- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 11:04:30 -0500
- To: Christopher Welty <welty@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 11:11 -0400, Christopher Welty wrote: > Sven Groppe <Sven.Groppe@deri.org> submitted this review of the UCR > document on behalf of the DAWG: No, _not_ on behalf of DAWG. > > Note that although I am a member of the DAWG working group, > the review below reflects only my personal opinion and not necessarily > the opinion of DAWG. > > I am of the opinion that the whole document needs a complete > reorganization: > Do not first write a long stories of use cases and afterwards point out > single features/requirements. > The reader looses the overview. > Instead: > - Enumerate first all the features/requirements of RIF without referring > to use cases > - Then name the single feature/requirement in the title of the section and > make the feature/requirement > clear by an use case. > > In later versions of the document, the use cases should be more worked > out! > Be more specific, showing rules in different rule languages, their > translated > intermediate language representation and the translation to the rule > language > of the partner to which the RIF representation has been transmitted to. > > Section "Abstract" > > Please be more specific: Which kind of Use Cases in Phase 1 and which in > Phase 2? Where will be the difference in the document? > > Section "1. Use Cases" > > If you start reading, it is not clear what is RIF about. > Give a more proper introduction. > > I see two possible ways to realize the RIF: > > 1) Some kind of intermediate language for rules is provided, which is then > exchanged. > There are also source-to-source translations from other rule languages to > RIF provided. > Note that this RIF intermediate language needs only to cover a core set of > language constructs, > as it is not meant to be extensively used by humans, only by the > source-to-source translations. > (Or is it another feature of RIF to be human user convenient and thus is a > complete > language to be used by human users?) > > 2) Provide a framework, which allows mixed-language support of different > rule languages. > For a different rule language you just have to download and install a > software package, > which makes the specific rule run on your machine. The software package > implements some kind > of standard api so that it can be easily integrated. > > I guess you will provide a variant of 1): Please state this very early in > the document for clarification. > > Section 1.1: > > Is there only exchange of the facts or also of the rules itself? > > Section 1.2: Sometimes the features/requirements overlap with previous > features/requirements. > Reorganization of the document would improve the readibility. > > Section 1.7: You could give already examples in OWL-DL and RDF. > Also here: First emphasize the requirements, then give the examples. > > There is no summary/conclusions in the paper. Please add! > There are also no references (e.g. to resources of the real-world > examples). Please add... > > Dr. Christopher A. Welty, Knowledge Structures Group > IBM Watson Research Center, 19 Skyline Dr., Hawthorne, NY 10532 > Voice: +1 914.784.7055, IBM T/L: 863.7055, Fax: +1 914.784.7455 > Email: welty@watson.ibm.com > Web: http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty/ -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 10 May 2006 16:04:58 UTC