Re: [UCR] Managing Inter-Organizational Business Policies & Practices: Edited Version.

Allen, Christian,

Thanks for both your efforts on this.

I have added another rule to the 'Scenario' version that Christian 
edited. It requires human action, so I hope it addresses Allen's concern 
as well as Christian's.

Said and Donald are both comfortable with this version.

Best wishes,

John


Ginsberg, Allen wrote:

>Christian,
>
>I guess we just see things differently on this one.
>
>John, Said, Donald:  do you have a preference over [2] versus [3]?  
>
>Unless I hear otherwise by sometime today I will go with [3] for the
>frozen draft.
>
>Allen
> 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Christian de Sainte Marie [mailto:csma@ilog.fr] 
>Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 11:20 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.
>
>Allen,
>
>Ginsberg, Allen wrote:
>  
>
>>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.
>>    
>>
>
>Right. Actually, this is the point I tried to make: your example above 
>illustrates a requirement on the RIF, rather than a usage of, or a need
>
>for the RIF.
>
>My point was simply that I prefered the scenario part of John's version
>
>as a use case, because it tells a story of several players between whom
>
>rules need be interchanged, like all other use cases do. And the story,
>
>illustrated with examples of rules, tells us, albeit implicitely, what 
>kind of requirements are set by this sort of usage of the RIF.
>
>  
>
>>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.
>>    
>>
>
>Agreed. Actually, I prefer the original scenario (the one in the MSWord
>
>version John sent yesterday). I modified [3] to copy that version 
>instead, for your convenience.
>
>  
>
>>It is
>>true that not all the specific requirements are explicitly covered,
>>    
>>
>but
>  
>
>>that is true of all the use-cases in the UCR.
>>    
>>
>
>Right again. I did not mean to say that the UC should cover all the 
>underlying requirements: only that a story of interchange illustrated 
>what was required from the RIF as well, and made a better case for the 
>use of the RIF (than the direct description and illustration of some of
>
>the requirements).
>
>  
>
>>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.
>>    
>>
>
>Agreed. This is clear from the scenario as well.
>
>Christian
>
>[3] 
>http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Managing_Inter-Organizational_
>Business_Policies_and_Practices_-_Scenario
>
>  
>