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: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:51:07 -0400
Message-ID: <435BF7BB.2050308@comcast.net>
To: jos.deroo@agfa.com
CC: public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org, pfps@research.bell-labs.com

jos.deroo@agfa.com wrote:

>>>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.
I still don't understand.  How are you running these rules?  What do 
they mean? 

You can define these "nested" rules as an alternative syntax for some 
other sort of rule.  However, if you really want the rules to act like 
they look, then it seems to me that you will be inferring *new* rules.  
How, then, does this interact with your rule system?

Again, without you providing a meaning for these rules, I don't see a 
way to help.

Received on Sunday, 23 October 2005 20:46:22 UTC

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