Re: [RIF]: "Semantics" vs. "No Semantics"

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