- From: Francois Bry <bry@ifi.lmu.de>
- Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 11:11:27 +0200
- To: W3C RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Vincent, Paul D wrote: > Francois: may I present a non-logician's perspective? > >> - the RIF probably does not need to specify a procedural semantics. >> > [PV>] Is there a reason for this? For example, rules used in a decision table or tree might be most efficiently represented in a procedurally-executed list of rules. Procedural rules ARE used in industry, so is there a good reason to exclude them? [I'm still confused why this is an issue] > You are right. Probably, Productiob Rules and Reactive Rules can only be given a ssemantics in procedural terms. Francopis
Received on Monday, 8 May 2006 09:11:45 UTC