From: Wagner, G.R. ([email protected])
Date: 07/19/04
> 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. 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?
-Gerd
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 07/19/04 EST