Extending "rule" part of TMCL
I think that TMCL-Rule should support several
additional constraint patterns.
Current TMCL straw man proposal includes only rules
like this:
every X in P(X) satisfies
Q(X)
I think it makes sense to include
several additional "constraint patterns" such
as:
some X in P(X) satisfies
Q(X)
some X satisfies
Q(X)
atLeast N Y in P(Y) satisfies
Q(Y)
atLeast N Y satisfies
Q(Y)
atMost N Y in P(Y) satisfies
Q(Y)
atMost N Y satisfies
Q(Y)
satisfies P (example: satisfies
count(X: document)>20
)
atLeast
and
atMost meta predicates are very helpful for
cardinality constraints.
They are
expressible using "count" function, but it is better to have them explicitly in
a standard, I think.
Of course, we are
going to use complex rules only for validation (of specific topic maps).
But we can try different validation
scenarios, for example:
- validate topic map
TM with constraint set C1 and C2
- validate
topic map TM with constraint set C1 or
C2
We also can reuse Schematron idea of
"phases". In topic maps it closely corresponds to idea of
scopes.
So we can do something like
this:
-validate topic map TM with
constraint set C in scope S
I think value of this "rule based"
approach (as opposite to "Description Logic Only" approach) will be recognized
more and more in future (specifically in business
environment).
Validation rules
(together with "virtual Topic Maps") will allow to implement near real-time
monitoring of enterprise information resources.
I also hope that TMCL will support
explicitly concept of conflicts. So TMCL-based systems will have a standard way
to report about "problems". Combined
with Topic Maps universal data
model it will create very powerful standard-based
solution.
Think about hundreds of
different small and big proprietary compliance systems and reports which each
enterprise has.
Posted: Sat
- May 15, 2004 at 02:29 PM