RE: [UCR] Public Comment clarification of term use

Hi Allen and Chris,

> I seem to recall someone suggesting that as a requirement, 
> and also that at least one of the original use-cases (a 
> REWERSE one I think) had rules that worked on XML data. 

I dug up the REWERSE use case you're probably thinking of:
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Rule-Based_Combined_Access_to_XML_a
nd_RDF_Data 

It involves queries that essentially treat XML documents as facts.

> So unless I am missing something (which might very well be 
> the case) I would say that the features of this use-case are 
> already covered.

Well, perhaps not totally covered. Section 1.1 of the draft (Negotiating
eBusiness Contracts Across Rule Platforms) involves XML data but doesn't
go into much detail. I think the group should consider actually showing
some XML along with a matching query (possibly alluding to XSL),
especially since -- as Francois and Paul pointed out -- this is so
important for RIF. On the other hand, perhaps this warrants its own use
case.

We can discuss more tomorrow.

David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ginsberg, Allen
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 10:29 PM
> To: Christopher Welty; public-rif-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [UCR] Public Comment clarification of term use
> 
> 
> Hi Chris, 
> 
> This is a nice application.
> 
> If I understand it correctly it seems to me that it would 
> require the RIF to handle rules that can match XML data 
> (i.e., XSL transformations).  
> 
> I seem to recall someone suggesting that as a requirement, 
> and also that at least one of the original use-cases (a 
> REWERSE one I think) had rules that worked on XML data. 
> 
> So unless I am missing something (which might very well be 
> the case) I would say that the features of this use-case are 
> already covered.  
> 
> That being said, I, for one, would have no problem with it's 
> being added (using the original template) to a list of 
> use-cases for the RIF on an appropriate WIKI page.
> 
> Allen
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Welty
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 10:53 AM
> To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
> Subject: [UCR] Public Comment clarification of term use
> 
> 
> Allen & David,
> 
> This was posted on the public comments site.  Seems like an 
> interesting
> 
> use case, very webby, and could be viewed as driving an 
> interchange with XSL or something.  Comments?
> 
> -Chris
> 
> 
> From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 16:13:31 -0500
> Message-Id: <p06110404c04734aafc61@[10.0.1.2]>
> To: public-rif-comments@w3.org 
> 
> Comment on
> 
> RIF Use Cases and Requirement
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/ucr/draft-20060323
> 
> In the WAI we have long struggled with how web media could 
> better serve
> 
> those
> with disbilities that interfere with reading.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/usage/languageUsageAndAccess.html
> 
> At the moment I am focused on a narrower objective -- 
> isolating best practice techniques for meeting Success 
> Criterion 3.1.3 of WCAG 2.0 (Work in Progress)
> 
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-200603
17/Overvi
> ew.html#meaning-idioms
> 
> 
> One general plan for how to clarify these things is to have 
> some sort of a gloss or 'interpretation sheet' with 
> interpretation rules. I say 'rules' because one doesn't want 
> to mark all occurrences of a clarified term, but would prefer 
> to isolate them with some sort of a selector expression.
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2004Aug/0007.html
> 
> A rough hack at a rule format for this would be an XSL 
> fragment that matches some pattern of markup such as
> 
> <span class="term oed:refuse_1">refuse</span>
> 
> and has a right-hand side that injects some RDF/A with SKOS 
> terms to the effect that when the oed:refuse_1 token is 
> present in the bag of class tokens, one should interpret the 
> term as defined in
> 
> http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/refuse_1
> 
> This has the right sort of functionality, but it lacks your 
> expertise in the range of rule languages and the best way to 
> fit into a community of interoperable rule utterances.
> 
> Would the RIF WG consider that this is a use case which is 
> under-served at present and should be included in the RIF Use 
> Case collection?
> 
> Or if you believe that there is stable prior art that works 
> the problem well, what would you suggest that is?
> 
> Al
> 
> 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/
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 15 May 2006 15:55:16 UTC