DanC: Scoped_negation,_Encapsulation is named after the requirement rather than the use case. kinda odd, maybe good
DanC: the narrative part is pretty good...
DanC: ironically, the requirements section says " Need for default negation." but the story clearly uses scoped, not default, negation
DanC: if it said "in RIF" after "provides authoritative information about the prescribed drug" it would be better
DanC: Rule-Based_Email_Manipulation sounds interesting... darn... the narrative is not written in story form
DanC: "Both rules, r1 and r2, can be implemented as reactive rules." <- I don't know what they mean by "reactive rules". a link there would be nice
DanC: also, as written, it suggests a requirement for ECA rules, but it doesn't discuss the possibility of phrasing the rules declaratively "... then the view-color of the message is blue" rather than procedurally "then turn it blue"
DanC: the requirements section discusses " conflict resolution" but the story doesn't mention that
DanC: the narrative part is pretty good...
DanC: ironically, the requirements section says " Need for default negation." but the story clearly uses scoped, not default, negation
DanC: if it said "in RIF" after "provides authoritative information about the prescribed drug" it would be better
DanC: Rule-Based_Email_Manipulation sounds interesting... darn... the narrative is not written in story form
DanC: "Both rules, r1 and r2, can be implemented as reactive rules." <- I don't know what they mean by "reactive rules". a link there would be nice
DanC: also, as written, it suggests a requirement for ECA rules, but it doesn't discuss the possibility of phrasing the rules declaratively "... then the view-color of the message is blue" rather than procedurally "then turn it blue"
DanC: the requirements section discusses " conflict resolution" but the story doesn't mention that