- From: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
- Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 13:58:30 -0400 (EDT)
- To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Dave Reynolds wrote regarding Frank McCabe's graphical depiction of Goals, Critical Success Factors, and Requirements for RIF: >I like the notation. I generally like the content. The notation is fine and nicely presented, although I can't help but think of extensions to it as we try to add things to the figure. Things like a refinement arrow, cardinality, and reified-relations, ...but then where would it end. >I would still prefer the third goal to be something more active like >"Basis for future semantic web rules language" or Sandro's "Consistent >with W3C vision" but I accept that I seem to be in a tiny minority in that. For the record count me and NIST among that minority, although I wouldn't want to hitch our wagon to something as mutable as the "W3C vision". I definitely prefer "Basis for future semantic web rules language." >I'm not convinced of the "supports" link between the "markup of >semantics" requirement and the "Soundness" CSF. It might support >"coverage" as well as extensibility but if we only wanted soundness we >wouldn't bother with such complex machinery. Not an important point >because I doubt the placement of that arrow directly affects any >decisions we have to make. This is exactly where one wants to extend the notation. It is really a requirement (not quite shown) to support multiple formal semantics that supports coverage and that requirement, in turn, implies a need for Markup for semantics to enable Soundness. -Evan Evan K. Wallace Manufacturing Systems Integration Division NIST
Received on Wednesday, 17 May 2006 17:58:42 UTC