- From: Anthony Finkelstein <anthony@systemwire.com>
- Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 16:40:24 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org
This sudden flurry of messages has hit me while away on holiday and I regret I have not been able to participate as I would like. My views have of course been expressed clearly in previous threads. I am glad that there is strong scientific interest in this area from academics, their contributions should lead to a stronger understanding of the logical underpinning of rule languages. I am sure also that the best of these will, after peer review, be published in good journals. I do not feel however that the interest in breaking new ground on a 'super-rule-language' should shape what is essentially a standards activity. As a small vendor we (and our customers, primarily but not exclusively, large financial services institutions) would like to see some simple steps taken (roughly expressed as a phased plan similar to that of Sandro): 1. agreement on metadata for rule sets that permits such rule sets (from different systems and vendors) to be distinguished and collectively managed. 2. agreement on metadata to be associated with rule 'engines' that describes the capabilities of those engines, the types of rules they can interpret and the semantics associated with them. [and perhaps agreement on a protocol by which these can be queried] 3. agreement on metadata how the resources to which the rules are applied can be described. Anthony -- _________________________________________________________________________ Anthony Finkelstein Systemwire Director of Strategy TEL: +44 (0)20 7679 7293 (Direct Dial) MOB: +44 (0)7771 813981 EMAIL: anthony@systemwire.com WEB: http://www.systemwire.com _________________________________________________________________________
Received on Saturday, 27 August 2005 15:40:38 UTC