Re: Fitting PR and RR into logical rules

jos.deroo@agfa.com wrote:
> 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).
>   

It works fine only on simple examples.
> 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.
>
>   

ECA are no hurry but instead a must in practice. It is very puzzling, I
feel, to have to argue about this. I thought, industry needs were better
accepted in W3C...

Francois

Received on Tuesday, 6 June 2006 07:19:47 UTC