W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > July 2009

Re: prd refraction

From: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:35:05 -0700
Message-ID: <499257640907202135s26cd6d0bsd31ffa4337e46c1@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
The variables of the rule instance includes ?X but excludes ?C because
?C is existentially quantified.
Therefore, the "old" rule instance and the "new" rule instance are
exactly the same (same binding for ?X), and
by the refraction rule:

Refraction rule: if ri ∈ cs and lastPicked(ri, s) < recency(ri, s),
then cs = cs - ri;

lastPicked is 1 and recency is 2 and therefore the new rule instance
ri is removed from consideration.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Sandro Hawke<sandro@w3.org> wrote:
>
> As part of ACTION-851, I'm looking at:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/Modify_noloop
>
> and trying to understand how, as per the comments, refraction (PRD
> section 4.2.4) prevents the loop from happening.  Can you walk me
> through it?  It seems to me that once the rule fires once, a new rule
> instance is available, and I don't see how that new instance is not
> fireable.
>
>    -- Sandro
>
>



-- 
Cheers,

Gary Hallmark
Received on Tuesday, 21 July 2009 04:35:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 21 July 2009 04:35:47 GMT