From: Wagner, G.R. (G.R.Wagner@tm.tue.nl)
Date: 03/04/03
> One additional point I would make is that "reaction" rules, like > Gerd's example: > > > "If any 3 of the named analysts report a strong buy on the same > > stock within the same day and before the market closes, > then buy 1000 units of that stock." > > seem to be mixing up several elements: monitoring/sensory input, > reasoning about the current state, action outputs. Not "mixing them up", but combining them in a rule statement. > I would suggest that sensing and acting simply be ruled out of scope - > as Pat points out, going down that road soon leads to having a fully > fledged programming language. We can then concentrate on suitable > languages for dealing with the middle part - reasoning about some > given state - which is the same regardless of how the premises are > derived (via sensing or whatever). The state of a (e.g. web application) system consists of persistent information/belief items and of transient event perceptions (e.g., in the form of incoming messages). It is not a good idea to mix these things up. (Also, ontologically, they are very different.) -Gerd
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 03/04/03 EST