ISSUE-7: UCR Document needs multiple restructuring, revisions, and clarifications
UCR Document needs multiple restructuring, revisions, and clarifications
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- UCR Document
- Raised by:
- Sven Groppe
- Opened on:
- 2006-08-15
- Description:
- Raised by: Sven Groppe. Posted to Issues by: Deborah Nichols [DLN].
Description: In his comments (full version linked below), Sven Groppe
identifies the following problems with the Use Case Document, which need to be
addressed item-by-item:
1. Document should not begin with use cases given as long stories. (closed at
26/9/06 telecon)
2. Document should begin with a discussion of RIF and enumerate its required
features. (closed at 26/9/06 telecon)
3. Use cases should be presented as illustrations for each required feature.
4. Use cases need to be more worked out, with examples in which rules are
translated from a specific language via the intermediate form to a target
language.
5. The Abstract needs to clarify which kinds of use cases pertain to Phase 1
vs. Phase 2.
6. Need to clarify what RIF is about, e.g., intermediate language or
framework for mixed-language support.
7. (Section 1.1) Is there only exchange of the facts or also of the rules
themselves?
8. (Section 1.2) Reorganize the document to eliminate confusing overlap of
features/requirements between different sections.
9. (Section 1.7) First emphasize what the requirements are, then give
examples in RDF/OWL-DL.
10. Add a summary with conclusions to the document.
11. Need to give references to resources for the real-world examples.
Issue: Specific suggested improvements to the Use Case document. For each
numbered item above:
• Has this already been addressed?
• Do we agree with the comment?
• Who will make the changes to the UC Doc?
Sven Groppe’s comments on the UC Document are attached here:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-comments/2006Apr/att-
0002/ReviewRIFUseCasesAndRequirements_23_3_2006.txt
(was an attachment to his email in the archives:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-comments/2006Apr/0002.html)
[This was item 5 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:
The WG\'s discussion on this issue prior to Sept. 19, 2006, was summarized in:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Sep/0061.html.
The issue was taken up again at the Sept. 26 telecon.
Issue 7 – Review of Sven’s critique of Use Cases.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Sep/0061.html
7.1 and 7.2 – Consensus of group is to leave UCR order of exposition as it is.
7.3 – Linking UC and Requirements. Summary of the extended discussion:
(a) Requirements are motivated in different ways. There are different sources
of requirements. From a s/w engineering POV, there are some non-functional
requirements in our list, including Security [DN - actually not in our list so
far], Implementability, and Coverage of specific languages. These
requirements are motivated by issues intrinsic to a Rules Interchange Format.
We should not try to link those to specific use cases, because they are more
general.
ACTION: Allen will expand the UCR Introduction to explain the distinction
between different sources and types of Requirements.
Pointer to current Requirements:
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Requirements
(b) Linking Use Cases and Requirements. In addition to hyperlinks between Use
Cases and Requirements, authors need to add an explanation to clarify how the
Use Cases motivate those specific requirements. See Christian’s related email
on explaining Benefits and Requirements illustrated by UCs:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Sep/0070.html.
Christian has provided an example of the Benefits/Requirements approach to UC
linking (also a process model), for UC 1; see:
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Discussion_of_UC1_-
_Negociating_eBusiness_Contracts_Across_Rule_Platforms
(& discussion in related email) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-
wg/2006Sep/0074.html
There was some discussion that the Use Cases may be at too general a level of
description to make the connection to the requirement. If necessary, authors
may add more details to motivate the link; however, they should not add
examples of particular rules in specific languages. (If that seems necessary,
the group will have to revisit its general decision to avoid specific
languages in the UCs.) In particular, Leora will revise UC 6 to add more
detail.
Actions were distributed to write a draft discussion for each UC to be sure
that the link to the Requirements it supports are clear. If the link can’t be
made clear with a brief discussion, it may be necessary to revise the use
case.
ACTIONS were assigned as follows:
UC 1 – Already DONE by Christian
UC 2 – Frank will talk with Paula about doing this one
UC 3 – Allen
UC 4 – Paul
UC 5 – John with Frank (John?), who have action to revise this UC already
UC 6 – Leora
UC 7 – Gary
UC 8 – Giorgos
UC 9 – Harold
2006-10-10. Proposed at the telecon to close 7.3, because of the actions to link
UC to requirements. Decided to keep it open until all links approved.
Issue closed by WG consensus on Feb 6, 2007 telecon. See telecon minutes:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2007Feb/att-0013/06-Feb-07-rif-minutes.html
Display change log
