RE: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign

+1 

 

'<= ' should be used in backward-chaining dialects, and '=>' in
forward-chaining ones. 

 

Paul Vincent

TIBCO | Business Optimization | Business Rules & CEP

 

________________________________

From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Patrick Albert
Sent: 04 September 2008 12:54
To: Adrian Paschke; public-rif-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign

 

Most Production Rules system have rules in the form  IF/WHEN
<conditions> THEN <actions>.

 

I'd recommend we adhere to the existing practice which is to have the
conditions first followed by the actions. 

Replacing the IF .. THEN by a '=>' as in '<Conditions> => <Actions>'
would be ok.

 

 Patrick. 

 

________________________________

From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Adrian Paschke
Sent: lundi 1 septembre 2008 22:09
To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
Subject: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign

 

Hello,

 

With respect to the abridged presentation syntax there is still an open
issue about the sign to distinguish the head and the body of a rule.

 

Currently, we use ":-" in the examples e.g. in UCR and PRD, which is
well-known in the logic community but not so much in others including
production rules.

 

I shortly discussed this issue with the BLD/FLD editors Michael and
Harold and we came up with this unambiguous proposal to distinguish
classical implication and rules head and body.

 

<== for PRD and BLD

<-- for classical

 

<== and <-- might be also reverted ==> -->

 

-Adrian