- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:59:25 +0200
- 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. Christian
Received on Monday, 30 June 2008 16:01:01 UTC