Re: RIF UCR REVIEW

Adrian Giurca wrote:

>    * I believe that the UCR document needs to contain rule examples in
>      different rule languages and not just a natural language rule
>      text. This will help to better understanding the RIF requirements.

I thought we made an explicit decision not to do this. I think this was 
to avoid readers having to understand different rule languages, to avoid 
setting incorrect expectations on what rule languages might be mapped 
into RIF and to reinforce that the rules are simplified examples only.

> 8. Vocabulary Mapping for Data Integration.
> I believe that the rules examples does not illustrate the proposed 
> scenario. This is an interesting use case but needs rewriting. It is 
> necessary to provide at least one example of information from the 
> "report on application services", one from "the maintenance contracts 
> database" and another one for the "registry of BP and IT services".

The given rules do test for each category of data.

Each of the three initial rules primarily queries data in each of the 
three categories (in the order "maintenance contracts", "application 
services" and "business processes") and maps them into the common 
vocabulary.

If you mean that the use case should show the data itself not just the 
rules then I'm not sure I agree. The data part of the problem is already 
handled by RDF and OWL and illustrating that would be a diversion from 
the focus of the UCR document.

Dave

Received on Friday, 23 February 2007 15:50:13 UTC