W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > June 2008

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

From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:06:01 +0200
Message-ID: <48612979.9060508@ilog.fr>
To: Adrian Paschke <adrian.paschke@biotec.tu-dresden.de>
CC: "'Gary Hallmark'" <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>, "'pu >> RIF WG'" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

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.
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2008 17:07:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:51 UTC