Re: [TED] Action-188, ISSUE: production rule systems have "difficulty" with recursive rules in RIF Core

Paul Vincent wrote:

>  
>
> Why would you want to define recursion 
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion) in a production rule system?
>
>
Paul,

As I understand it, RIF Core should be common to *all* RIF dialects, 
including a production rule dialect.  Now, it's clear that there are 
aspects of production rules that probably won't translate to Core (e.g. 
priority, retract).  That may be ok if we can add them to the dialect 
without breaking the Core semantics.  On the other hand, it is critical 
that *everything* in Core can be translated to PR, otherwise we have 
dialects of Core itself, which means it really isn't a Core.  Therefore, 
if Core supports recursive rules, then so should PR.   If we don't think 
its practical to support recursive rules in PR, then we should remove 
this feature from Core.

Mark,

I agree that it may be more efficient to add new rete nodes and/or 
syntax to support recursive rules, but that's not really the point.  The 
translation from Core to PR should be possible (per our RIF 
requirements) without having to modify or enhance the production rule 
engine.

Received on Wednesday, 13 December 2006 18:39:36 UTC