RE: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign

Right Michael, I do not talking about logic, I focus on PRD and I am
more inspired by existing PR systems than by Prolog.

BLD is about logic, but PRD is not; my modest and limited goal is to
promote having PRD in line with common Production Rules practice,
preventing us to "invent" a new production rules language that might
look both bizarre and oldish to any OO developer considering using
Production Rules.

I do think that we have hard time maintaining equal treatment of both
BLD and PRD and that a number of PRD choices are heavily weighted by BLD
choices. My point about referencing objects in the rules is one
important example. It brings common practice in PRs which is not common
in Logic.

Sorry to insist, but I do believe that the strong interference between
PRD and BLD is a (meta) problem for PRD. 

Is it a decision of the RIF group that:
 
1/ BLD and PRD have to share syntax and semantic (especially in the case
of the mapping rules and objects) 
2/ BLD is first class and PRD is the follower.


 Patrick. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kifer [mailto:kifer@cs.sunysb.edu] 
Sent: jeudi 4 septembre 2008 18:25
To: Patrick Albert
Cc: Chris Welty; Jos de Bruijn; Adrian Paschke; public-rif-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [RIF-APS] Rules Sign

Patrick, you are thinking procedurally, while we are talking about
*logic*.

michael


On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 13:54:06 +0200
"Patrick Albert" <palbert@ilog.fr> wrote:

> CSMA's proposal might not fit the current use of frames in PRD, but it
> relies on the fact that almost ALL modern production systems make the
> distinction between attributes of objects that refer to ONE ATOMIC
value
> -- such as one Person's age -- and attributes of objects that refer A
> SET of values -- such as one Person's parents. In this case the rules
> might propose some syntax to refer the set as a value and some syntax
to
> iterate across the elements of the set.

Received on Thursday, 4 September 2008 18:29:05 UTC