- From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
- Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 14:52:28 +0100
- To: jos.deroo@agfa.com
- CC: public-rif-wg@w3.org
jos.deroo@agfa.com wrote: > I am not used to reactive rules (still reading Paula's thesis) > so don't shoot :-) > What I am used to is > > GIVEN > o a collection of facts as a snapshot of the state of the world > o a set of entailment rules (horn but with skolem functions) > > DERIVE > a description of actions such as instatiation, modificatiation, .. > > ACT according to the latter derivations (which is completely > separated from the reasoning but can give rise to new state > of the world) > I do not see that the deduction rules give a new state of the world: they specify a state of the world, but do not modify it. That is the point: there are no state transitions in your excample, I believe. REgards, Francois
Received on Wednesday, 8 March 2006 13:53:04 UTC