ISSUE-13: Proposed new CSF: Efficient implementation is possible [F2F3]
Proposed new CSF: Efficient implementation is possible [F2F3]
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- (no longer used) Design Constraints (Goals, Requirements)
- Raised by:
- Deborah Nichols
- Opened on:
- 2006-08-17
- Description:
- Raised at: F2F3 Posted to Issues by Deborah Nichols
Efficient implementation is possible
Comment: new CSF to be considered for the next Working Draft
Reference F2F3 transcript on \"implementability\":
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Jun/att-0131/09-rif-
minutes-1.html#item3-03
Issues:
1. What Goal does this CSF support?
(a) Does it support Goal 3.3.3, Widescale Adoption?
(b) Or would it support a new Goal that RIF is useable as the basis for SW
rule language?
2. Need more explanation. What does it mean to say that efficient
implementation of a standard/format is possible? (How does this differ, if it
does, from efficient implementation of a language?)
3. What are the main potential obstacles to efficient implementation?
4. What are the possible solutions and/or compromises needed for efficient
implementation?
5. Does the WG agree to adopt this as a CSF?
[This was item 4.a.1 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 actual title for this CSF is not efficient implementation but low cost of implementation.
The intentions of this CSF is to promote widescale adoption. A RIF without widescale adoption would
become irrelevant to the W3C.
It is easy to see how the complement of this condition would affect adoption: if the RIF were hard to
implement, then few people would implement it and adoption would be reduced.
There are many factors involved in deciding the cost of implementing the RIF, some of these are listed
as requirements for this CSF. However, in addition, I would add
Low cost of deployment. I.e., a cheap algorithmically efficient implementation would not be sufficient if
it required that users radically change the way that they work with rule systems.
In direct response to the issue, there was no intention of involving the goal \"basis for SW rule
language\". Such a goal appears to have no bearing on this CSF.
closed by consensus at 10.10.06 telecon, based on:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Sep/0066.html
Display change log
