From: Benjamin Grosof (bgrosof@mit.edu)
Date: 07/20/04
At 07:58 PM 7/19/2004 +0200, Wagner, G.R. wrote:
> > It's useful to have the rule label be an individual (or more
> > generally a term) in the language,
> > so that rules can talk about its relative prioritization,
> > membership in modules, provenance, etc.
>
>You don't need to consider the rule label as an individual
>for this. The rule is the individual, and its label is its
>name, as any other individual may have a name. But this
>name is not itself an individual, which would lead to
>names having names.
No it would not lead to names having names -- I don't see why you say that
it would.
>We don't need names for names, do we?
>
> > This is a prime reason why in RuleML
> > the rule label is an ind (and in the courteous extension more
> > generally an ind or cterm) child of the label, rather than
> > just a URI href.
>
>[Better don't use this RulerML jargon ("ind" and "cterm") in
>a public discussion - others are not familiar with these
>abbreviations.]
>There may be some confusion here coming from the use of "ind"
>that does not stand for "individual" but for "individual
>constant", which is a name and not an individual.
>
>Again: the rule is the individual, and its label is its name
>but not another individual.
>
>Why shouldn't you be able to "talk about relative prioritization,
>membership in modules, provenance" etc. using the URIref that
>names the rule?
Because in the logical language, an argument to a predicate or function
(constructor)
must be either an individual, a complex (functional) term, or a logical
variable.
Benjamin
>-Gerd
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Prof. Benjamin Grosof
Web Technologies for E-Commerce, Business Policies, E-Contracting, Rules,
XML, Agents, Semantic Web Services
MIT Sloan School of Management, Information Technology group
http://ebusiness.mit.edu/bgrosof or http://www.mit.edu/~bgrosof
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 07/20/04 EST