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

> >> - 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.

Yes, except for their condition (and optional postcondition) 
part, for which (a suitable fragment of) the proposed
condition language with a declarative semantics applies.

-Gerd

Received on Monday, 8 May 2006 09:17:34 UTC