Re: AW: AW: [PRD] ACTION-531 Update PRD examples complete

Adrian Paschke wrote:

> Actually,
> 
> ?f1 <- (valve ?v open)
> 
> in Clips means: Match a valve fact whose first parameter is variable ?v and
> second parameter is constant 'open'. When you find a match, then ?f1 is the
> ID of this fact which can be used in the head of a rule to assert it, i.e. 
> 
> ... -> assert(?f1)

I still do not get it: if ?f1 is a fact, you cannot bind it to a 
variable without reifying it. If it is not, what is it?

Or is it the identifier of an object that has several valve properties 
with value "open" (or "closed", I guess)?

I mean, rewritten with frames, is it something like this:

   ?v#valve AND ?v[status->open]

or is it rather something like that:

   ?f1[?v->open], where ?v binds to the name of one of ?f1 valve properties?

(thinking aloud: no, it cannot be what you mean, because, then, you 
would assert ?f1[?v->open], not ?f1)

So, no, I still do not get it :-(

Why do not you assert valve(?v open)?

Actually, I do not even understand why you need to assert it: if it 
matches, does not that mean that it has been asserted already?

(As you see, I do not know CLIPS :-)

> But, I agree as our goal is to have an uncontroversial minimal PRD which
> works for all production rule systems and is aligned with BLD, we should not
> include it in the first working draft.

I do not agree that this is our goal, as you know.