Re: [RIF] New diagram with Goals, CSFs, and Requirements

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