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

Re: prd refraction

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:50:59 -0400
To: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
cc: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8007.1248184259@waldron>

> The variables of the rule instance includes ?X but excludes ?C because
> ?C is existentially quantified.

Ah, I didn't catch how that worked.  Makes sense, now, thanks.  Great
pair of test cases.  Maybe put this longer explanation in the test
description?

    - Sandro

> 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 =E2=88=88 cs and lastPicked(ri, s) < recency(ri, s),
> then cs =3D 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. =C2=A0Can you walk me
> > through it? =C2=A0It seems to me that once the rule fires once, a new rul=
> e
> > instance is available, and I don't see how that new instance is not
> > fireable.
> >
> > =C2=A0 =C2=A0-- Sandro
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --=20
> Cheers,
> 
> Gary Hallmark
Received on Tuesday, 21 July 2009 13:51:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 21 July 2009 13:51:12 GMT