- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 12:24:21 -0500
- To: Anthony Finkelstein <anthony@systemwire.com>, public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org
Going back a bit to 8 Jun 2005... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rule-workshop-discuss/2005Jun/0003.html where Anthony Finkelstein wrote... > I do not believe that the answer to rule > language interoperability is to create, as is implied in the > strawman, a metalanguage. I think there are simpler and more > pragmatic ways forward that have to do with standardising the ways in > which rules are referenced, assembled into rule sets and made > available to reasoning engines. These should be our first point of > attack if we are genuinely concerned with interoperability. Almost > inevitably, given the demanding technical issues, a logical > metalanguage risks either academic abstraction or excluding major > parts of the picture. > > In any event I am going to put a strong plea, as I did at the > workshop to ensure that the scope of the initiative includes the > handling of constraints an important sub class of rules. I'm not sure I know what "handling constraints" means. I'm sure there are technical definitions, but actually what I'm more curious about just now is to hear a story a la... Scarlet and Bob work in [an accounting firm or whatever], and they [have some problem]; before W3C standardized "handling constriants" [life sucked in the following ways...]. Now that there's a W3C standard for handling constraints, [life is good in the following ways...]. Bonus points for stories that involve anarchic scalability (cf http://esw.w3.org/topic/AnarchicScalability ), unintended reuse, and other web-like characteristics. As a footnote to the story, a pointer to your favorite technical definition of "constraint" and related terms might help, Anthony. By way of example/precedent, I think the OWL use cases were a big success. http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/ * 2.1 Web portal * 2.2 Multimedia collections * 2.3 Corporate web site management * 2.4 Design documentation * 2.5 Agents and services * 2.6 Ubiquitous computing And I'm pretty happy with the way the RDF Data Access use cases and requirements have established a shared vocabulary and motivated the technology. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-dawg-uc/ * 2.1 Finding an Email Address * 2.2 Finding Information about Motorcycle Parts * 2.3 Finding Unknown Media Objects * 2.4 Monitoring News Events * 2.5 Avoiding Traffic Jams * 2.6 Discovering What People Say about News Stories * 2.7 Exploring the Neighborhood * 2.8 Sharing Vacation Photos with a Friend * 2.9 Finding Input and Output Documents for Test Cases * 2.10 Discovering Learning Resources * 2.11 Finding Out New Things About People * 2.12 Browsing Patient Records * 2.13 Finding Disjunct Conditions * 2.14 Finding Film Soundtracks * 2.15 Managing Personal Identities * 2.16 Customizing Content Delivery * 2.17 Building Ontology Tools * 2.18 Working with Enterprise Web Services * 2.19 Building Tables of Contents -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2005 17:24:27 UTC