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

Re: [PRD] Refraction Semantics may be WRONG!

From: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:50:41 -0800
Message-ID: <4B046C31.3000702@oracle.com>
To: Christian De Sainte Marie <csma@fr.ibm.com>
CC: Changhai Ke <changhai.ke@fr.ibm.com>, mark.proctor@jboss.com, neal Wyse <neal.wyse@oracle.com>, RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>, public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
consider the rule:

Forall ?X (If Exists ?Y (_P(?X, ?Y)) THEN DO (Retract(_P(?X,?Y)), 
Assert(_P(?Y, ?Y + 1))))

By rif semantics, this rule loops if given _P(0, 1) but does not loop if 
given _P(0, 0).

In Jess, this rule either loops or does not loop, depending only on the 
rule-level setting of loop/noloop. Any setting I pick will not always be 
correct.

I wanted to get a sense if I am the only one having trouble implementing 
PRD refraction. (I didn't think it would be this hard until I tried to 
actually do it :-)

Of course, I don't want to hold up the spec unless nobody can implement 
it as-is.

Christian De Sainte Marie wrote:
>
> IBM
> 9 rue de Verdun
> 94253 - Gentilly cedex - FRANCE
> Tel. +33 1 49 08 35 00
> Fax +33 1 49 08 35 10
>
>
> csma wrote on 18/11/2009 16:43:58:
> >
> > I am not sure if I understand where is the problem.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Or did I miss something?
>
> And, btw, I really hope that I did not miss anything, and that this 
> is, really, only a misunderstanding, not a pb in the spec.
>
> I would really really hate to have to redo LC (and to re-open the can 
> of worms :-)...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christian
>
> Sauf indication contraire ci-dessus:/ Unless stated otherwise above:
> Compagnie IBM France
> Siège Social : 17 avenue de l'Europe, 92275 Bois-Colombes Cedex
> RCS Nanterre 552 118 465
> Forme Sociale : S.A.S.
> Capital Social : 609.751.783,30 €
> SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 03644
>
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 21:53:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 18 November 2009 21:53:38 GMT