- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:52:11 +0000
- To: Adrian GIURCA <giurca@tu-cottbus.de>
- Cc: "'Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)'" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Adrian GIURCA wrote: > > Paula-Lavinia Patranjan wrote: >> 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. I think this may partly be a terminology problem. The "use cases" in the UCR document are not really use cases in the full sense of RUP, they do not directly drive design. Here they have two main functions. They motivate high level requirements such as "interoperation with OWL". They communicate the sorts of things RIF might be useful for. The detailed design decisions are supposed to driven by consideration of concrete languages (hence RIF/RAF and the list of languages represented by the group) and by the more concrete use cases. Remember that the "use cases" in UCR are abstractions of the larger number of more grounded use cases in the Wiki. > By the way, many > questions in RIF/RAF are meaningless for interchange. Possibly so, would you like to give more details on that? Dave
Received on Saturday, 24 February 2007 12:52:30 UTC