- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 12:32:10 +0100
- To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Paula-Lavinia Patranjan wrote: > Hi, > > Frank and I have merged the requirements proposed in > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006May/0234.html > and the goals, CSFs, and requirements of the diagram proposed by Frank in > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006May/0188.html > > The updated version of the DC diagram can be found under > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Goals%2C_Critical_Success_Factors_and_Requirements > > > Note that the text on goals, CSFs, and requirements for RIF on the above > given page doesn't correspond yet to the current version of the DC > diagram; we are working on updating the text on the wiki page too. > > Please send comments on the current version of the DC diagram so as to > be able to finalize the work on RIF's design constraints as soon as > possible. I mostly like it. Significant comments: o As already stated I would prefer the third goal to be "Basis for a future semantic web rules language". This would imply support for requirements such as: http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Standard_RIF_must_be_able_to_expres_RDF_deduction_rules which are not currently included. o 1.1.c Meta language features. I'm unsure about this on several levels. First, why does this appear under "no surprises"? To me it seems only related to coverage. Second, priorities seem like a different issue from meta-level rules, perhaps they should be separated. Third, I'm not convinced that general metalevel rules really fall above the cut line for us before phase 3. Fourth there needs to be "opposes" links from this to at least "low cost of implementation"; doesn't this also make ruleset combination hard? o I don't understand the phrasing of 1.1.a Formal Semantics. The text seems to be about multiplicity of semantics in which case there needs to be a separate requirement that RIF Core should have a (i.e. at least one) formal semantics. The phrasing is unclear on whether this is addressing RIF Core or the sum of RIF dialects, if the proposal is that the Core should itself not be "unitary" then that needs to spelt out more clearly so we can argue about it. [Actually, difference between RIF Core and RIF dialects us unclear at several places in the text.] o Markup of semantics. I guess I still don't understand what people mean by this phrase. Is this supposed to be: (a) machine processable definition of the semantics in some general formalism like an operational semantics? (b) metadata tags attached to symbols to distinguish divergent use of apparently similar symbols (e.g. ->)? (c) different symbols for constructs with different semantics so that each symbol is unambiguous? (d) any and all of the above? Lesser comments: o Why is "Support XML" linked to "Extensibility"? That doesn't seem intuitive to me and I couldn't spot the explanation in the narrative. o Conformance model. I've not yet seen an example of when a default behaviour other than "ignore ruleset" could be used and question the linking of conformance model to the "default behaviour" proposal (which currently only has one named champion). Dave
Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 11:32:26 UTC