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

Sandro - good qu, but unfortunately (!) I don't have any underlying
agenda other than (a) to justify RIF we need to make it successful and
(b) that means covering the majority of rule engines in use with rules
that would benefit from interchange. 

Unfortunately also we cannot control (b) as it requires all major
vendors to step up to the plate and do translators. 

I think the main issue here is that you (justifiably) want the
requirement to be measurable. So "coverage" really means support for
rules in rule engines that are candidates for interchange. Can we get
more detailed than that? Well of course that's where we need end-user
use cases (like the MISMO example, and probably organisations like XBRL
and FixML etc). But I'd be happy with taking MISMO-type rules (i.e.
decision tables for data defined via an XML schema) as a starting point

In other words: 
- The "Coverage" critical success factor could be met by the adoption by
1 or more other technology / domain specific standards
- An example requirement that would (provide some) support (for)
standards like MISMO and PMML would be a decision table.

Sorry to be obtuse! 

Paul Vincent
TIBCO | Business Optimization | Business Rules & CEP

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandro Hawke []
> Sent: 06 June 2008 16:09
> To: Paul Vincent
> Cc: Chris Welty; Christian de Sainte Marie; RIF WG
> Subject: 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
> > 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)
> 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 15:41:19 UTC