Re: 5.1.6 Rule language coverage <--: UCR Requirements Text

> Sounds OK to me.
> 
> [The thought occurs to me that "coverage" could be considered a
> critical-success-factor - which also translates directly into coverage
> as a requirement ie for RIF to concentrate on rule systems that are
> adopted and in use. Ignoring any Heisenberg uncertainty principle
> equivalent etc...]

Yeah, it seems to me that this kind of thing (any "should" statement) is
a goal/CSF, not a requirement.  If you can't tell whether you've met a
requirement, what good is it?  Also, I think we should only accept
requirements we reasonably expect we can meet.

I guess there's something powering this discussion, but I don't know
what.   Paul, what is it you want RIF-WG to do, in the days to come,
that you're getting at with this requirement?

     -- Sandro