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

Re: question about rules where the conclusions are rules

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 09:12:47 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20051024.091247.124054789.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jos.deroo@agfa.com
Cc: pfps@comcast.net, public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org

OK, so I'm guessing that all you really wanted was a term for these rules so
that you could look up prior work on them.  

I believe that Pascal's response was all that you needed.

peter


From: jos.deroo@agfa.com
Subject: Re: question about rules where the conclusions are rules
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 23:16:16 +0200

> >>>>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.
> 
> For those "nested" rules I want to keep the first order logic
> semantics, but am experimenting with an operational semantics
> to indeed infer *new* rules and it is cwm that is hapily running
> such rules. For a backward chainer like euler it is different,
> but I'm having an experimental premature version that runs.
> 
> The basic observation about "nested" rules is that there is
> no need to reorder single triple premises. The target is be
> explicit about the ordering (using "nested" rules) and have
> a means to write rules that derive rules, so that machines
> can be used to derive (optimal) explicitly reordered rules.
> 
> -- 
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Monday, 24 October 2005 13:13:22 GMT

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