RE: http://www.w3.org/2006/11/04-rif-minutes.html#action04: Notes from UCR breakout of 11/04 --> coverage

Thanks Allen:

 

Yes we probably need to agree to disagree and move to arbitration! So I
cc'd the rif-wg for other comments on this topic.

 

My thoughts on your comments below are: 

1.	As RIF is an interchange format, the fact that a RIF dialect may
be considered a rule language must be a side effect - and therefore
should not be reflected in the definitions. In other words it is not
necessary for RIF dialects to be a rule language.
2.	Why must it be possible to implement a rule engine for a RIF
(format) dialect? For example, I can use XML as an interchange language
for representing SQL queries. However, this does not mean I *need* to
have database engines that can execute said XML. To me, this requirement
seems somewhat orthogonal to the charter.
3.	Mentioning software is also orthogonal. For example, why cannot
a rule translation be handled manually, like it may be done today and
will be done for initial examples I am sure? Again, this does not seem
to be a requirement (although of course it *is* a requirement that the
process is automatable).
4.	Circularity: possibly my definition was circular. Perhaps
Coverage should imply translation to, from or to+from a RIF dialect.

 

An updated version of my coverage proposal would therefore be:

*          "RIF covers a rule language" if
1. rules written in the covered rule language can be translated to,
from, or both to and from a dialect of RIF 
and 
2. rules mapped from 1 language to another via a RIF dialect exhibit
equivalent behavior

 

Note: I did not use "identical" behaviour as it is not the remit of RIF
to standardize rule engine outputs. So if I have 2 rules:

If customer is new then customer credit period is 1 month

If customer is new then customer credit period is 1 week

Then the equivalent behaviour is to either assign a customer credit
period of 1 month or 1 week (depending on the rule engine).

 

Cheers

 

Paul Vincent

TIBCO - ETG/Business Rules 

 

PS: my original counterproposal sent as PPT was:

*          "RIF covers a rule language" 
means 
1. rules written in the covered rule language can be translated into 
a dialect of RIF 
and 
2. the resulting rules represented in RIF can then be mapped to some
target rule language, other than the original language, to achieve the
same behavior as the original rules

 

________________________________

From: Ginsberg, Allen [mailto:AGINSBERG@imc.mitre.org] 
Sent: 22 November 2006 17:15
To: Paul Vincent
Subject: RE: http://www.w3.org/2006/11/04-rif-minutes.html#action04:
Notes from UCR breakout of 11/04

 

Hi Paul,

 

I see your point, but I don't agree.   For many intents and purposes a
RIF dialect should be considered a rule language.  Perhaps no one will
ever implement a rule engine for a given a dialect, but it must be
possible to do that.  Moreover,  if we don't talk about "software that
works with RIF" then we need to say that "coverage" means translating
from L to other rule languages in the same dialect that are also
"covered" by RIF.  But that is clearly a circular definition, i.e.,

 

           when we say that "RIF covers rule language L" we mean that
any rules written in L can be translated into a dialect of RIF and the
resulting RIF document can be translated into any rule language covered
by

            the same RIF dialect...

 

Allen

 

 

	
	 

	
________________________________


	From: Paul Vincent [mailto:pvincent@tibco.com] 
	Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 3:47 PM
	To: Ginsberg, Allen
	Subject: http://www.w3.org/2006/11/04-rif-minutes.html#action04:
Notes from UCR breakout of 11/04

	Hi Allen - 

	 

	Re ACTION: PaulV to work with Allen on defn of covers [recorded
in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/04-rif-minutes.html#action04]

	 

	I was trying to recall the discussion on Coverage from the F2F
and all I had was (a) your note below and (b) my PPT edits (attached).

	 

	I note my edits attempted to add (some of) the vigor you were
trying to avoid... oh well.

	 

	Looking at your text again:

	Intuitively, when we say that "RIF covers rule language

	 L" we mean that rules written in L can be translated into a
dialect of

	RIF 

	Which is OK

	and the

	 resulting RIF rules can be used by software designed to work
with RIF

	This seems redundant - why refer to external software in a
definition of coverage?

	 to achieve essentially the same functionality as enabled by the

	 original L rules.

	This part is fundamentally incorrect for a rule interchange
format. The behavior described is a corollary of a rule being
interchanged from 1 language via RIF into another language. Indeed I
dislike the term "RIF rules" as its open to misinterpretation implying
RIF is a rules language, and is ambiguous with transformation rules (to
and from RIF).

	 

	Any thoughts?

	 

	Paul Vincent

	TIBCO - ETG/Business Rules 

	 

	 

	 

	-----Original Message-----
	From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ginsberg, Allen
	Sent: 05 November 2006 13:18
	To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
	Subject: Notes from UCR breakout of 11/04

	 

	 

	 

	[PV>] ...

	 

	PROPOSED TEXT ON COVERAGE:

	 

	 

	 We note that in this document we deliberately refrain from
defining

	the

	 notion of "coverage" in a rigorous manner, since precisely what
it

	 means for diverse rule languages to be "covered" by RIF may
vary from

	 case to case.  Intuitively, when we say that "RIF covers rule
language

	 L" we mean that rules written in L can be translated into a
dialect of

	RIF and the

	 resulting RIF rules can be used by software designed to work
with RIF

	 to achieve essentially the same functionality as enabled by the

	 original L rules. 

	 

	[PV>] ...