Re: [RIF] [UCR]: What is the RIF (revisited) --> disjunctive conclusions

Vincent, Paul D wrote:

> Ed - good point. Presumably this leads us to the classification of rules by role:
> - rules for process automation (eg common use for rule engines)
> - rules for knowledge representation / exploration (eg OWL rules etc)
> ...

That isn't really what I had in mind.  To borrow from Lewis Carroll, it is not 
what the rule is FOR, it is what the rule IS.

I think if we are clear about the interpretation of a rule, as an interpreted 
composition of its component elements, the distinction between a rule that 
directs an "inference" and a rule that states a "validity requirement" will be 
apparent in the interpretation.  And a rule that directs a "process action" 
and a rule that directs an "inference" may be distinguished only by the nature 
of the "action" in the consequent, but that may be syntactically obvious.

Moreover a ruleset for process automation might well contain rules of several 
"kinds" (with the distinctions in interpretation I was making).

-Ed

"'I'm sure I didn't mean--' Alice was beginning, but the Red Queen
interrupted her impatiently. 'That's just what I complain of!
You SHOULD have meant! What do you suppose is the use of a child
without any meaning?'"
   -- Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass"

-- 
Edward J. Barkmeyer                        Email: edbark@nist.gov
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263                Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263                FAX: +1 301-975-4482

"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
  and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."

Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2006 22:11:35 UTC