Re: RIF UCR REVIEW

Paula-Lavinia Patranjan wrote:
> Hi,
>
>   
>> Dave Reynolds wrote:
>>     
>>> 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.
>>>       
>> I was not aware about that. However, I guess it is not simple to 
>> derive 
>> requirements if examples are not expressed in concrete languages.
>>     
>
> We have discussed and decided upon the process of gathering requirements
> within the working group. A number of steps have been followed for
> determining the requirements stated in the 2nd WD UCR, which are mainly
> Phase I requirements. The authors of the proposed use cases have stated
> explicit requirements their use cases pose on RIF. I have also analyzed
> the (explicit and implicit) requirements coming from the use cases.
> Moreover, each WG participant has had the possibility to propose the
> requirements he or she considered important for RIF.
>
> As you've noticed, we just started to gather Phase II requirements now
> and more or less the same approach is considered.
>  
>   
>> Each 
>> language has its own rule representation and requirements. Their 
>> main 
>> requirements must be captured by RIF. 
>>     
>
> IMO, the followed approach for gathering requirements is a well suited
> one. I don't think that concrete rule language should directly pose
> requirements on RIF. For this, we have the requirement on rule language
> coverage, which acts as an umbrella requirement for the ones coming from
> RIFRAF.
>
>   
Concrete languages will participate in interchange so, I believe 
requirements are derived from them. Otherwise requirements are not 
connected with the scope of RIF  i.e. interchange.  By the way, many 
questions in RIF/RAF are meaningless for interchange.

>> For example rules expressed 
>> in 
>> Prolog must conform to some requirements (see for example  
>> anonymous 
>> variable from Core) while production rules like JBoss Rules have 
>> other 
>> requirements. I see here three categories of languages:
>> Classical AI rule languages: Prolog, L-Logic, Jess etc
>> Semantic Web Rule Languages: SWRL, Jena 2, RuleML etc
>> Production rule systems : JBoss Rules, etc
>> Each of them has specific requirements so the RIF must somehow 
>> identify 
>> the common part.
>>     
>
> As already mentioned, such kinds of requirements will be derived from
> RIFRAF.
>
>
>   
When? This UCR draft do not differ to much by the previous one. And why 
the results of RIF/RAF are not public?
> Regards,
> Paula
>
>
>   

-- 
Dr. Adrian Giurca
http://www.informatik.tu-cottbus.de/~agiurca/

Received on Saturday, 24 February 2007 08:03:52 UTC