Re: [UCR] Review from Sven Groppe

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