- From: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
- Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 11:17:27 +0200
- To: "'Francois Bry'" <bry@ifi.lmu.de>, "'W3C RIF WG'" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> >> - 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