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

Yes... this has the same issue of measurability :)

But it also works for me.

Paul Vincent
TIBCO | Business Optimization | Business Rules & CEP
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org]
> Sent: 06 June 2008 17:05
> To: Paul Vincent
> Cc: Chris Welty; Christian de Sainte Marie; RIF WG
> Subject: Re: 5.1.6 Rule language coverage <--: UCR Requirements Text
> 
> 
> Okay, how about this, for the coverage requirement?  I went for
> verbosity/clarity in this version.  It can probably be cut to about
the
> last sentence, if the terminology is set up elsewhere.
> 
>      Because of the great diversity of rule languages, no one
>      interchange language is likely to be able to bridge betweem all.
>      Instead, RIF provides dialects which are each targetted at a
>      cluster of similar rule languages.  Within that cluster, each
>      feature of each rule language will have some degree of
commonality
>      with corresponding features of other rule languages in that
>      cluster.  The RIF dialect targetting a cluster must support, at a
>      minimum, interchange of rules using all the features which are
>      common to all the major rule languages in that cluster.
> 
> Does that do it?        (Say "yes", please!   :-)
> 
>       -- Sandro
> 
> > 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.=20
> >
> > Unfortunately also we cannot control (b) as it requires all major
> > vendors to step up to the plate and do translators.=20
> >
> > 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
> > requirement.
> >
> > In other words:=20
> > - 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!=20
> >
> > Paul Vincent
> > TIBCO | Business Optimization | Business Rules & CEP
> > =20
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org]
> > > 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
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > > 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...]
> > >=20
> > > 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.
> > >=20
> > > 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?
> > >=20
> > >      -- Sandro

Received on Friday, 6 June 2008 17:17:04 UTC