RE: XML Data -was- RE: [UCR] Public Comment clarification of term use

+1

[Actually, I find it worrisome that this should be questioned at all!]

Paul Vincent
for Fair Isaac Blaze Advisor  -- Business Rule Management System
@ OMG and W3C standards for rules
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of ewallace@cme.nist.gov
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 4:24 PM
> To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
> Subject: XML Data -was- RE: [UCR] Public Comment clarification of term
use
> 
> 
> 
> >Ginsberg, Allen wrote:
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> >This is right. In my opinion, the capability ofaccessing/processing
XML
> >data would be very, very important for thje RIF.
> 
> I would like to add my voice to those who have said that rules working
> with/against XML Data is a critical requirement for RIF.   One place
where
> this comes up is in the use of rules with message content that is
> encoded against XML Schmemas.  NIST's primary interest in this feature
is
> for translation in support of integration, but there are many other
uses
> for rules processing this content.
> 
> -Evan
> 
> 
> 

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, proprietary
and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please delete it immediately.

Received on Tuesday, 16 May 2006 21:50:34 UTC