- 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