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

RE: [RIF]: "Semantics" vs. "No Semantics"

From: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 11:17:27 +0200
To: "'Francois Bry'" <bry@ifi.lmu.de>, "'W3C RIF WG'" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001401c67280$39bd1070$55032b8d@TMGWAGNER>

> >> - the RIF probably does not need to specify a procedural semantics.
> >>     
> > [PV>] Is there a reason for this? For example, rules used 
> in a decision table or tree might be most efficiently 
> represented in a procedurally-executed list of rules. 
> Procedural rules ARE used in industry, so is there a good 
> reason to exclude them? [I'm still confused why this is an issue]
> You are right. Probably, Productiob Rules and Reactive Rules 
> can only be given a ssemantics in procedural terms.

Yes, except for their condition (and optional postcondition) 
part, for which (a suitable fragment of) the proposed
condition language with a declarative semantics applies.

Received on Monday, 8 May 2006 09:17:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:38 UTC