PRD review,Part III, sections 3,4,5

Here my comments on Part III, Sections 3,4,5:

3.1. Do we really need new constructs such as Execute and Assign, when we
already introduced procedural attachments (whatever named) and equal
assignment in the condition part?
3.2. Yes, we need some sort of state transition semantics. But I can not see
where it is defined in this section? In my opinion we should define a state
transition semantics considering the effects of actions leading to snapshots
of the world and we should consider in this semantics the inherent
non-deterministic nature of production systems, i.e. computations on the
possible courses of actions leading to a computation of the output state.
This semantics should be defined without negation-as-failure and should be
aligned with the semantics of BLD. 

Regarding, NAF:  we might consider it (later, since it is urgently needed),
but we there a many ways to describe the semantics (operational or more
declarative) of NAF for production rule systems and how to handle
non-determinism, loops, and transactions with roll-backs in these semantics.

4. I agree and would prefer a general Rule construct, but maybe a rule in
BLD should be also called Rule. To distinguish production rules from
derivation rules we should not use if - then but "if Condition(s) do
Action(s)". Rulesets are needed, but need to be discussed together with the
concept of a module.

4.2. Similar arguments as for the previously given descriptions of the
operational semantics of PRD. The described operational semantics as general
semantics for all production rule systems lacks an intuitive motivation and
makes a full understanding of their technical results and consequences

A nice weekend to All, Adrian

Received on Saturday, 16 February 2008 11:31:19 UTC