From: Benjamin Grosof (bgrosof@mit.edu)
Date: 07/20/04
Hi all, At 10:18 AM 7/20/2004 +0200, Wagner, G.R. wrote: > > I think it is OK if an email with subject line xyz uses xyz jargon. > >No, it's not ok. The accceptable jargon depends on the addressees >of a message, not on its subject line. > > >> Again: the rule is the individual, and its label is its name > >> but not another individual. > > > How does this rule-as-individual view transfer to a parameterized rule > > labeled by a non-ground cterm? > >If for such a parameterized rule name "The meaning is that each >instance of the label gives a name to the corresponding instance >of the rule", then this is just a convenience feature for which >there is a high price to pay: loosing the sense of an ordinary >name/identifier. Since this is would be a special feature, it >should not be imposed on all rules and it would be preferable >to have an mandatory rule ID attribute and, in addition, an >optional label attribute. I agree that the rule label should be optional, and in addition to a (probably mandatory) rule ID. I believe this was the agreement in the RuleML design as of at least the last couple years. 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