A critical factors analysis (CFA) is an analysis of the key properties of a project (in this case the RIF). A CFA is analyzed in terms of the goals of the project, the critical factors that will lead to its success and the measurable requirements of the project implementation that support the goals of the project.
- Goals
- A goal is an overall target that you are trying to reach with the project. Typically, goals are hard to measure by themselves. Goals are often directed at the potential consumer of the product rather than the technology developer.
- Critical Success Factors
- A critical success factor (CSF) is a property, sub-goal that directly supports a goal and there is strong belief that without it the goal is unattainable. CSFs themselves are not necessarily measurable in themselves.
- Requirements
- A requirement is a specific measurable property that directly supports a CSF. The key here is measurability: it should be possible to unambiguously determine if a requirement has been met. While goals are typically directed at consumers of the specification, requirements are focused on technical aspects of the specification.
- CFA Diagram
- It can often be helpful to illustrate graphically the key concepts and relationships between them. Such diagrams can act as effective indices into the written descriptions of goals etc., but is not intended to replace the text. The legend:
illustrates the key elements of the graphical notation. Goals are written in round ovals, critical success factors are written in round-ended rectangles and requirements are written using open-ended rectangles. The arrows show whether a CSF/goal/requirement is supported by another element or opposed by it. This highlights the potential for conflict in requirements.
- It can often be helpful to illustrate graphically the key concepts and relationships between them. Such diagrams can act as effective indices into the written descriptions of goals etc., but is not intended to replace the text. The legend:
Description of Goals
The primary goal of the RIF is to be an effective means of exchanging rules that has the potential to be widely adopted in industry and that is consistent with existing W3C technologies and specifications.
Consistency with W3C specifications
- This is intended to be a W3C specification that builds on and develops the existing range of specifications that have been developed by the W3C. This implies that existing W3C technologies should fit well with the RIF.
CSFs directly supporting this goal: Alignment with Key W3C Specifications
Exchange of Rules
- The primary goal of the RIF is to facilitate the exchange of rules. This mission is part of W3C's larger goal of enabling the sharing of information in forms suited to machine processing:
- Rules themselves represent a valuable form of information for which there is not yet a standard interchange format, although significant progress has been made within the RuleML Initiative and elsewhere.
- Rules provide a powerful business logic representation, as business rules, in many modern information systems.
- Rules are often the technology of choice for creating maintainable adapters between information systems.
- As part of the Semantic Web architecture, rules can extend or complement the OWL Web Ontology Language to more thoroughly cover a broader set of applications, with knowledge being encoded in OWL or rules or both.
CSFs directly supporting this goal: Coverage, Extensibility, Predictability
Widescale Adoption
- It is an explicit goal of the W3C that the Rules Interchange Format will have the maximum potential for widescale adoption. Rules interchange becomes more effective the wider adoption there is of the specification -- the so-called "network effect".
CSFs directly supporting this goal: Alignment with Key W3C Specifications, Coverage, Encouragement of Interoperability, Low Cost of Implementation, Predictability
Critical Success Factors
Alignment with Key W3C Specifications
RIF should fit well with key existing W3C specifications such as XML. In particular, it should align well with the Semantic Web standards such as resource descriptions (RDF) and ontologies (OWL).
Goals that are supported by this CSF: Consistency with W3C specifications, Widescale Adoption
Requirements supporting this CSF: OWL data, RDF data, XML data, XML syntax, XML types
Coverage
The RIF should cover the major classes of rule formalisms that are in widespread use.
Goals that are supported by this CSF: Exchange of Rules, Widescale Adoption
CSFs opposing this CSF: Low cost of implementation
Requirements supporting this CSF: Embedded comments, Embedded metadata, OWL data, RDF data, Rule language coverage
Encouragement of Interoperability
RIF will encourage interoperability, e.g., overlap between dialects and distinguished dialects with maximum overlap.
Goals that are supported by this CSF: Widescale Adoption A compliance model supports interoperability in that a formal understanding of what it means to comply to the RIF is essential to the succesful use of RIF, and hence to interoperability. The alternative to a formal compliance model is an informal one: i.e., that defined by what popular tools support.
Requirements supporting this CSF: Limited number of dialects, Compliance model
Extensibility
Given that rule languages are expected to continue to evolve, it is important that the RIF is able to incorporate rule languages not currently envisaged.
Goals that are supported by this CSF: Exchange of Rules
CSFs opposing this CSF: Low cost of implementation
Requirements supporting this CSF: Default behavior
Low Cost of Implementation
The cost of supporting the RIF will have a direct impact on the extent of its deployability. This applies not only to any execution costs of employing the RIF but also to the design-time costs associated with it. For example, a RIF that requires expensive theorem provers to process the interchange or requires highly complex implementation techniques will be less likely to be deployed than one that is less demanding of technology and people.
Goals that are supported by this CSF: Widescale Adoption
CSFs opposing this CSF: Coverage, Extensibility
Requirements supporting this CSF: Compliance model, Implementability, Standard components, Translators
Predictability
The RIF must be a sound basis for exchanging rules, i.e., it must be predictable what is exchanged when a ruleset is exchanged between partners and/or tools.
Goals that are supported by this CSF: Exchange of Rules, Widescale Adoption
Requirements supporting this CSF: Default behavior, Different semantics, Semantic precision, Semantic tagging