W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > March 2006

Re: On production rules and phase I&II

From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 16:23:51 +0100
To: bry@ifi.lmu.de
Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFBA86B1B6.C987A4C6-ONC125712B.00537958-C125712B.0054913B@agfa.com>

Francois Bry wrote:
> 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.

That was sloppy wording; what I mean is that ACTing according to
what was DERIVEd can give rise to changes in the state of the world
e.g. one of my windmill actuators changing the pitch of the blades.


With such assumptions, is the RIF also about the ACT or the
closing of above control loop?


What Stan just remarked is that
[[
The recursion comes from the fact that completing the ACTs produces new
facts. (i.e., a new state)
]]

-- 
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 8 March 2006 15:48:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:27 GMT