RE: RIF: A thought about requirements --> PRR

Bijan, I don't think your point (that you have no interest in PR) is
lost. Other comments below:

Paul Vincent
for Fair Isaac Blaze Advisor  -- Business Rule Management System
@ OMG and W3C standards for rules

> From: Bijan Parsia [mailto:bparsia@isr.umd.edu]
> 
> And I thought the chairs closed this thread. Oh well.
> 
> On May 30, 2006, at 6:16 PM, Vincent, Paul D wrote:
> 
> > I think the point being made here is that although "widespread
> > adoption"
> > may be a CSF, it entails adoption by groups other than those
> > represented
> > here on the WG (eg 1000+ vendors' customers for production rule
> > systems).
> 
> I know the point *I* made was that *my* groups' interests are only
> marginally affected by the RIF being adopted by 1000+ PR customers.
> The people *I'm* trying to sell (either for money, or as research
> partners, or whatever) RIF or rule systems to are not using PRs and
> couldn't care less about interchange with PR systems. *Why* is this
> controversial or hard to understand?

[PV>] Frank's comment on the need to support PRR was simply to support
the CSF of widespread adoption (IMHO). It was not *AGAINST* other rule
types. It is perfectly acceptable to support your own "rule interest"
but I would argue NOT acceptable to denigrate other rule interests
without strong justification.

Qu: What are your arguments *AGAINST* PRR support for the widespread
adoption CSF? 
Qu: What alternative to PRs will fulfil the widespread adoption CSF?

> 
> > Off topic: I went to a meeting last week where a content mgmt vendor
> > (who supports RDF output for his product) gave a presentation on the
> > Semantic Web and why it was failing to be adopted (/failing to be
> > adopted faster). RIF was given as an example of W3C creating
standards
> > out of thin air rather than standardising what was used
> > commercially. Ho
> > hum!
> 
> Frankly, I find that semweb adoption is going at a good, indeed,
> appropriate pace. I often don't *want* it to grow faster, because
> growth that outstripped sense is often not worth it.
> Plus, there are different strategies one can take. For example, I'd
> love to take away customers away from you :) One way is to build what
> they've already seen (i.e., something compatible). Another way is to
> build something different that yet seems attractive, indeed,
> attractive enough to entice them away.

[PV>] Good luck with that. However, anyone who intends to influence RIF
as part of a commercial competition strategy against other RIF members
will likely be a problem to the group. An example of this would be if
one was arguing against PR support in order that one could claim W3C
rules compliance before commercial PR tools could.

> Again, I don't see why my failing to fall in with *your* strategies
> entails that I'm being wrong, silly, or acting against the "good of
> the RIF". I don't ask what I can do for the RIF, I ask what the RIF
> can do for me. In point of fact, so do you, but it would make the
> conversation easier if you wouldn't *identify* what the RIF can do
> for you with what I should care about. Since we have *different*
> interests, we have to horse trade. But if you try this sort of
> moralistic bullying, then reaching *fruitful* compromise is much
harder.

[PV>] I cannot associate any of these comments with any previous
discussions. My strategy is to ensure that RIF includes the class of
rules covered by PRR. This does not preclude any other rule type and
does not require your support. I am certainly not aware of any comments
I have made that could be interpreted as bullying - if you can point out
where any comments I made could be interpreted so, I will modify them
and issue an apology.


> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
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 Wednesday, 31 May 2006 09:05:57 UTC