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.

In other words, as Sven notes below, he is not speaking for the Data
Access (SPARQL) Working Group, and that group has not reviewed his
comments.  RIFWG should be responsive to Sven on this, but we don't need
to be responsive to DAWG on this particular set of comments.  At other
times we may find we have comments from a whole Working Group and
addressing them may be more challenging, possibly involving joint WG
meetings.

    -- Sandro

> > 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 16:57:59 UTC