W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org > October 2005

Re: question about rules where the conclusions are rules

From: Peter Patel-Schneider <pfps@comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 22:06:32 -0400
Message-ID: <435AF028.1060902@comcast.net>
To: public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org

>
> From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com 
> <mailto:jos.deroo@agfa.com?Subject=Re:%20question%20about%20rules%20where%20the%20conclusions%20are%20rules&In-Reply-To=%3COF3DDB57F7.21791E31-ONC12570A2.005352A2-C12570A2.0053D281@agfa.c%3E&References=%3COF3DDB57F7.21791E31-ONC12570A2.005352A2-C12570A2.0053D281@agfa.co%3E>> 
>
> Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 17:15:40 +0200
> To: public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org?Subject=Re:%20question%20about%20rules%20where%20the%20conclusions%20are%20rules&In-Reply-To=%3COF3DDB57F7.21791E31-ONC12570A2.005352A2-C12570A2.0053D281@agfa.c%3E&References=%3COF3DDB57F7.21791E31-ONC12570A2.005352A2-C12570A2.0053D281@agfa.co%3E> 
>
>
>how does one call rules written in the form of A => (B => (C => D))
>which is of course the same as (A & B & C) => D
>but I was just wondering wether there was a special name for the former 
>form..
>
>-- 
>Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
>

I don't understand your question.

Why wouldn't you call them ill-formed?  Many, probably most, rule 
formalisms don't allow such rules.

Even if a formalism permits embedded arrows, it may not be the case that 
the equivalence you mention holds.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Sunday, 23 October 2005 02:01:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:16:23 GMT