- From: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 10:04:35 -0700
- To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: "Christian de Sainte Marie" <csma@ilog.fr>, "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> > How about: > > > > RIF* must allow** rule interchange*** between common deployed**** rule > > engines. =20 > > > > * =3D RIF, the format, any extensions, and appropriate translators > > Standard extensions or third-party non-standard extensions? [PV>] Can a 3rd-party non-standard extension be part of / be regulated by a standard such as RIF? I'd assume extensions must be constrained to "standard extensions" (for what its worth). * = RIF, the format, any standard extensions, and appropriate translators > > > ** =3D subject to the development of appropriate compliant translators > > *** =3D interchange of rulesets against either a prespecified fact or = > > data > > model, or including said fact or data model > > **** =3D rule engines limited to individual research topics or > > institutions are assumed not to be both common and deployed; however RIF > > does not exclude these being covered. > > If standard extensions, then when do you think we can achieve this? > Certainly not in the next couple years, right? We'd have to subsume the > prolog standardization work, etc. And every time some rule vendor added > a feature, we would have failed in this goal until we caught up. [PV>] I'd say that these issues are inherent in RIF as a concept. The lack of metrics / difficulty in assessing whether this requirement is handled does not though detract from the general requirement for coverage. IMHO. > > -- Sandro > > > Paul Vincent > > TIBCO | Business Optimization | Business Rules & CEP > > =20 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org > > [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] > > > On Behalf Of Sandro Hawke > > > Sent: 03 June 2008 15:53 > > > To: Christian de Sainte Marie > > > Cc: RIF WG > > > Subject: UCR Requirements Text > > >=20 > > ... > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > > 5.1.6 Rule language coverage > > > > > > > > RIF must cover the set of languages identified in the _Rulesystem > > > > Arrangement Framework_. See the _Coverage_ section. > > >=20 > > > Both those links are broken. How about this: > > >=20 > > > RIF (with extensions) must cover all widely-deployed rule > > > languages. > > >=20 > > >=20 > > ...
Received on Thursday, 5 June 2008 17:05:27 UTC