ISSUE-5: Comments & Suggestions for Use Cases 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5

Comments & Suggestions for Use Cases 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5

State:

CLOSED

Product:

UCR Document

Raised by:

Dave Reynolds

Opened on:

2006-08-15

Description:

Raised by: Dave Reynolds. Posted by: Deborah Nichols [DLN].

The following items need to be addressed case-by-case:

1. Use case 2.2 still isn\'t that convincing for me, though I\'m happy to
leave it in there. To make that vision work you need not just RIF but an
agreed RIF dialect which every buyer/seller software works within (i.e.
basically an agreed rule language). At a minimum the \"motivates\" list should
include \"limited number of dialects\". [closed at 19/9 telecon]
2. The last para of [use case] 2.3 seems somewhat out of place and could
be dropped. (I remember how we ended up with it in there and I know we went
round this loop before but can\'t remember what the outcome was). [Closed at 9/12
telecon]
3. [Use cases] 2.5 and 2.4 overlap considerably. The justification for
having both was that in 2.5 the rules may not be executable and may need to be
tagged with status information (as described in the first para). However, the
rest of the use case doesn\'t make it clear which rules are executable and
makes no reference to such tagging. Either drop this use case or make the
example more clearly consistent with the first para.
4. In [use case] 2.4 the paras 3 and 8 both seem to be saying the same
thing (two integration modalities), suggest dropping 3. [Closed at 19/9 telecon]
5. In 2.5 should expand the SBVR reference. [Closed in 9/12 telecon]

(Pointer back to Dave’s original email
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jun/0156.html)

[This was item 3 in:
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Document_issues.]

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

No related emails

Related notes:

Display change log