- From: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:01:24 -0700
- To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: "Christian de Sainte Marie" <csma@ilog.fr>, "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Well, that's certainly *a* coverage requirement :) But I think (i.e. my interpretation of) the meaning we are trying to convey is: Every standard RIF dialect should* support the rule processing semantics** and commonly used language attributes*** of the widely deployed rule engines that the dialect is meant to support. [[Explanation: * = weaker requirement than "must", as this is difficult to measure ** = allows for RIF dialects that are not the focus of deployment at this time, or which are still considered R&D *** = this may be too onerous. ]] A rule engine's "processing semantics" is the functional algorithm used to interpret rules. A rule engine's "commonly used language attributes" are the set of operators and functions**** that are used in some majority***** of rulesets that could be considered for interchange. A rule engine is considered "widely deployed" if it has over 100 end-user deployments OR over 1,000 end-user developers. ****** [[**** = there may be some BLD-compliant term to use here. ***** = again, not measurable, but RIF will need to decide what is to be supported for this to be measurable ****** = open to debate on this definition]] Paul Vincent TIBCO | Business Optimization | Business Rules & CEP > -----Original Message----- > From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org] > Sent: 05 June 2008 19:44 > To: Paul Vincent > Cc: Christian de Sainte Marie; RIF WG > Subject: Re: 5.1.6 Rule language coverage <--: UCR Requirements Text > > > Let me try to paraphrase and slightly sharpen your proposed requirement: > > There must be at least one standard RIF dialect suited to conveying > the rules used by each widely deployed rule engine. (An engine is > considered widely deployed if it currently has an installation and > group of users at five or more separate organizations.) > > Does that get at what you're trying to say? (Whether five is the right > number is kind of beside the point.) > > I don't think anything like this is practical. For instance, I don't > expect any RIF dialect to be suited to conveying the rules used by > SWI-Prolog, which is certainly a widely deployed rule engine. (I pick > it mostly because I know it the best.) > > So we could accept this requirement and then say we'll never meet it, > but I don't see the point in that. > > I would, however, advocate including text which explains why this is > *not* a requirement. > > -- Sandro > > > > > > How about: > > > > > > > > RIF* must allow** rule interchange*** between common deployed**** > > rule > > > > engines. =3D20 > > > > > > > > * =3D3D RIF, the format, any extensions, and appropriate translators > > >=20 > > > 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). > > > > * =3D RIF, the format, any standard extensions, and appropriate > > translators > > > > >=20 > > > > ** =3D3D subject to the development of appropriate compliant > > translators > > > > *** =3D3D interchange of rulesets against either a prespecified fact > > or =3D > > > > data > > > > model, or including said fact or data model > > > > **** =3D3D 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. > > >=20 > > > 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. > > > > >=20 > > > -- Sandro > > >=20 > > > > Paul Vincent > > > > TIBCO | Business Optimization | Business Rules & CEP > > > > =3D20 > > > > > > > > > -----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 > > > > >=3D20 > > > > ... > > > > >=3D20 > > > > >=3D20 > > > > > > 5.1.6 Rule language coverage > > > > > > > > > > > > RIF must cover the set of languages identified in the > > _Rulesystem > > > > > > Arrangement Framework_. See the _Coverage_ section. > > > > >=3D20 > > > > > Both those links are broken. How about this: > > > > >=3D20 > > > > > RIF (with extensions) must cover all widely-deployed rule > > > > > languages. > > > > >=3D20 > > > > >=3D20 > > > > ...
Received on Thursday, 5 June 2008 20:02:16 UTC