RE: SWR/ RuleML rule names

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

  • Next message: Mike Dean: "Joint Committee telecon tomorrow 27 July"
    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.
    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