RE: SWR/ RuleML rule names

From: Benjamin Grosof (
Date: 07/20/04

  • Next message: Benjamin Grosof: "regrets for today's JC telecon"
    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
    >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 
    must be either an individual, a complex (functional) term, or a logical 
    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 or

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 07/20/04 EST