- From: Adrian Paschke <adrian.paschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 15:27:14 +0100
- To: "'Chris Welty'" <cawelty@gmail.com>, "'Public-Rif-Wg \(E-mail\)'" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Chris, Yes. We probably might want to have a general approach to support different rule qualifications such as priority values, variable quantification or temporal constraints such as validity times or fuzzy, uncertainty quantifications, etc. Further quantifications are need when it comes to reaction rules, e.g. consumption policies which define which events are selected first, are consumed, are used multiple-times for the detection of a complex event pattern etc. Although we do not have time to implement and define the semantics of these qualifications till the end of RIF we might already think a head and design the current RIF dialects, so that they support arbitrary rule qualifications. -Adrian -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] Im Auftrag von Chris Welty Gesendet: Freitag, 13. März 2009 19:29 An: Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail) Betreff: ISSUE-91 At the F2F12, there was discussion of "bounded quantifiers" (e.g. Forall (x in C) ...) in PRD, and the suggestion was made to put them in Core, and thus into BLD as well. This would require re-issuing LC for BLD. It seems to me this could be done simply as syntactic sugar, ie Forall (x in C) Q :- P is syntactic sugar for Forall (x) Q :- P AND C(x) and just allows an implementor to more easily recognize the restriction on the quantification (this is a common source of optimization in implementations). Anyway, let's have a brief discussion about the pros/cons on Tuesday. -Chris -- Dr. Christopher A. Welty IBM Watson Research Center +1.914.784.7055 19 Skyline Dr. cawelty@gmail.com Hawthorne, NY 10532 http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty
Received on Sunday, 15 March 2009 14:27:51 UTC