This is an archive of an inactive wiki and cannot be modified.

This is one of the possible Use Cases.

1. Abstract

If it is assumed that the same standard rule language and inference procedure is used everywhere then rule-sets could simply be exchanged without any need for a formal rule-translation process. This use case does not make that assumption. Therefore, as this use case exemplifies, useful “rule interchange” implies some notion of “equivalence” across different rule representation languages and various inference procedures. This use case is intended to explore the consequences of the idea that the RIF will be employed to facilitate translation across rule platforms.

2. Status

3. Links to Related Use Cases


4. Relationship to OWL/RDF Compatibility

/!\ Explain relationship to OWL/RDF Compatiblity issues

5. Examples of Rule Platforms Supporting this Use Case


6. Benefits of Interchange

7. Requirements on the RIF

8. Breakdown

8.1. Actors and their Goals

8.2. Main Sequence

8.3. Alternate Sequences

8.3.1. Policy not Available in necessary format; Use restricted alternate.

9. Narratives

9.1. Supporting Global Policy Deployment

An international consortium of manufacturers wants to support the ability of intelligent wireless devices, “cognitive radios,” to operate across international boundaries. The goal is to develop a global policy deployment service that cognitive radios can access when attempting to operate in a non-native policy domain. For each type of cognitive radio device covered by the consortium there is a model of the cognitive and operational capabilities of the device. In conjunction with a policy and a “policy engine,” the device model essentially governs the behavior of the device. In principle, by “swapping in” a new policy the device can operate legally in any policy domain. But there are two bottlenecks: 1) the various national policies are written in different rule-platforms and 2) some device models are not capable of supporting all the language features required by the (union of) the policies.

10. Commentary

The MITRE-1 use case scenario attempts to explore the consequences of using the RIF for translation that attempts to preserve operational equivalence. This form of equivalence is weaker than logical equivalence. The latter puts constraints on everything that can be concluded with a rule-set, while the former is restricted to conclusions that involve operational or observable terms used in an application domain. This use case describes using a test-set approach for determining operational equivalence. Clearly a more efficient and theoretically satisfying approach is desirable. That should be possible, at least in some cases, by using information contained in 1) RIF+IFIP+SIM specifications, and 2) theoretical knowledge of the properties preserved by translation of a language to-and-from the RIF. For example, if it is known that translation from/to rule-platforms R-1 and R-2 to RIF+IFIP+SIM preserves all semantic properties, then a translation from R-1 to R-2 using the RIF+IFIP+SIM as an intermediate step, will result in logically equivalent rule-sets.