AW: ISSUE-62 (actions in PRD): Which actions should PRD cover [PRD ]

Open questions to discuss are, e.g.:

- Do we need/allow multiple asserts / retracts such as (retract ?f1 ?f2)
instead of (retract ?f1) (retract ?f2)?  Should they be considered as
atomic?
- Introduce a new Modify action or use an atomic "Retract + Assert"? 
- We already use External to define calls to built-ins (possibly including
user-defined built-ins). Do we need a new Execute action instead of reusing
External with e.g. an attribute which distinguishes built-in calls from
possibly side-effect full procedural attachments.

-Adrian


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] Im
Auftrag von Rule Interchange Format Working Group Issue Tracker
Gesendet: Freitag, 20. Juni 2008 17:13
An: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Betreff: ISSUE-62 (actions in PRD): Which actions should PRD cover [PRD ]



ISSUE-62 (actions in PRD): Which actions should PRD cover [PRD ]

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/

Raised by: Christian de Sainte Marie
On product: PRD 

- The basic actions in a production rule systems are ASSERT, RETRACT,
MODIFY;
- Most implemented PR languages have also the possibility to execute some
sort of externally specified code;
- In the non-normative PRR-OCL section, OMG PRR specifies five actions:
assert, retract, update, assign and invoke.

What are action constructs should we specify in PRD?