- From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 19:38:15 +0200
- To: sandro@w3.org
- Cc: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>, public-rif-wg@w3.org, public-rif-wg-request@w3.org
>> Thinking of an interchange between deductive and production/eca rules is >> in my humble opinion naive because it raises extremely complicated issues >> that are far from being solved and most probably never will be. >> >> Otherwise, one af the great dreams of software engineering would be >> achieved: automatically generating a imperative program from a >> declarative specification or vice versa. > > I'm not suggesting building an automatic mechanism to tranform all PR > rulesets into FO rulesets. Rather I'm suggesting that if we look at the > use cases for PR we'll see that semantically they fit nicely in with FO. > > Specifically, here's my strawman. I propose the ECA/Reaction rule: > > on Event > when Condition > then Action > > be treated semantically as the Horn rule (FOL implication): > > if eventHappened(Event) and Condition > then actionRequested(Action) > > and similarly for production rules (just drop the event part). Right, well at least my limited implementation experience learned me that this indeed works fine: taking a snapshot of the state of the world so that it it is the case that eventHappened(Event) can be asserted as a triple and then deduce your actionRequested(Action) triple using simple N3 rules (and it gives the same results as Drools). As an aside, I believe to see that rules support the unifying logic/proof layer and believe that we should target the proof bus for meaningful communication and driving the action and so I think that ECA is a hurry. -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 2 June 2006 17:38:40 UTC