- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:56:41 -0400
- To: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
- Cc: W3C RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
>
> Summary
> -------
>
> The document appears "frozen in time" -- a time when there were many
> competing voices in the group, many ideas that were not fully fleshed
> out, and little consensus.
>
> What I would expect from the UCR:
> Use cases that motivate and illustrate the proposed Phase I technical
> solution (FLD/BLD and XML/RDF/OWL integration). Some consistency
> amongst the use cases, including using the same syntax (some simplified
> FLD presentation syntax) and describing how to access XML or RDF data as
> frames.
>
> What I get upon reading the UCR:
> Use cases with little consistency amongst themselves (not guided by the
> same solution) and that claim to motivate a questionable hierarchy of
> "critical success factors". The document is useless as a tutorial or
> primer to the technical specification.
>
> We have enough capability in our technical solution (FLD/PRD and semweb
> integration), that with a bit of hand-waving about translating xml
> schema to frame axioms, we can represent almost all the use cases in FLD
> (there is 1 use case involving production rules). The pity is that from
> the UCR document one arrives at the opposite conclusion: that we are
> struggling to organize the problem space (and hence the foray into
> critical success factors).
So you would recommend against publishing UCR until some serious
re-writing is done?
-- Sandro
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2008 01:57:22 UTC