- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:09:17 -0400
- To: "Paul Vincent" <pvincent@tibco.com>
- Cc: "Chris Welty" <cawelty@gmail.com>, "Christian de Sainte Marie" <csma@ilog.fr>, "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> 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
Received on Friday, 6 June 2008 15:10:03 UTC