W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org > October 2005

Re: question about rules where the conclusions are rules

From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 16:53:34 +0200
To: hitzler@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de
Cc: public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org, public-rule-workshop-discuss-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFFDE876BA.7B2D4209-ONC12570A4.0051B3FC-C12570A4.0051CB5B@agfa.com>

Thanks Pascal; that is very helpful!

Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

Pascal Hitzler <hitzler@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Sent by: public-rule-workshop-discuss-request@w3.org
23/10/2005 14:15
Please respond to hitzler

        To:     public-rule-workshop-discuss@w3.org
        cc:     (bcc: Jos De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER)
        Subject:        Re: question about rules where the conclusions are rules

jos.deroo@agfa.com wrote:
> how does one call rules written in the form of A => (B => (C => D))
> which is of course the same as (A & B & C) => D
> but I was just wondering wether there was a special name for the former 
> form..

It's called "nested" rules or "rules with nested expressions" in some 
communities. It needs to be asked what the semantics of such rules is - 
usually it's defined via so-called Lloyd-Topor transformations (what you 
state is one of them).

Best Regards,


Dr. Pascal Hitzler
Institute AIFB, University of Karlsruhe, 76128 Karlsruhe
email: hitzler@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de    fax: +49 721 608 6580
web:   http://www.pascal-hitzler.de   phone: +49 721 608 4751
Received on Monday, 24 October 2005 15:33:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:09:24 UTC