Re: [RIF] [UCR]: What is the RIF (revisited) --> disjunctive conclusions from Piero A. Bonatti on 2006-02-09 (public-rif-wg@w3.org from February 2006)

From: Piero A. Bonatti <bonatti@na.infn.it>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 14:19:13 +0100
To: edbark@nist.gov, "Vincent, Paul D" <PaulVincent@fairisaac.com>
Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200602091419.13520.bonatti@na.infn.it>

+1

On Wednesday 08 February 2006 23:11, Ed Barkmeyer wrote:
> 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).

Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 13:19:17 UTC