W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > June 2008

Re: [PRD] Issues to resolve before publication (ATOMIC as RULE)

From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:59:25 +0200
Message-ID: <486902DD.7090004@ilog.fr>
To: Gary Hallmark <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>
CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

Gary Hallmark wrote:
>> #7. Section 2.3.1 (Rule): Adrian added ATOMIC as a form of RULE, to 
>> allow a RULE to be used to represent facts. However, a production rule 
>> without a condition is not a fact: it is an unconditional action. I
> what are you talking about?  PRD and BLD both need ground facts, and 
> both should use the same syntax (ATOMIC) to express it.

Yes. But the conclusion of a production rule is an action, not a fact, 
even if it can be syntactically disguised to look like one.

It may be the unconditional assertion of a fact, if it contains no 
variable and the condition is omitted or tautologically true, but that 
does not make it a fact.

(In addition, PRD does not allow the assertion of arbitrary ATOMICs).

>> propose to revert to the previous version, as in [1], where the "if"
>> part can be omitted (meaning ture by default) , to represent rules where
>> the action part is intended to be executed for all the bindings of the
>> varaibles.
> No. This is an unjustified deviation from BLD.

So, yes, it seems to be a justified deviation from BLD.

Received on Monday, 30 June 2008 16:01:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:07:45 UTC