- From: Adrian Paschke <adrian.paschke@biotec.tu-dresden.de>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:47:37 +0200
- To: "'Rule Interchange Format Working Group WG'" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Since time is running: Without negation in the first working draft we could simply postpone this tricky issue (which needs thorough discussion) about the proposed operational semantics of RIF PRD compliant production rule systems, as we then would have no loops due to retract and negation. We then could easily define, that the transition system stops if there is no production rule in the program P which is applicable in the current state S as fix-point. -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 17:43 An: public-rif-wg@w3.org Betreff: ISSUE-65 (FINAL): What halting test should PRD cover? [PRD ] ISSUE-65 (FINAL): What halting test should PRD cover? [PRD ] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/issues/ Raised by: Christian de Sainte Marie On product: PRD Due to the action part in the rules, and the Retract in particular, the semantics of production rule systems that PRD covers does not guarantee that the execution of an arbitrary ruleset halts by starvation (that is, by the absence of further rule instances to fire). OMG PRR does not specify any halting test, only mentioning in the description of the semantics that the cycle "is repeated until some state is met". - Should starvation be the only halting test covered by PRD (in which case the question of halting is pushed to ISSUE-63: PICK) or should other halting test be covered as well? - If not only starvation: what halting test should be covered? What combination? - How should the intended halting test be notified to a RIF consumer?
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2008 14:48:22 UTC