Re: [UCR] Issue 7 discussion summary - completes Action 97

Thanks for the summary, Deborah.

If I may add a quick comment...

> 10. A summary with conclusions will be added to the UCR document.
> That will answer this point.

In my experience, UC&R docs don't have conclusions. (See, e.g. the OWL
[1] and RDF DAWG [2] UC&R docs.) To me, there isn't any central idea
developed throughout that warrants summarization at the end -- the
requirements are somehow the conclusion.

I admit that the current draft finishes rather suddenly, but that
won't be the case after some acknowledgments, references (maybe), etc.

David

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-dawg-uc/

On 9/19/06, Nichols, Deborah L. <dlnichols@mitre.org> wrote:
>
> This email completes Action 97 on Deborah Nichols ("summarise the discussion
> [from 29 Aug] to issue 7").  Discussion notes below are to capture what was
> already said in re issue 7, which will be dealt with at the next (26 Sept)
> telecom.  Notes follow the issue text below.
>
> Issue 7: UCR Document needs multiple restructuring, revisions, and
> clarifications
>
>
> Issue 7 includes a summary of comments and suggestions made by Sven Groppe;
> the issue is posted
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/7.
>
> See also Sven's original comments, linked from Issue 7 and posted at:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-comments/2006Apr/att-0002/ReviewRIFUseCasesAndRequirements_23_3_2006.txt
>
>
> (copied from an attachment to his email in the archives:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-comments/2006Apr/0002.html)
>
>
>
> Published UCR Working Draft is at http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-ucr/.
>
>
>
> Text of Issue 7:
>
>  Raised by: Sven Groppe.  Posted to Issues by: Deborah Nichols [DLN].
>
> Description:  In his comments (full version linked below), Sven Groppe
> identifies the following problems with the Use Case Document, which need to
> be addressed item-by-item:
>
> 1. Document should not begin with use cases given as long stories.
> 2. Document should begin with a discussion of RIF and enumerate its required
> features.
> 3. Use cases should be presented as illustrations for each required feature.
> 4. Use cases need to be more worked out, with examples in which rules are
> translated from a specific language via the intermediate form to a target
> language.
> 5. The Abstract needs to clarify which kinds of use cases pertain to Phase 1
> vs. Phase 2.
> 6.  Need to clarify what RIF is about, e.g., intermediate language or
> framework for mixed-language support.
> 7. (Section 1.1)  Is there only exchange of the facts or also of the rules
> themselves?
> 8. (Section 1.2)  Reorganize the document to eliminate confusing overlap of
> features/requirements between different sections.
> 9. (Section 1.7)  First emphasize what the requirements are, then give
> examples in RDF/OWL-DL.
> 10. Add a summary with conclusions to the document.
> 11. Need to give references to resources for the real-world examples.
>
> Issue:  Specific suggested improvements to the Use Case document.  For each
> numbered item above:
> • Has this already been addressed?
> • Do we agree with the comment?
> • Who will make the changes to the UC Doc?
>
> Sven Groppe's comments on the UC Document are attached here:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-comments/2006Apr/att-0002/ReviewRIFUseCasesAndRequirements_23_3_2006.txt
>
> (was an attachment to his email in the archives:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-comments/2006Apr/0002.html)
>
> [This was item 5 in:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Document_issues.]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Discussion Notes on Issue 7 from 8/29/06 telecom (notes by Deborah N.
> [bracketed comments DLN])
>
>
>
> 1. Chris W disagreed with point 1 that UCR should not begin with use cases.
>
> Sven's point may have been that the use cases are long and their focus isn't
> obvious.  Hassan suggested that summary sentences for each use case might
> help.
>
> [Either UCR editors or original abstract UC authors would need to provide
> summary sentences.]
>
>
>
> 2. Sven's comments were made on a UCR version with no requirements included.
>  Requirements will be included in the finished version, at the end.
>
> [Sven's comment also recommended starting the UCR with a RIF description and
> the requirements, rather than with the UCs.  No one in the discussion
> supported the suggestion to change the order of presentation in the UCR
> document.]
>
>
>
> 3. There will be links from each use case to some requirement(s), which will
> answer this item.
>
>
>
> 4. Several sub-issues were discussed in connection with #4.
>
> (a)  Is it clear in every UC that interchange of rules is involved?
>
> Some in discussion thought that this is not clear for every UC.
>
> Allen noted that since it seems pretty clear that the RIF is itself a rule
> language, then translating into RIF would itself be an interchange.
>
> ChrisW:  Specific criticism is needed if we think that UCs don't adequately
> cover interchange.
>
> csma:  Initially tried to put each UC into a processing model to show where
> and what kind of transformation occurred in particular [original?] UCs.  But
> that processing model (with UC #s) was lost when the UC abstraction was
> done.
>
> Request for csma to post examples [of the process models?].
>
>
>
> (b)  If Sven is suggesting that specific languages (and translations) should
> be presented in the UCs, then that is something the WG agreed not to do, at
> the 1st F2F (ChrisW).
>
> (c)  Being able to translate seems to presume a RIF already, and the
> knowledge of how to translate between it and specific languages.
>
>
>
> 5. There was apparent general agreement that the UCs need not be divided
> into Phase I and Phase II, even if the Requirements are phased.
>
>
>
> 6. Wrt the question of clarifying whether RIF is an intermediate language or
> a framework for mixed-language support:
>
> Someone stated that the new abstract in the 2nd working draft clarifies that
> RIF is about interchange.
>
> [The Abstract says the UCR doc is "for a format that allows rules to be
> translated between rule languages and thus transferred between rule
> systems."
>
> The Introduction of the UCR doc indicates potential advances obtainable from
> "enabling exisiting [sic] rule-based technologies to interoperate according
> to standards-based methodologies and processes," and states: "The basic goal
> of the Rule Interchange Format (RIF) Working Group is to devise such
> standards and make sure that they are not only useful in the current
> environment, but are easily extensible…."
>
> In the discussion of CSCs, the Introduction states: "One of the critical
> factors for a successful RIF is that it be useful for interchange of rules
> among the set of rule languages it is intended to cover."]
>
> Also see Sven's original email for elaboration of the alternatives.
>
>
>
> 7. Wrt whether there is exchange of rules or only facts in Section 1.1:
> Allen will check.  [Allen, what was the upshot?  I think the section is now
> 2.1.]
>
>
>
> 8. Wrt overlaps of features/requirements in different use cases:  This is
> natural.  But it will be clearer after the links mentioned above (in (3) are
> inserted).
>
> ACTION on Allen: (Re-)post the previous work on linking UCs to Requirements.
>
>
>
> 9. This point should also be answered when the UC-to-Requirements links are
> in.  [Actually, links won't provide examples in RDF/OWL if we don't mention
> specific languages.]
>
>
>
> 10. A summary with conclusions will be added to the UCR document.  That will
> answer this point.
>
>
>
> 11. Wrt needing reference to resources for real-world examples:
>
> ChrisW: Not if it means mentioning specific rule systems.  Yes, if it means
> clarifying the test cases.
>
> Hassan:  From the technical discussion, RIF is already converging as a
> dialect of some XML-based language.  [See also point 6, above.]  If RIF is
> incorporating features of other (languages), then the resources should be
> posted [linked] for those.
>
> Harold:  Test cases will contain specific languages.  We will add test cases
> which will have specific languages, but the test cases will be in a separate
> document from the UCR.
>
>

Received on Thursday, 21 September 2006 13:37:41 UTC