Re: [RIFRAF] Response to ACTION-179

Hi Alex,
> For reaction rules, there are two ongoing projects that could provide
> ideas for ontology characterization.
>
> One is the Reaction RuleML initiative:
> 	http://ibis.in.tum.de/research/ReactionRuleML/ . 
>   

Reaction RuleML is a quite new initiative and some of the design 
decisions taken for the Reaction RuleML 0.1 might change in the near 
future. Also, I'm not sure how the outcome of this work could influence 
the ontology that we started to build out of the RIFRAF. However, if you 
think that it could help in refining the discriminators of  RIFRAF 
section 5, I would be happy to hear some proposals from you.

> The other is REWERSE r3 prototype:
> 	http://rewerse.net/I5/r3/. 
>
> In the first one, we have distinguished active vs. passive reaction
> rules (essentially having to poll vs. reacting passively to pushed
> inbound messages) functionality. We also orthogonally distinguish global
> (non-contextual) and local (contextual) rules. In particular, the latter
> allow the reactions to be contextualized by the current evolving state
> of conversations making them comparable to process algebras, in
> particular, pi-calculus.
>
>   

I'm not sure if 'passive' is a good choice for naming a type of a 
reactive rule :)

> Passive rules could be also categorized as message-based in that they
> effectively capture communication acts explicitly. 
>
> The REWERSE r3 prototype, also using the Prova language for the
> conditions and actions part, is based on a developed r3-ontology. It
> specifically distinguishes query and test components of an ECA rule.
>   

The r3 ontology can be found at http://rewerse.net/I5/r3/DOC/2005/r3.rdf 
for those interested. This ontology has been developed so as to cope 
with language heterogeneity al rule component level (that is, different 
event, query, and action languages can be combined in a single ECA rule) 
and thus, it might not only be too detailed for our RIFRAF ontology but 
also somewhat misleading if the goal of this ontology is not really 
clear to the RIF participants. However, you're right, it might be a good 
source of information for the ECA part of the RIFRAF ontology.

Regards,
Paula

> In summary, these are the resources that perhaps we should consider
> aligning the current RIFRAF view of the ECA area with.
>
> Alex Kozlenkov
> Betfair Ltd.
>
>   
>>>  -----Original Message-----
>>>  From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
>>>       
> [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On
>   
>>>  Behalf Of Paula-Lavinia Patranjan
>>>  Sent: 21 November 2006 12:28
>>>  To: Leora Morgenstern
>>>  Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
>>>  Subject: [RIFRAF] Response to ACTION-179
>>>  
>>>  Hi Leora,
>>>  
>>>  This message is a response to the action we both took during the F2F
>>>  meeting in Athens to revise and ontologize section 5 of RIFRAF (see
>>>       
> [1]
>   
>>>  for my action). I read the comments attached to the answers to
>>>       
> section
>   
>>>  5's questions and tried to determine whether new questions should be
>>>  added to this section or refinements of the existing questions are
>>>  desired. Below are some proposals for improving section 5 of the
>>>  questionnaire.
>>>  
>>>  (New discriminator to be added to 5.1)
>>>  What kind of rules are used for realizing the reactive behaviour?
>>>    * Event-Condition-Action (ECA) rules
>>>    * Event-Condition-Action-Postcondition (ECAP) rules
>>>    * Production rules
>>>    * Other (Please specify!)
>>>  
>>>  (Update of discriminator 5.1.2; add the possibility to answer with
>>>  'Mixed' to the question)
>>>  Are the different parts of a rule (e.g. Event, Condition, Action
>>>       
> parts
>   
>>>  for a ECA rule) clearly separated (separation of concerns)?
>>>    * Yes
>>>    * No
>>>    * Mixed (some rules in the language follow such a separation of
>>>  concerns, some not)
>>>  
>>>  The comments to the question 5.2.3 'Does the language support only
>>>  atomic events or also composite events (combinations of more than
>>>       
> one
>   
>>>  event such as temporal or events)?' could be considered as basis for
>>>       
> a
>   
>>>  new discriminator for the (concrete) types of composite events
>>>  supported. The problem is that there are two many possibilities for
>>>       
> such
>   
>>>  concrete composite events supported by a reactive language.
>>>       
> Moreover,
>   
>>>  the questionnaire already contains similar discriminators but more
>>>  abstract (see 5.2.6 and 5.2.7). Thus, I propose not to add a new
>>>  discriminator for types of composite events.
>>>  
>>>  What is your opinion on the proposals above?
>>>  
>>>  Best regards from Munich,
>>>  Paula
>>>  
>>>  [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/179
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  _________________________________________________________________
>>>  _______
>>>  In order to protect our email recipients, Betfair use SkyScan from
>>>  MessageLabs to scan all Incoming and Outgoing mail for viruses.
>>>  
>>>  _________________________________________________________________
>>>  _______
>>>       
>
>
>