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

Re: question about rules where the conclusions are rules

From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:10:59 +0200
To: pfps@comcast.net
Cc: public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF06977573.D8880E23-ONC12570A3.003D59F3-C12570A3.0042EA5B@agfa.com>

>> 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..

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

My question is wether there is a name for rules such as e.g.

@forAll :U, :V, :X, :Y, :Z.
{:U :hasProblem :V}
{{:X r:applyToProblem :V.
  :X r:hasInvestigation :Y}
 {{:Y r:modalityType :Z}
  {:U :isRecommended :Z}}}. 

I actually have no trouble to run such rules
and am investigating their utility in the context
of subgoal reordering. I just wanted to make sure
that I don't invent my own name for things that
are eventually having a well known name.

Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Sunday, 23 October 2005 12:11:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:48:34 UTC