.chapin@btinternet.com>
Hi Christian, I beg to differ on this. [2] does make the case for interchange: it specifically says that meta-data indicating that a rule is of the human-machine interactive type is required to capture the meaning in the RIF so rules can be interchanged accurately. Also, I have difficulty seeing a narrative "flow" or logical sequence of premises and inferences in the original scenario. [2] attempts to lay out the logic of the scenario in a step-by-step fashion. It is true that not all the specific requirements are explicitly covered, but that is true of all the use-cases in the UCR. The key design goal of this use-case is to allow for interchange of rules that are of a human-machine interaction type. What that amounts to in terms of requirements (e.g., does it require deontic tags?) needs to be figured out when we do the requirements. Allen -----Original Message----- From: Christian de Sainte Marie [mailto:csma@ilog.fr] Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 8:39 AM To: Ginsberg, Allen Cc: RIF WG; john.hall@modelsys.com; Said Tabet; Donald Chapin Subject: Re: [UCR] Managing Inter-Organizational Business Policies & Practices: Edited Version. John, Don, Said (and all), Reading John's revised version of the use case [1] and Allen's version [2], I wonder if the scenario part in John's version, introduced by the first paragraph of Allen's, would not be the best mix. My point is that everything in John's version before the scenario is, actually, requirements and design goals, whereas the real UC is the scenario, that illustrates all the requirements that the first part details and discusses (well, the UC is fictitious, actually; but you know what I mean :-) Summarising part 1 of John's version as did Allen has two drawbacks, IMHO: it focuses on one single requirement where the scenarios illustrates most if not all of them; most importantly, it does not make the case for interchange at all (wheras the scenario does). So, my proposal would be to use [3] in the editor's draft, instead (and have that version reviewed by the WG). Notice that we are talking about the Use Cases section only: requirements and design goals will be detailed and discussed in later sections. What do you think? Christian [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Managing_Inter-Organizational_ Business_Policies_and_Practices_-_Original [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Managing_Inter-Organizational_ Business_Policies_and_Practices [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Managing_Inter-Organizational_ Business_Policies_and_Practices_-_Scenario
Received on Wednesday, 8 March 2006 15:07:35 UTC